The Well Prepared Candidate A Workshop on Tenure and Promotion Case Preparation For Candidates

The University Review Committee Who is the University Review Committee? Nine tenured or continuing status employees nominated by the Nominations Committee of Council and approved by Council with the length of their term specified to ensure a reasonable turnover of membership The Provost and Vice–President Academic, or designate who is the Chair Two Faculty Association representatives who serve strictly as an observer with voice, but do not vote

University Review Committee Reviews College recommendations for the renewal of probation from College renewal and tenure committee and all College recommendations for the award of tenure and promotion to the ranks of Professor and Librarian IV, and approves them if they are not inconsistent with the standards of the department, college and University. [Article (v)]; [Article (vi)] Provides second level review of recommendations for tenure, renewal of probation and promotion to professor for non-departmentalized colleges Receives and adjudicates on appeals from faculty denied, renewal of probation, tenure and promotion to professor. Submits to the President for transmission to the Board its recommendations for renewal, tenure and promotion [Articles (vii)/ (viii)]

Some URC Statistics: 2010/11 Renewal of Probationary Period: 50 cases 50 positive recommendations Tenure & Continuing Status: 38 cases 36 positive recommendations 2 appeals Promotion to Full Professor: 18 cases 12 positive recommendations 2 negative recommendations 4 appeals Total Cases: 106

Roles & Responsibilities Deans & Department Heads Mentor and guide faculty for successful career progress; provide direction, and feedback to faculty as they prepare their case files Manage case files to ensure sufficient and appropriate data is collected and cases thoroughly documented Create awareness of, and adherence to, Department, College and University standards Provide leadership in the interpretation and consistent application of the standards; focus on evidence and what it takes to be a tenured and promoted member of our academic community Enforce deadlines and adhere to procedures

Communication Colleges & Departments In several of the case files last year, it was apparent that the Department Renewals and Tenure Committees overall support was not shared by the College Review Committees These differences, were typically apparent in the areas of interpretation of the Standards, and, evaluation of a candidates scholarly record When such situations arise between a Department Renewals and Tenure Committee and the CRC, it is the Deans responsibility to communicate the concerns to the Department Heads Subsequently, it is the Department Heads responsibility to communicate these concerns to the candidates

Shared Responsibilities Selecting Referees : Selecting Referees : The University Standards state that the Department Head or Dean, in consultation with committee members, should provide at least half of the names on the list. Teaching Evaluations : Teaching Evaluations : Both student and peer evaluations are a mandatory part of the case file. The requirements are a series of evaluations, over a period of time.

Key Elements of A Successful Case File The Curriculum Vitae Standardized c.v. using the form for faculty available at For promotion – only include information up to June 30 th of the academic year. (Submissions in fall of 2011 should only include material up to June 30, 2011) For tenure, include all information up to and including the date of submission

Teaching Include a statement of your philosophy of teaching; A record of teaching roles should include both graduate and undergraduate courses, practical or other field work and information on your graduate students; If your c.v. contains a complete record of your teaching roles (Item 9 in the Standard c.v.) it is not necessary to repeat that here; simply reference the appropriate sections of the c.v.; You should have a summary statement of your understanding of the results of the student and peer evaluations; You should have a statement outlining your response to the results of the teaching evaluations;

Q#Question/Faculty memberABCDEFGH1 UG AVG OVERALL 1 Course intellectually challenging and stimulating Learned something valuable Subject interest increased because of course Learned and understood subject materials Instructor enthusiastic about teaching course Instructor dynamic and energetic in conducting course Instructor enhanced presentations with use of humor Instructors style of presentation held interest during class Instructors explanations were clear Course materials well prepared and carefully explained Proposed objectives agreed with those actually taught Instructor lectures facilitated taking notes Students encouraged to participate in class discussions Students invited to share their ideas and knowledge Students encouraged to ask questions and were given meaningful answers Students encouraged to express own ideas and/or questions to instructor Instructor friendly to individual students Instructor made students welcome by seeking help/advice in/outside class Instructor had genuine interest in individual students Instructor adequately accessible to students during office hours or after class Instructor contrasted implications of various theories Instructor presented background or origin of ideas/concepts developed in class Instructor presented points of view other than his/her own Instructor adequately discussed current developments in field Feedback on examinations/graded materials was valuable Methods of evaluating student work were fair and appropriate Examinations/graded materials tested course content Required readings/texts were valuable Readings, homework, laboratories contributed to appreciation and understanding of course Total Avg first 29 questions Compared with other instructors at U of S, rate this instructor Overall instructor rating Total Avg questions Undergraduate Course Evaluation Tool

Average overall = Average overall = 4.84

Average overall = 4.84

Scholarly Work The primary and essential evidence in this category is publication in reputable peer-reviewed outlets, or, in the case of performance or artistic work, presentation in reputable peer-reviewed venues The statement should state the nature of the candidates research and future plans. It should address the quality and significance of the work It should include an explanation of the candidates role in joint publications, presentations, research grants ……

Professional Practice A balance between the Professional Practice and Scholarly Work suggests an assessable volume of work, or productivity, in each area There should be compelling evidence that the candidate has a sustained high level of performance in the practice of the profession and established a reputation for expertise in the field, AND, the candidate has made a contribution to the creation and dissemination of knowledge through scholarly work The successful candidate will demonstrate and provide evidence of leadership in the establishment and execution of a clearly defined program of scholarship and a positive indication that the candidate will maintain activity in scholarly work and professional practice

Administration & Public Service Not required for tenure; willingness to participate required for promotion Be specific; indicate role, contributions and degree of effort Explanation should identify purpose and impact of contributions