The University Senate and the President recently approved recommendations from a joint Provost-Senate APT Task Force for revisions to the Guidelines for Appointment, Promotion and Tenure, and to the University's APT Policy. These changes will take effect in the 2015-2016 review year.
Campus-wide changes include:
Broader definition of scholarship as the discovery, integration, engagement and transmission of knowledge. Quality of scholarship still assessed through peer review, impact, and significance. Onus remains on candidate to present documentation that his/her work meets unit criteria.
Entrepreneurial activities that enhance one or more of the three categories of teaching, service, and scholarship should be recognized for consideration in tenure and/or promotion reviews.
Changes by Constituency
Below is a list of the salient changes, briefly characterized, with links to policy or other documents as appropriate. If you should have any questions regarding implementation of these revised Guidelines and Policies, please contact the Office of Faculty Affairs.
Communicate requirements for teaching portfolios to candidates, and other APT changes. Click here for more information about the teaching portfolio.
If applicable, inform APT Review Committee Chair of any agreement of modified criteria and/or occurrence of tenure delay for candidates, to be referenced in dossier and letter requests.
Associate Deans of Faculty Affairs encouraged to formally charge individual Department APT Review Committees prior to the review process, joined by the College Diversity Officers.
Initial email contact to establish evaluator's availability required. Click here for an example of the email.
Tenure delay text will be included in reference letter request and Summary Statement of Professional Achievements, stating that the faculty member shall not be disadvantaged because of the delay with an explicit statement to evaluate the candidate's dossier as if it were completed in the ordinary period of review. Click here for an example reference letter request.
Oversee development and implementation of unit standards for teaching portfolio and systematic peer reviews of teaching, as both are now mandatory dossier elements for both tenure and promotion cases. Click here for more information about the teaching portfolio; click here for peer review guidelines and forms.
Faculty may request an agreement specifying modified criteria for tenure or promotion (e.g., if engaged in scholarship in multiple fields or that crosses boundaries of traditional disciplines). Agreement must be approved by the faculty and Chair of the first-level unit, the Dean, and the Provost. Click here for more information about the policy regarding modified criteria for tenure or promotion.
In cases of agreements of modified criteria, assist APT Review Committee with locating an outside faculty member knowledgeable in other applicable discipline(s) to serve in an advisory capacity.
Oversee development and implementation of unit's mentoring plan, to be filed with the Office Faculty Affairs. Click here for example criteria for mentoring plans. Click here to see a sample plan.
Assign at least one mentor to tenure-track faculty; encourage faculty member to seek out additional mentors.
Hold annual meetings with tenure-track faculty to review progress and development; provide written feedback after each such meeting.
Provide for the mentoring of each Associate Professor, if desired by the faculty member.
Notify all candidates for tenure (internal or external), in writing, of department action on the case. For internal candidates, the letter must include the department vote; for external candidates, the vote need not be included in the letter.
Annual letter from University Administration reminding those involved in the APT review process the importance of conducting a fair, unbiased, and impartial evaluation.
APT Chairs at all levels and unit heads tasked with ensuring that discussion and evaluation of candidates are fair and unbiased. Click here for procedures to report perceptions of inappropriate discussions.
There is a streamlined process for new appointments deemed to be highly competitive, thus warranting an expedited review. Click here for more information.
Candidate may nominate collaborators as possible external evaluators, but should provide justification.
Candidate may indicate if there are specific individuals in the field who might not be expected to give objective reviews as external evaluators.
Candidates must submit a teaching portfolio including items such as course syllabi, reflective assessments, mentoring and advisement. Click here for more information about the teaching portfolio, which is required for both tenure and promotion cases.
Faculty may request an agreement specifying modified criteria for tenure or promotion (e.g., if engaged in scholarship in multiple fields or that crosses boundaries of traditional disciplines). Agreement must be approved by the faculty and Chair of the first-level unit, the Dean, and the Provost. Click here for more information about the policy regarding modified criteria for tenure or promotion.
Faculty will be assigned at least one mentor but are encouraged to seek out multiple mentors.
Meet annually with chair to review progress and development; chair should provide written feedback after each such meeting.
Candidate must review and sign/date the following documents at least two weeks prior to departmental deliberation on the APT case:
Summary statement of professional achievement
reputation of publication outlets
summary of student evaluations
record of mentoring/advising/research supervision
unit promotion criteria and agreement of modified criteria for promotion or tenure (if applicable)
sample letter requesting external evaluation
reports of peer evaluation of teaching
Mentoring should be ongoing after tenure; unit heads should provide for the mentoring of each Associate Professor, if desired by the faculty member.
Annual letter from University Administration reminding those involved in the APT review process the importance of conducting a fair, unbiased, and impartial evaluation.
Associate Deans of Faculty Affairs encouraged to formally charge individual Department APT Review Committees prior to the review process, joined by the College Diversity Officers.
Invite candidate to submit list of specific individuals in the field who might not be expected to give objective reviews as external evaluators.
Letters from candidate's collaborators may be included but must be justified.
Evaluators should be leaders in the field regardless of institution.
Initial email contact to establish evaluator's availability required. Click here for an example of the email.
Reference request asks for evaluation based on UM unit's criteria, not the evaluator's institution.
Tenure delay text will be included in reference letter request and Summary Statement of Professional Achievements, stating that the faculty member shall not be disadvantaged because of the delay with an explicit statement to evaluate the candidate's dossier as if it were completed in the ordinary period of review. Click here for an example reference letter request.
APT Chairs at all levels and unit heads tasked with ensuring that discussion and evaluation of candidates are fair and unbiased. Click here for procedures to report perceptions of inappropriate discussions.
APT reviews of cases with modified unit criteria should include a faculty member knowledgeable in other applicable discipline(s) to serve in an advisory capacity to the subcommittee and the Department APT committee.
If applicable, candidate's approved agreement for modified unit criteria will be included in dossier in addition to standard unit criteria.
Letter log will include date of response to emailed availability requests, and declines to evaluate still must be logged and included. Click here for a letter log template.
In addition to Summary Statement of Professional Achievements, provide following documents to the candidate at least two weeks prior to departmental deliberation, for review and certification (signature/date):
reputation of publication outlets
summary of student evaluations
record of mentoring/advising/research supervision
unit promotion criteria and agreement of modified criteria for promotion or tenure (if applicable)
sample letter requesting external evaluation
reports of peer evaluation of teaching
New campus guidelines on ordering of dossier elements to reduce duplication and place primary emphasis on the candidate's record and first-level review materials.
APT voting faculty to be informed if a candidate took parental leave, stopped the tenure clock, or was on part-time appointment, and reminded that these are university-supported policies.
Associate Deans of Faculty Affairs encouraged to formally charge individual Department APT Review Committees prior to the review process, joined by the College Diversity Officers.
Importance of conducting a fair, unbiased, and impartial evaluation emphasized at outset of Unit APT meetings.
APT voting faculty informed if a candidate took parental leave, stopped the tenure clock, or was on part-time appointment, and reminded that these are university-supported policies.
Maintain records and inform Unit head and APT Chair if there is 1) an agreement for modified criteria, and/or 2) a delay of tenure for candidates.
Candidate's approved agreement for modified unit criteria must be included in dossier, as well as standard unit criteria.
Letter log includes answers to emailed availability requests; declines to evaluate still logged and included. Click here for a letter log template.
Attention to new campus guidelines on ordering of dossier elements. Click here for the transmittal form template.
Modified Criteria
Any exceptional or
unusual arrangements relating to criteria for tenure and/or promotion shall be specified in
writing at the time of appointment and shall be approved by the faculty and administrator
of the first-level unit, by the dean of the school or college, and by the Provost. University Policy II-1.00(A).II
In cases where a unit has identified a potential faculty hire it has reason to believe is highly competitive and warrants an expedited review (sometimes referred to as a "target of opportunity" appointment), the review process can be streamlined. It is anticipated that there would be relatively few appointments of this nature. To qualify for this streamlined process, candidates would be nominated by both the Chair and the Dean and approved by the Provost's Office. Such candidates normally would hold tenure and the comparable rank at another institution. The streamlined process could also be used for scholars considered for administrative positions.
More information will be available in the new edition of the APT Guidelines, to be published shortly.
Observed Actions of Concern
Should faculty members of the APT Review Committee (as witnesses) believe that inappropriate comments have been made, such as disparaging remarks referencing tenure delay(s), part-time appointments, cultural background, group membership, and/or personality traits, they are encouraged to raise their concern during the meeting, citing the Administration's letter. That faculty member may also discuss the issue confidentially with the APT Review Committee Chair, or with the Associate Provost for Faculty Affairs.
More information will be available in the new edition of the APT Guidelines, to be published shortly.