1. The Tenure Process at Babson College: The Fourth-Year Review
Kent Jones, Co-Chair
Appointments DMB
BFRF Panel Discussion on Tenure and Promotion, January 25, 2018

2. The Fourth-Year Review is a Distinctive Feature of Babson’s Tenure Process
The fourth-year (mid-term) review provides pre-tenure feedback to the faculty candidate.
It distinguishes Babson College from many other colleges and universities in providing an early review of a candidate’s readiness for tenure consideration.
The review involves the candidate, the Division chair, senior Division colleagues, the Dean of Faculty, and other faculty colleagues .
The mid-term review is part of the college’s investment in its faculty, whose success is a gain for the college as well as for the faculty member.

3. Fourth-Year Review Committee: Overview
Timing: For a typical Babson tenure-track faculty member with no pre- tenure credit, the review takes place in the fourth year, in the middle of the second contract. For those with pre-tenure credit, the review usually takes place two years before the candidate becomes eligible for the tenure presentation.
The Division Chair convenes and heads a mid-term review committee with at least two senior faculty members in the Division.
The committee’s task is to review the candidate’s progress towards tenure at mid-term, based on the three tenure criteria: teaching, scholarship/research, and service.
The review culminates in a report to the Dean of Faculty, assessing the candidate’s progress towards tenure, and recommending either renewal or non-renewal of the final contract before the tenure review. The Dean, subject to appeal to the Provost, makes the final contract decision.

4. Fourth-Year Review: Supporting Documents and Materials
The mid-term review committee draws on any relevant materials that document the candidate’s performance as it would be reviewed for tenure, including:
Annual reviews
Teaching evaluations and teaching materials developed for Babson courses
Peer reviews of teaching; other evidence of teaching effectiveness
Publications
Working papers, conference presentations and other evidence of intellectual vitality
BFRF and other documentation of grants, research output
Evidence regarding service contributions at the college, division and professional levels
Input is also solicited from other senior faculty in the Division, and possibly from other division and college faculty and staff.

5. The Fourth-Year Memo to the Dean
The Mid-Term Review Committee prepares a document assessing the candidate’s progress towards tenure. The Division chair will share this letter with the faculty member.
The report will specifically evaluate the candidate’s performance in teaching, scholarship/research and service, noting any gaps that require additional effort or work. The memo will, if applicable, provide a general plan for improving the candidate’s performance in cases where there is a problem.
For most faculty, the report will indicate areas where there is room for improvement, and encourage the candidate to maintain momentum in areas where progress is good. Officially, the report concludes with a recommendation to the Dean of Faculty on whether or not to renew the candidate’s contract.

6. Fourth-Year Reviews in Perspective
Babson College academic divisions generally do a good job of recruiting, and provide opportunities for new faculty members to improve their teaching effectiveness if needed. The candidate may also be encouraged to seek out a research mentor if research potential is good but publications are lacking.
It is therefore relatively rare that a fourth-year review will culminate in an outright decision by the Dean of Faculty to terminate the faculty member’s contract, although this happens occasionally. It is more likely that these problems will already have led to a serious discussion with the chair or the Dean of Faculty about the candidate’s future with Babson College, so that weaker tenure candidates often leave Babson before the Fourth-Year review.
At the same time, the Fourth-Year review itself may put a faculty member on notice that his or her performance falls “below the bar” in particular areas, requiring significant improvement before the tenure review. In those cases, the candidate’s success at closing the gaps is often crucial in achieving tenure. In other cases this post-review counselling leads to a voluntary departure from Babson by the candidate.
Yet for most faculty, the Fourth-Year review is a milestone that provides direction and opportunities for career development in moving towards tenure and beyond.

7. The Dean of Faculty’s Role
The Dean of Faculty reviews the Division’s report and recommendation, and then prepares a formal memo in response.
The Dean of Faculty memo evaluates the evidence and announces a decision on whether or not to renew the candidate’s contract, which would allow the candidate to proceed towards a tenure review.
If the Dean decides not to renew the faculty member’s contract, the faculty member typically serves out the current contract, which ends one year after the mid-term review. Further renewals are not possible.
The faculty member can appeal a negative decision by the Dean of Faculty to the Provost. The Provost will then have the final say on whether to accept the Dean of Faculty decision, or overturn it.

8. Faculty Candidate’s Role in the Tenure Process
Read your annual reviews each year carefully. The ADMB will examine these documents in detail in a tenure review, especially as they relate to year-to- year performance and progress in completing projects.
On the path to the Fourth-Year, and then the tenure, review, early feedback can be especially important. As soon as a problem becomes evident, finding a faculty mentor or good source of advice can help address problems earlier rather than later.
The mid-term review is not necessarily a predictor of the final tenure determination by the ADMB, but it does provide a valuable record of the candidate’s progress, focus, and efforts in meeting the three critical tenure criteria, and the advice the candidate received at the time the review took place.
Faculty should review the Policies and Procedures guidelines for mid-term and tenure reviews. The ADMB follows P&P carefully in its tenure deliberations.