Appendix C: Promotion

Table of Contents

Review Procedures for Tenure-Track Faculty

I. Procedures for Renewal (Third-Year Review)

II. Procedures for Promotion to Associate Professor

III. Procedures for Promotion to Full Professor

 

Review Procedures for General Faculty

IV. Procedures for Renewal (First-Year Review)

V. Procedures for Renewal (Third-Year Review)

VI. Procedures for Renewal (Sixth-Year Review)

 


 

I. Procedures for Renewal (Third-Year Review) for Tenure-Track Faculty

Initiation. The initial appointment for untenured faculty is normally for a period of four academic years. Departments will normally consider tenure-track candidates for renewal of term in the third year of their service.

 

On 1 September of the third year of the appointment the department Chair notifies the candidate of the procedures and meets with him/her to answer any questions and clarify any doubts about the review.

 

Ad Hoc Third-Year Review Committee. By 15 September the MESALC department chair appoints a three-member Ad Hoc Third-Year Review Committee. The department chair serves, ex-officio, as Chair of the Review Committee. In creating the review committee, the department chair gives preference to MESALC faculty and to faculty in the candidate’s own language program and/or regional specialty, where possible. Any member of the UVa faculty who has attained the rank under review or higher can be considered for membership on this committee. (For this purpose, tenure-track faculty will be considered to be of higher rank than general faculty.) The department chair may include an “outside” member on the review committee, selecting him or her from among those tenure-track faculty in Arts & Sciences who have the expertise to judge the candidate’s teaching and research.

 

Supporting materials. By 15 November the candidate submits supporting materials to the department Chair. They should be:

 

1. A curriculum vitae, including a section on teaching and service, specifying courses taught, advising activities, undergraduate and graduate supervised thesis research; and a section on participation in administration at the departmental level or higher

2. A bibliography, dividing publications into the following categories:

  • books
  • articles in refereed journals
  • un-refereed publications
  • book reviews
  • work in progress (work accomplished since the initial appointment should be clearly separated from the work that preceded it.)

3. four copies of all publications and other relevant materials, including articles, etc. in press and work in progress, are to be submitted.

4. a list of papers presented at conferences during the past three years

5. a personal statement (limited to two pages, single-spaced) discussing teaching and research to date, as well as teaching and research plans for the future.

 

Evaluation. The Ad Hoc Committee will write a report assessing the candidate’s performance in research, teaching and advising, and service. The substance of this report will be incorporated into the department chair’s report to the Dean of Arts & Sciences.

 

The usual balance among the three areas of evaluation is 40% research, 40% teaching and advising, and 20% service. In addition, the department will consider the candidate’s work from the perspective and welfare of the department as a whole, and the review committee can assess the candidate’s overall performance in terms of the degree to which he/she contributes to the full range of departmental functions. Nonetheless, the committee must be satisfied that the candidate has done excellent work in all three activities – research, teaching and advising, and service – and the candidate will be judged in all three areas.

 

Evaluation of Research. The standard for renewal at this stage is evidence of the candidate’s excellence or potential for excellence in research. The committee will read published and unpublished work, as well as related materials.

 

Evaluation of Teaching and Advising. The standard for renewal at this stage is evidence of the candidate’s excellence or potential for excellence in teaching and advising. The Ad Hoc Committee will consider above all the quality of the courses taught. An assessment of the enrollment numbers, grade distribution, average grade per course, and the statistical and narrative summaries of student course evaluations over the past two years will also be made. The Ad Hoc Committee will assess classroom teaching, in part through direct observation of the candidate’s classes, though other means may be used as well. (Committee members may delegate direct observation to other faculty members in the candidate’s language.) Candidates should be informed in advance of any classroom observation.

 

The Committee will also consider any special advising that the candidate has performed over the past three years. (This advising includes undergraduate theses, independent study or directed readings courses, and membership on graduate student MA and PhD committees.) The review committee may interview some advisees, and the candidate therefore should keep a list of his or her advisees, with current email addresses if possible. Candidates should be asked to recommend some of the advisees interviewed (and allowed to indicate advisees the committee should not interview).

 

Evaluation of Service. The standard for renewal at this stage is adequate evidence that the candidate is willing and able to participate constructively in the activities of the administration of the department, the college, the university, or the profession.

 

Departmental Discussion and Vote. By 1 February the Ad Hoc Third-Year Review Committee will complete its written report. That report will be read by all MESALC faculty members who have attained the rank under review or higher. All eligible MESALC faculty members will then meet on or around 15 February to hear the committee’s recommendations and to discuss the case. Eligible faculty who are unable to attend the discussion may submit comments to the Department Chair (or the Chair of the Review Committee) to be read out during discussion. After the discussion a vote may be proposed and approved; or the faculty may choose to postpone a vote for further discussion. Once approved, a vote is taken by secret ballot; only faculty present at the discussion meeting may vote. Results of the vote will be announced at the meeting, and the department Chair will notify the candidate of the vote of the department soon after it has been taken. 

 

Chair’s Report. Whether the departmental recommendation is positive or negative, the department Chair submits a report and supporting materials, including the candidate’s CV, to the Dean of Arts & Sciences by 1 March. This report will convey to the Dean the vote of the faculty, the candidate’s strengths and weaknesses in the areas of research, teaching and advising, and service, as well as any useful advice for the candidate that has developed during the deliberations. After writing the final report, the Chair will meet with the candidate and accurately convey to him or her the substance of the report to the Dean. A memo of this conversation, outlining the points made, must be submitted to the Dean of Arts & Sciences.

 

Dean’s Response. A positive response by the Dean will result in a renewal of the probationary contract, usually for three years (four years from the date of notification). A negative response by the Dean will result in termination at the end of the fourth year of the appointment.

 

Confidentiality. The candidate’s materials are privy only to those who need to use them to make their decision. The deliberations and discussions of the Ad Hoc Third-Year Review Committee are confidential. That committee’s report to the tenured members of the department is confidential to those members of the department.

 

Appeal. A candidate wishing to appeal a negative decision should consult the Dean’s “Procedures for Renewal and Promotion” and the “Promotion and Tenure Policy” section of the Faculty Handbook of the University of Virginia. The Handbook is available on the Provost’s web page: http://www.virginia.edu/provost/policies.html .

 

Timeline

Date Procedure
1 September Chair has notified candidate of upcoming review and its procedure
15 September Chair has appointed a three-member Ad Hoc Committee
15 November Chair has received supporting materials from candidate
1 February Chair has received Ad Hoc Committee's report and distributes it to all tenured members of the department and to all assistant professors who have already passed the third-year review
15 February Faculty members who have received the Committe's report meet, discuss the case and vote. The Chair notifies the candidate of the vote and meets with the candidate to go over strengths and weaknesses.
1 March The Dean has received the Chair's report, along with a summary of the Chair's post-vote discussion with the candidate.

 

II. Procedures for Promotion to the Rank of Associate Professor Without Term (Tenure)

Initiation. The process of consideration for tenure is automatically initiated by the department Chair at the end of the fifth year. It can be initiated earlier by a request from the candidate, in consultation with the department Chair and with the agreement of the Dean. By March 1 of the fifth year of the candidate’s probation period a copy of this document is presented to the candidate, and before the March break, the Chair meets with the candidate to clarify any questions or doubts the candidate may have about the procedure.

 

As part of the initial phase, the candidate submits a list of six experts in his or her field external to UVa who would be capable of commenting accurately and without bias on the candidate’s work. This list, which should include regular and email addresses, must be submitted by 15 April. The candidate should briefly indicate on this list his or her relationship to each expert listed. Candidates are encouraged to include on this list experts in his or her field external to UVa who should NOT be expected to comment accurately or without bias on the candidate’s work. The department will make every reasonable effort to assure that all outside experts selected can be expected to comment on the candidate’s work accurately and without bias, and, further, that at least half (and never fewer than 4) of the external reviewers come from the candidate’s “recommend” list.

 

Ad Hoc Tenure Committee. By 30 March the MESALC department Chair appoints a four-member Ad Hoc Tenure Review Committee. The department Chair serves, ex-officio, as Chair of the Review Committee. In creating the review committee, the department chair gives preference to MESALC faculty and to faculty in the candidate’s own language program and/or regional specialty, where possible. Any tenured member of the UVa faculty can be considered for membership on this committee. The department Chair may include an “outside” member on the review committee, selecting him or her from among those tenure-track faculty in Arts & Sciences who have the expertise to judge the candidate’s teaching and research. This Committee’s first meeting takes place during the first week of September.

 

Supporting Materials. The candidate submits the following supporting materials to the department Chair by 30 June.

 

1. A curriculum vitae, including a section on teaching and service, specifying courses taught, advising activities, undergraduate and graduate supervised thesis research; participation in administration at the departmental, university, national, and international levels; and awards and fellowships

2. A bibliography, dividing publications into the following categories:

  • books
  • articles in refereed journals
  • un-refereed publications
  • literary and/or scholarly translations
  • book reviews
  • work in progress (work accomplished since the third year review should be so indicated and given priority. In the case of a dissertation that has been readied for publication, please supply a brief account of the extent and nature of the revisions.)
  • Two copies (including an electronic copy) of all publications and other relevant materials, including articles still in press and other appropriate manuscripts. The department pays the copying costs
  • A list of papers presented at conferences since the third-year review
  • A personal statement (limited to no more than two pages, single-spaced) discussing teaching and research to date, as well as teaching and research plans for the future.

 

External Experts. Eight to ten letters from experts outside the University are required. The department Chair will write in neutral language to potential external reviewers requesting their help and submitting the candidate’s CV. The department will make every reasonable effort to assure that all outside experts selected can be expected to comment on the candidate’s work accurately and without bias, and, further, that at least half (and never fewer than 4) of the external reviewers come from the candidate’s “recommend” list. If the external expert accepts the task, the chair sends copies of the candidate’s publications, manuscripts, and other relevant material to him or her. External experts shall receive the candidate’s material no later than 15 August. They are asked to complete their evaluations by 1 September, if possible, and by 1 October at the very latest.

 

Every effort shall be made to insure that no external evaluator shall be used who cannot comment accurately and without bias on the candidate’s work.

 

Evaluation Process. The candidate’s performance in research, teaching and advising, and service will be evaluated in a Committee Report to the tenured faculty of the department. This report will eventually be submitted both to the Dean of Arts & Sciences and to the University Provost.

 

The usual balance among the three areas of evaluation is 40% research, 40% teaching and advising, and 20% service. In addition, the department will consider the candidate’s work from the perspective and welfare of the department as a whole, and the review committee can assess the candidate’s overall performance in terms of the degree to which he/she contributes to the full range of departmental functions. Nonetheless, the committee must be satisfied that the candidate has done excellent work in all three activities – research, teaching and advising, and service – and the candidate will be judged in all three areas.

 

Evaluation of Research. The standard for promotion to tenured rank is excellence of scholarly work. Members of the committee, in their report, succinctly summarize and analyze the work and then judge it for its quality, significance, and quantity, in that order of importance.

 

The department defines excellence of scholarly work to be a body of work which has been judged by experts in the field to constitute a significant contribution to knowledge in that field or a significant re-evaluation of the field. Self-published work will generally not be accorded the same consideration as work published by reputable houses. If the candidate submits articles instead of a book, then the number of pages of those articles should be about the same as that of a usual-length scholarly work (approximately 250), and they shall show a similar contribution to, or re-evaluation of, the relevant field or fields. Work in progress, of course, will also be considered, especially work that has been done since the third-year review.

 

Evaluation of Teaching and Advising. The standard for promotion is excellence of teaching and advising. The Ad Hoc Committee will consider above all the quality of the courses taught. An assessment of the enrollment numbers, grade distribution, average grade per course, and the statistical and narrative summaries of student course evaluations since appointment will also be made. (It is the department’s responsibility to keep all of the student course evaluations from an Assistant Professor’s classes until he or she is promoted or is denied tenure.) The Ad Hoc Committee will assess classroom teaching, in part through direct observation of the candidate’s classes, though other means may be used as well. (Committee members may delegate direct observation to other faculty members in the candidate’s language.) Candidates should be informed in advance of any classroom observation.

 

The Committee will also consider any special advising that the candidate has performed over the past three years. (This advising includes undergraduate theses, independent study or directed readings courses, and membership on graduate student MA and PhD committees.) The review committee may interview some advisees, and the candidate therefore should keep a list of his or her advisees, with current email addresses if possible. Candidates should be asked to recommend some of the advisees interviewed (and allowed to indicate advisees the committee should not interview).

 

Evaluation of Service. The candidate’s performance in service is evaluated by determining whether or not the candidate has performed his or her share of committee work. “Committee work” includes service within the department, the College, the University, or outside the University in the candidate’s scholarly field. Whether or not the candidate’s amount of service work is adequate depends on the work ratio given it. In most cases that ratio is 20%.

 

Departmental Discussion and Vote. By 15 November the Ad Hoc Tenure Review Committee will complete its written report. That report will be read by all tenured MESALC faculty members. The tenured MESALC faculty will then meet some time before the Thanksgiving Break to hear the committee’s recommendations and to discuss the case. Tenured faculty who are unable to attend the discussion may submit comments to the department Chair to be read out during discussion. After the discussion a vote may be proposed and approved, or the faculty may choose to postpone a vote for further discussion. Once approved, a vote is taken by secret ballot; only faculty present at the discussion meeting may vote. Results of the vote will be announced at the meeting, and the department Chair will notify the candidate of the vote of the department soon after it has been taken, within 24 hours if at all possible.

 

Confidentiality. The candidate’s materials are privy only to those who need to use them to make their decision. The deliberations and discussions of the Ad Hoc Tenure Committee are confidential. That committee’s report to the tenured members of the department is confidential to those members of the department.

 

Materials for the Promotion and Tenure Committee and for the Provost. Annually, for every tenure decision, the department Chair prepares a set of materials as specified by the Dean’s Promotion and Tenure Committee. The Dean’s list of required materials is this:

 

1. CV, dividing publications into the following categories:

  • books
  • articles
  • popular articles and other publications
  • project reports

and separating work accomplished since the last promotion (or initial appointment) from the work that preceded it, upon which the earlier promotion or appointment was based. (In the case of a dissertation that has been readied for publication, information is requested concerning the extent and nature of the revisions.)

2. Two copies of all publications to date, and, if appropriate, of significant manuscripts awaiting publication.

3. A prose statement from the candidate describing work in progress and teaching and research plans, preferably not more than two or three pages.

4. A report of the candidate’s teaching performance based on the department’s established procedures for course-teaching evaluation. Documentation of teaching performance should be supplied in the form of a summary of all existing evidence and an interpretation of that evidence in the context of the department. Include a list of courses taught, number of students in each course, grade distribution, and average grade for each course. Please provide this information for every course taught here by a candidate for promotion to Associate Professor. A limited number of student letters may be included.

 

Teaching includes advising duties, so please do not omit an assessment of advising when you address this category. Number and kinds of advisees should be specified.

 

5. An analysis made within the department, normally by an ad hoc committee, assessing the merit of the candidate’s published work and the promise of future research. If a proper assessment cannot be made within the department, an independent evaluation should be sought from outside.

6. An evaluation of service to the department, the University, the profession, and the Commonwealth.

7. Eight to ten letters, solicited from outside experts competent to assess the candidate’s work and professional standing, accompanied by a letter from the chairperson identifying all referees solicited for references and providing a brief description of their qualifications to assess the candidate’s work. (One person should be designated to solicit and receive such letters.) The letter requesting appraisal should be neutral in tone; a sample copy is included, as are all responses. Indicate on each letter whether the recommender was the choice of the candidate or that of the department. If outside experts choose not to write, please note.

8. All available reviews of the candidate’s published work, in their full range, favorable and unfavorable, together with any reader’s reports on manuscripts submitted for publication.

9. A Chair’s cover letter, that includes:

  • Assessment of candidate’s national reputation in his or her field
  • A statement of how the recommended promotion would affect the tenure pattern of the department
  • A brief statement of the internal procedures of the department in making the promotion decision: what ranks voted, the result of the vote, and the Chair’s interpretation of the collective will of the department
  • The Chair should explain and summarize the discussion during the tenure meeting
  • The Chair should also provide his/her own assessment of the candidate.

 

A similar list of materials is available in the Office of the Dean for fields in which productivity is less a matter of scholarship and publication than of artistic creativity or performance.

 

Arts and Sciences Promotion and Tenure Committee. As its deliberations proceed, the Dean’s Promotion and Tenure Committee tells the department Chair of any concerns it has about a candidate who has been recommended for promotion by the department. If invited, the chair may appear before the Promotion and Tenure Committee to briefly present the case and answer any questions the Committee poses. The Committee expects the Chair to consider not just the candidate, but also the perspective and welfare of the department as a whole. As in the letter the Chair writes to the Promotion and Tenure Committee, the Chair is expected not only to present his or her own opinion on the case, but he or she is also expected to represent fairly the discussion of the department.

 

After the Promotion and Tenure Committee votes on each candidate, the Dean decides whether or not to concur in the recommendations of the committee. The Dean informs the Chair of the decision, and the Chair immediately passes on this information to the candidate.

 

Consideration at the Provost’s Level. For the most up-to-date policies, see “The Provost’s Level” section of the Dean’s page: http://www.virginia.edu/artsandsciences/dean/tenure.html and see the Provost’s document “Promotion and Tenure Policy” at http://www.virginia.edu/provost/policies.html .

 

Denial and Departmental Appeal. Faculty who have been denied tenure are separated from the University by the end of their term appointment, which is usually the end of the seventh year. Although it is possible to reconsider a tenure case in the seventh year, departments should not ask the Dean’s Promotion and Tenure Committee to reconsider a candidate unless there is new and significant information about the candidate’s case.

 

Candidate’s Appeal Mechanism. A candidate wishing to appeal a negative decision should consult the Dean’s “Procedures for Renewal and Promotion” and the “Promotion and Tenure Policy” section of the Faculty Handbook of the University of Virginia. The Handbook is available on the Provost’s web page: http://www.virginia.edu/provost/policies.html.

 

A brief quote from that document:

 

In all cases in which the provost reviews negative promotion or tenure recommendations, such review will be limited to procedural grounds or to the possibility of unfairness or bias at the school level, with the candidate ultimately having the burden of demonstrating material procedural irregularity, unfairness, or bias leading to the conclusion that the negative tenure recommendation was affected. Normally, the substantive judgments of the school on the quality of student instruction, research, and/or service will not be reversed when adequately supported and in accordance with University policy.

 

Timeline

The process commences in the spring of the fifth year, unless the candidate, the Chair, and the Dean agree to do so at another time.

 

Date Procedure
Fifth Year  
1 March Process begins; candidate receives copy of this timeline and of the document “Procedures for Promotion to the Rank of Associate Professor without Term”
Before March Break Having read the document, the candidate consults with the Chair about the requirements and procedures
30 March Ad Hoc Tenure Committee has been appointed by the Chair
15 April Candidate has supplied the Chair a list of as many as 6 external reviewers, with regular and email addresses, including statement of relationship of each to the candidate
June - July External reviewers are solicited
1 July Supporting materials have been submitted by the candidate to the Chair
15 July Wupporting materials will have been sent by the Chair to eight to ten external reviewers
Sixth Year  
1 September First meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee has taken place
1 Sept - 1 Oct Receipt of external evaluations
1 October Teaching evaluations have been submitted from two faculty members who have observed classes. (Those faculty members are chosen by the Head of the Ad Hoc Tenure Committee.)
1 Oct - 15 Nov Ad Hoc Tenure Committee meets as often as necessary to make its decision and write its report
15 November Ad Hoc Tenure Committee’s report is made available to the tenured members of the department
Before Thanksgiving Break Tenured members of the Department meet and vote; Department Chair immediately informs the candidate of the outcome of the vote
1 December Dean receives promotion materials from Chair
1 February Last date for Dean to report to Provost

 

III. Procedures for Promotion to the Rank of Full Professor

Initiation. The process for promotion to the rank of full professor is initiated by the candidate, in consultation with the department Chair. The initial consultation should take place in the fall. In February a decision shall be made whether or not to go forward with the application. If the faculty member has not initiated the process before 1 March, he or she must wait for the next academic year. If the candidate and the department Chair decide to proceed with the application, then the candidate receives the department’s procedures from the department Chair by 1 March. A meeting between the Chair and the candidate takes place before 15 March to clarify any doubts and answer any questions the candidate may have about the procedure.

 

As part of the initial phase, the candidate submits a list of six experts in his or her field external to UVa who would be capable of commenting accurately and without bias on the candidate’s work. This list, which should include regular and email addresses, must be submitted by 15 April. The candidate should briefly indicate on this list his or her relationship to each expert listed. Candidates are encouraged to include on this list experts in his or her field external to UVa who should NOT be expected to comment accurately or without bias on the candidate’s work. The department will make every reasonable effort to assure that all outside experts selected can be expected to comment on the candidate’s work accurately and without bias, and, further, that at least half (and never fewer than 4) of the external reviewers come from the candidate’s “recommend” list.

 

Ad Hoc Promotion Committee. By 30 March the MESALC department Chair appoints a four-member Ad Hoc Promotion Committee. The department Chair serves, ex-officio, as Chair of the Review Committee. In creating the review committee, the department Chair gives preference to MESALC faculty and to faculty in the candidate’s own language program and/or regional specialty, where possible. Any full professor at UVa can be considered for membership on this committee. The department Chair may include an “outside” member on the review committee, selecting him or her from among those UVa full professors who have the expertise to judge the candidate’s teaching and research. This Committee’s first meeting takes place during the first week of September.

 

Supporting Materials. The candidate submits the following supporting materials to the department Chair by 30 June:

 

1. A curriculum vitae, including a section on teaching and service, specifying courses taught, advising activities, undergraduate and graduate supervised thesis research; participation in administration at the departmental, university, national, and international levels; and awards and fellowships

2. A bibliography, dividing publications into the following categories:

  • books
  • articles in refereed journals
  • un-refereed publications
  • literary and/or scholarly translations
  • book reviews
  • work in progress (work accomplished since promotion to Associate Professor should be separated from the work that preceded it.)

3. Two copies (including an electronic copy) of all publications and other relevant materials, including articles still in press and other appropriate manuscripts.

4. A personal statement (limited to no more than two pages, single-spaced) discussing teaching and research to date, as well as teaching and research plans for the future.

 

External Experts. Eight to ten letters from external experts are required. The department Chair writes in the early summer in neutral language to potential external reviewers, requesting their help and submitting the candidate’s CV. The department will make every reasonable effort to assure that all outside experts selected can be expected to comment on the candidate’s work accurately and without bias, and, further, that at least half (and never fewer than 4) of the external reviewers come from the candidate’s “recommend” list. If the referee accepts the task, then the department Chair will send copies of the candidate’s publications, manuscripts, and other relevant materials to him or her. Outside experts receive the candidate’s materials no later than 15 August. They are asked to complete their evaluations by 1 September, if possible, and by 1 October at the very latest.

 

Evaluation Process. The candidate’s performance in research, teaching-advising, and service is evaluated in a Committee Report to all the full professors in the department. This report is eventually submitted both to the Dean of Arts & Sciences and to the University Provost.

 

The usual balance among the three areas of evaluation is 40% research, 40% teaching and advising, and 20% service. In addition, the department will consider the candidate’s work from the perspective and welfare of the department as a whole, and the review committee can assess the candidate’s overall performance in terms of the degree to which he/she contributes to the full range of departmental functions. Nonetheless, the committee must be satisfied that the candidate has done excellent work in all three activities – research, teaching and advising, and service – and the candidate will be judged in all three areas.

 

Evaluation of Research. The standard for promotion to Full Professor is excellence of scholarly work and establishment of a national reputation in the field. The members of the committee succinctly summarize and analyze the work and then judge it for its quality, quantity and significance.

 

The department defines “excellence of scholarly work and establishment of a national reputation in the field” in these more specific terms. From the time of appointment without term to the application for promotion to full rank, the candidate should have written at least one book, or about five articles which have been judged by experts in the field to constitute a significant contribution to knowledge in that field or a significant re-evaluation of the field. If the candidate had not completed a book before her or his appointment without term, then in most cases a book, rather than articles, is required of the candidate for full rank. The predominant opinion of outside evaluators is used to judge whether or not the candidate has attained a national reputation in his or her field.

 

Evaluation of Teaching and Advising. The standard for promotion is excellence of teaching and advising. The candidate’s performance in teaching is evaluated in a teaching section of the Committee Report. It shall include:

 

  • A record of courses taught, enrollment numbers, grade distribution and average grade, whenever possible, in each course;
  • Statistical and narrative summaries of student course evaluations over at least the past three years.
  • A teaching evaluation report by faculty members. This shall be done by all the other teachers, from lecturers to full professors, in the candidate’s language and literature program. The evaluation shall be done by both classroom observation and a detailed study of student evaluations and letters. This teaching evaluation report must be in the hands of the Chair of the Ad Hoc Promotion Committee by 1 October.
  • The number and kinds of advisees since the previous promotion. The candidate therefore should keep a list of advisees he or she has had, with current email addresses if possible. The promotion committee shall prepare a brief evaluative form to be sent to the candidate’s advisees, and the candidate’s advising shall be judged by the results obtained from that form. Where possible, some advisees may also be interviewed.

 

Evaluation of Service. The candidate’s performance in service is evaluated by determining whether or not the candidate has performed his or her share of committee work. “Committee work” includes service within the department, the College, the University, or outside the University in the candidate’s scholarly field. Whether or not the candidate’s amount of service work is adequate depends on the work ratio given it. In most cases that ratio is 20%.

 

Departmental Discussion and Vote. By 15 November the Ad Hoc Promotion Committee will complete its written report. That report will be read by all of the full professors in MESALC, who will then meet some time before the Thanksgiving Break to hear the committee’s recommendations and to discuss the case. Full professors in MESALC who are unable to attend the discussion may submit comments to the department Chair to be read out during discussion. After the discussion a vote may be proposed and approved, or the faculty may choose to postpone a vote for further discussion. Once approved, a vote is taken by secret ballot; only faculty present at the discussion meeting may vote. Results of the vote will be announced at the meeting, and the department chair will notify the candidate of the vote of the department soon after it has been taken, within 24 hours if at all possible. For the Dean the chair prepares a report of the process and the departmental vote. He or she also includes his own opinion of the case. That report is due in the Dean’s office by 1 December.

 

Confidentiality. The candidate’s materials are privy only to those who need to use them to make their decision. The deliberations and discussions of the Ad Hoc Promotion Committee are confidential. That committee’s report is confidential to those members of the department.

 

Materials for the Promotion and Tenure Committee and for the Provost. Annually, for every promotion and tenure decision, the Chair of the Department prepares a set of materials as specified by the Dean’s Promotion and Tenure Committee. The Dean’s list of required materials is this:

 

1. CV, dividing publications into the following categories (and separating work accomplished since the last promotion (or initial appointment) from the work that preceded it, upon which the earlier promotion or appointment was based; In the case of a dissertation that has been readied for publication, information is requested concerning the extent and nature of the revisions.)

  • books
  • articles
  • popular articles and other publications
  • project reports

2. Two copies of all publications to date, and, if appropriate, of significant manuscripts awaiting publication.

3. A prose statement from the candidate describing work in progress and teaching and research plans, preferably not more than two or three pages.

4. A report of the candidate’s teaching performance based on the department’s established procedures for course-teaching evaluation. Documentation of teaching performance should be supplied in the form of a summary of all existing evidence and an interpretation of that evidence in the context of the department. Include a list of courses taught, number of students in each course, grade distribution, and average grade for each course. Please provide this information for every course taught here during the past four years. A limited number of student letters may be included.

 

Teaching includes advising duties, so please do not omit an assessment of advising when you address this category. Number and kinds of advisees should be specified.

 

5. An analysis made within the department, normally by an ad hoc committee, assessing the merit of the candidate’s published work and the promise of future research. If a proper assessment cannot be made within the department, an independent evaluation should be sought from outside.

6. An evaluation of service to the department, the University, the profession, and the Commonwealth.

7. Eight to ten letters, solicited from outside experts competent to assess the candidate’s work and professional standing, accompanied by a letter from the chairperson identifying all referees solicited for references and providing a brief description of their qualifications to assess the candidate’s work. (One person should be designated to solicit and receive such letters.) The letter requesting appraisal should be neutral in tone; a sample copy is included, as are all responses. Indicate on each letter whether the recommender was the choice of the candidate or that of the department. If outside experts choose not to write, please note.

8. All available reviews of the candidate’s published work, in their full range, favorable and unfavorable, together with any reader’s reports on manuscripts submitted for publication.

9. A Chair’s cover letter, that includes:

  • Assessment of the candidate’s national reputation in his or her field
  • A statement of how the recommended promotion would affect the tenure pattern of the department
  • A brief statement of the internal procedures of the department in making the promotion decision: what ranks voted, the result of the vote, and the Chair’s interpretation of the collective will of the department
  • The Chair should explain and summarize the discussion during the promotion meeting
  • The Chair should also provide his/her own assessment of the candidate.

 

A similar list of materials is available in the Office of the Dean for fields in which productivity is less a matter of scholarship and publication than of artistic creativity or performance.

 

Arts & Sciences Promotion and Tenure Committee. As its deliberations proceed, the Dean’s Promotion and Tenure Committee informs the department Chair of any concerns it has about a candidate who has been recommended for promotion by the department. The Chair, after preparing carefully, appears before the Promotion and Tenure Committee, briefly presents the case, and answers any questions the Committee poses. The Committee expects the Chair to consider not just the candidate, but also the perspective and welfare of the department as a whole. As in the letter the Chair writes to the Promotion and Tenure Committee, the Chair is expected not only to present his or her own opinion on the case, but he or she is also expected to represent fairly the discussion of the department.

After the Promotion and Tenure Committee votes on each candidate, the Dean decides whether or not to concur in the recommendations of the committee. The Dean informs the Chair of the decision, and the Chair immediately passes on this information to the candidate.

 

Consideration at the Provost’s level. For the most up-to-date policies, see “The Provost’s Level” section of the Dean’s page: http://www.virginia.edu/artsandsciences/dean/tenure.html and see the Provost’s document “Promotion and Tenure Policy” at http://www.virginia.edu/provost/policies.html .

 

Denial. A candidate who has been denied promotion to Full Professor will be reconsidered only when there is new and significant information about the candidate’s case.

 

Candidate’s Appeal Mechanism. A candidate wishing to appeal a negative decision should consult the Dean’s “Procedures for Renewal and Promotion” and the “Promotion and Tenure Policy” section of the Faculty Handbook of the University of Virginia. The Handbook is available on the Provost’s web page: http://www.virginia.edu/provost/policies.html .

 

A brief quote from that document:

 

In all cases in which the provost reviews negative promotion or tenure recommendations, such review will be limited to procedural grounds or to the possibility of unfairness or bias at the school level, with the candidate ultimately having the burden of demonstrating material procedural irregularity, unfairness, or bias leading to the conclusion that the negative tenure recommendation was affected. Normally, the substantive judgments of the school on the quality of student instruction, research, and/or service will not be reversed when adequately supported and in accordance with University policy.

 

Timeline

Date Procedure
Fall Initial consultation between possible candidate and Chair
February Decision made to proceed or wait at least another year
1 March Process begins; candidate receives copy of this timeline and of the document “Procedure for Application for Promotion to the Rank of Full Professor”
Before March Break Having read the document, the candidate consults with the Chair about the requirements and procedures
30 March Ad Hoc Promotion Committee has been appointed by the Chair
1 April Candidate has supplied the Chair a list of as many as 6 external reviewers, with regular and email addresses, including statement of relationship of each to the candidate
May - June External reviewers are solicited
15 June Supporting materials have been submitted by the candidate to the Chair
1 July Supporting materials have been sent by the Chair to eight to ten external reviewers
1 September First meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee has taken place
1 Sept - 1 Oct Receipt of external evaluations
1 October Teaching evaluation report has been submitted to the Chair of the Ad Hoc Committee by all the other teachers in the candidate’s language and literature program
1 Oct - 15 Nov Ad Hoc Promotion Committee meets as often as necessary to make its decision and write its report
15 November Ad Hoc Promotion Committee’s report completed and made available to other Full Professors in the Department
30 November Vote by the full professors in the department
1 December Dean receives report and promotion materials from Chair
1 February Last date for Dean to report to Provost

 

IV. Procedure for the First-Year Review of Lecturers

Narrative Description. By 15 September the MESALC department Chair constitutes a three-member Ad Hoc First-Year Review Committee. The department Chair serves, ex-officio, as Chair of the Review Committee. In creating the review committee, the department Chair gives preference to MESALC faculty and to faculty in the candidate’s own language program and/or regional specialty, where possible. Any member of the UVa faculty (general or tenure-track) who has attained the rank under review or higher can be considered for membership on this committee. (For this purpose, tenure-track faculty will be considered to be of higher rank than general faculty.) The department Chair is strongly encouraged to include an “outside” member on the review committee, selecting him or her from among those faculty in Arts and Sciences (general or tenure-track) who have the expertise to judge the candidate’s teaching and research.

 

During the fall semester the Ad Hoc Committee will assess classroom teaching, in part through direct observation of the candidate’s classes, though other means may be used as well. (Committee members may delegate direct observation to other faculty members in the candidate’s language.) Candidates should be consulted in advance of any classroom observation. Classroom observations (and any other assessments made) will be considered along with student evaluations from the candidate’s fall teaching.

 

Any other work, such as advising or service on departmental committees, will also be taken into consideration.

 

By February 15 the Ad Hoc First-Year Review Committee submits written a report to the department Chair. Having read the report, the Chair prepares his or her own report to the Dean, in which renewal is either recommended or not. As soon as this decision has been made, the Chair informs the candidate. The Chair’s report is due in the Dean’s office—be it positive or negative—by 1 March. A positive response by the Dean will result in the candidate’s being offered a renewal for three years. A negative response by the Dean will result in termination at the end of the academic year.

 

Timeline

Date Procedure
15 September Chair appoints three-member Ad Hoc Committee
Fall Semester Observation of classes
15 February Chair receives Ad Hoc Committee's report
1 March Dean receives Chair's report

 

V. Procedure for the Third-Year Review of Lecturers

Initiation. The initial appointment for a lecturer in MESALC is normally for a period of one year with the possibility of successive three-year renewals.

 

On 1 September of the third year of the appointment, i.e., of the second year of the first three-year renewal, the Chair of MESALC notifies the candidate of the procedures, and the Chair meets with the candidate to answer any questions and clarify any doubts about those procedures.

 

Ad Hoc Third-Year Review Committee. By 15 September the MESALC department Chair constitutes a three-member Ad Hoc Third-Year Review Committee. The department Chair serves, ex-officio, as Chair of the Review Committee. In creating the review committee, the department Chair gives preference to MESALC faculty and to faculty in the candidate’s own language program and/or regional specialty, where possible. Any member of the UVa faculty (general or tenure-track) who has attained the rank under review or higher can be considered for membership on this committee. (For this purpose, tenure-track faculty will be considered to be of higher rank than general faculty.)

 

Supporting Materials. By 15 November the candidate submits supporting materials to the department Chair. The supporting materials should include:

 

  1. A curriculum vitae, including a section on teaching and service, specifying courses taught and advising activities;
  2. A personal statement (limited to one page, single-spaced) discussing teaching to date, as well as teaching plans for the future;
  3. Research done over the past three years (i.e., since appointment), if any.

 

Evaluation. Since the teaching load of the lecturer position is heavier than that for the assistant professor rank and higher, a greater emphasis is given to teaching than anything else. Research and publication activity may enhance a candidate’s chances for renewal, but lack of research cannot count against a candidate’s case for renewal. Lecturer performance is evaluated according to the following weightings: 80% teaching and 20% service. The Ad Hoc Committee writes a report assessing the candidate’s performance in teaching and service, noting any research activities. The substance of this report will be incorporated into the department Chair’s report to the Dean of Arts & Sciences.

 

Evaluation of Research. Research is not a required part of the duties of the lecturer position, but the department encourages, and seeks to support research and publication activity by all of its faculty. Research and publication activity thus bolsters a lecturer’s case for renewal (as long as it does not come at the expense of his or her teaching activities), but the lack of research activity cannot detract from a candidate’s case for renewal.

 

Evaluation of Teaching. The standard for renewal at this stage is evidence of the candidate’s excellence in teaching. The Ad Hoc Committee will consider above all the quality of the courses taught. An assessment of the enrollment numbers, grade distribution, average grade per course, and the statistical and narrative summaries of student course evaluations over the past two years will also be made.

 

The Ad Hoc Committee will assess classroom teaching, in part through direct observation of the candidate’s classes, though other means may be used as well. (Committee members may delegate direct observation to other faculty members in the candidate’s language.) Candidates should be consulted in advance of any classroom observation. Classroom observations (and any other assessments made) will be considered along with student evaluations from the candidate’s fall teaching.

 

The Committee will also consider any special advising that the candidate has performed over the past three years. (This advising includes undergraduate theses, independent study or directed readings courses, and membership on graduate student MA and PhD committees.) MESALC considers advising within the language program to be the job of the language coordinator (not that of lecturers not so designated) and lower-division and major advising for the College to be the job of tenure-track faculty (unless specifically designated). On the other hand, MESALC encourages interested lecturers to participate in various levels of academic advising. Therefore, any advising undertaken can contribute to a lecturer’s case for renewal, but the lack of advising activity can not detract from a candidate’s case for renewal. The review committee may interview some advisees, and the candidate therefore should keep a list of his or her advisees, with current email addresses if possible. Candidates should be asked to recommend some of the advisees interviewed (and allowed to indicate advisees the committee should not interview).

 

Service. The standard for renewal at this stage is adequate evidence that the candidate has participated constructively in the administration of the department, the college, the university, or the profession. MESALC considers such service to consist of language testing (for placement and exemption), participation in Shea House events, curriculum development projects, membership in search and review committees, assumption of MESALC departmental service duties, and other administrative service. The department encourages lecturers to engage in other service activities, such as Lower-Division College advising, but the lack of this kind of university service cannot detract from a candidate’s case for renewal.

 

Departmental Discussion and Vote. By 1 February the Ad Hoc Third-Year Review Committee will complete its written report. That report will be read by all MESALC faculty members who have attained the rank under review or higher. All eligible MESALC faculty members will then meet on or around 15 February to hear the committee’s recommendations and to discuss the case. After the discussion a vote may be proposed and approved; or the faculty may choose to postpone a vote for further discussion. Once approved, a vote is taken by secret ballot; only faculty present for the discussion are eligible to vote; faculty unable to attend the discussion may submit comments to the department Chair (or the Chair of the Review Committee) to be read out during discussion. Results of the vote will be announced at the meeting, and the department Chair will notify the candidate of the vote of the department soon after it has been taken.

 

Chair’s Report. Whether the departmental recommendation is positive or negative, the department Chair will submit a report and supporting materials, including the candidate’s CV, to the Dean of Arts & Sciences by 1 March. This report will convey to the Dean the vote of the faculty, the candidate’s strengths and weaknesses in the areas of teaching and service (with supporting comments on research activities if relevant), as well as any useful advice for the candidate that has developed during the deliberations. After writing the final report, the department Chair meets with the candidate and accurately conveys to him or her the substance of the report to the Dean. A memo of this conversation, outlining the points made, should be submitted to the Dean of Arts & Sciences.

 

Dean’s Response. A positive response by the Dean will result in a renewal of the probationary contract, usually for three years (four years from the date of notification). A negative response by the Dean will result in termination at the end of the fourth year of the appointment.

 

Confidentiality. The candidate’s materials are privy only to those who need to use them to make their decision. The deliberations and discussions of the Ad Hoc Third-Year Review Committee are confidential. That committee’s report to the other members of the department is confidential to those members of the department.

 

Appeal. A candidate wishing to appeal a negative decision should consult the Dean’s “Procedures for Renewal and Promotion” and the “Promotion and Tenure Policy” section of the Faculty Handbook of the University of Virginia. The Handbook is available on the Provost’s web page: http://www.virginia.edu/provost/policies.html .

 

Timeline

Date Procedure
1 September Chair has notified candidate of upcoming review and its procedure
15 September Chair has appointed a three-member Ad Hoc Committee
15 November Chair has received supporting materials from candidate
1 December Chair has received Ad Hoc Committee’s report and distributes it to all tenured members of the department and to all lecturers who have already passed the relevant third-year review.
1 February Faculty members who have received the Committee’s report meet, discuss the case and vote by secret ballot
15 February The Chair notifies the candidate of the result of the vote.
1 March The Dean has received the Chair’s report

 

VI. Procedure for the Sixth-Year Review of Lecturers

Initiation. The sixth-year review of a lecturer is automatically initiated by the department Chair at the end of the fifth year. By March 1 of the fifth year of the candidate’s probationary period a copy of this document is presented to the candidate, and before the March Break, the Chair meets with the candidate to clarify any questions or doubts the candidate may have about the procedure.

 

As part of the initial phase, the candidate submits a list of five experts in his or her field, external to UVa, who would be capable of commenting accurately and without bias on the candidate’s work. This list, which should include regular and email addresses, must be submitted by 15 April. The candidate should briefly indicate on this list his or her relationship to each expert listed. Candidates are encouraged to include on this list experts in his or her field external to UVa who should NOT be expected to comment accurately or without bias on the candidate’s work. The department will make every reasonable effort to assure that at least half (and never fewer than 4) of the external reviewers come from the candidate’s “recommend” list, and that none of the external reviewers appear on the candidate’s “avoid” list.

 

Ad Hoc Sixth-Year Review Committee. By 30 March the department Chair appoints a four-member Ad Hoc Sixth-Year Review Committee. The department Chair serves, ex officio, as Chair of the Review Committee. In creating the review committee, the department Chair gives preference to MESALC faculty and to faculty in the candidate’s own language program and/or regional specialty, where possible. Any member of the UVa faculty (general or tenure-track) who has attained the rank under review or higher (i.e., Lecturers who have passed the sixth-year review or tenure-track faculty of any rank) can be considered for membership on this committee. The department Chair is strongly encouraged to include an “outside” member on the review committee, selecting him or her from among those eligible faculty in Arts & Sciences who have the expertise to judge the candidate’s teaching and research.

 

This Committee’s first meeting takes place during the first week of September.

 

Supporting Materials. By 15 June the candidate submits supporting materials to the Chair of the Ad-Hoc Review Committee. They should be:

 

  1. A curriculum vitae, including a section on teaching and service, specifying courses taught and advising activities;
  2. A personal statement (limited to three pages, single-spaced) discussing teaching and teaching-related activities to date, as well as teaching plans for the future.
  3. Research done over the past six years (i.e., since appointment in MESALC), if any.

 

External Experts. Six to eight letters from experts outside the University are required. Five names will be solicited from the candidate, and the department itself makes a list of five names. By the end of April of the candidate’s fifth year the Chair of the Department or the head of the Ad Hoc Review Committee will write in neutral language to all ten potential external reviewers requesting their help and submitting the candidate’s CV. If the external expert accepts the task, the chair sends copies of the candidate’s supporting materials to him or her. External experts shall receive the candidate’s material as soon as possible after 15 June. They are asked to complete their evaluations by 1 September, if possible, and by 1 October at the very latest. Every effort shall be made to insure that no external evaluator shall be used who cannot comment accurately and without bias on the candidate’s work.

 

Evaluation Process. The candidate’s performance in teaching and service (and potentially research) will be evaluated in a Committee Report to the relevant faculty of the department. (Relevant faculty are those who have a rank above Lecturer or who are Lecturers who have passed the sixth-year review.) This report will eventually be submitted both to the Dean of Arts & Sciences and to the University Provost.

 

Evaluation of Research. Research is not a required part of the duties of the lecturer position, but the department encourages, and seeks to support research and publication activity by all of its faculty. Research and publication activity thus bolsters a lecturer’s case for renewal (as long as it does not come at the expense of his or her teaching activities), but the lack of research activity cannot detract from a candidate’s case for renewal.

 

Evaluation of Teaching. The candidate’s performance in teaching is evaluated in a teaching section of the Committee Report. The standard for passing the sixth-year review is excellence of teaching. The report shall examine the quality of the candidate’s teaching, and it shall consider: courses taught, enrollment numbers, grade distribution and average grade whenever possible in each course; statistical and narrative summaries of student course evaluations since appointment.

 

The Ad Hoc Committee will assess classroom teaching, in part through direct observation of the candidate’s classes, though other means may be used as well. (Committee members may delegate direct observation to other faculty members in the candidate’s language.) Candidates should be consulted in advance of any classroom observation. Classroom observations (and any other assessments made) will be considered along with student evaluations from the candidate’s fall teaching. This evaluation report is due on 1 October, at the latest.

 

The Committee will also consider any special advising that the candidate has performed over the period of the appointment. (This advising includes undergraduate theses, independent study or directed readings courses, and membership on graduate student MA and PhD committees.) MESALC considers advising within the language program to be the job of the language coordinator (not that of lecturers not so designated) and lower-division and major advising for the College to be the job of tenure-track faculty (unless specifically designated). On the other hand, MESALC encourages interested lecturers to participate in various levels of academic advising. Therefore, any advising undertaken can contribute to a lecturer’s case for renewal, but the lack of advising activity can not detract from a candidate’s case for renewal. The review committee may interview some advisees, and the candidate therefore should keep a list of his or her advisees, with current email addresses if possible. Candidates should be asked to recommend some of the advisees interviewed (and allowed to indicate advisees the committee should not interview).

 

Evaluation of Service. The standard for renewal at this stage is constructive participation in the administration of the department, the college, the university, or the profession. MESALC considers such service to consist of language testing (for placement and exemption), participation in Shea House events, curriculum development projects, membership in search and review committees, assumption of MESALC departmental service duties, and other administrative service. The department encourages lecturers to engage in other service activities, such as Lower-Division College advising, but the lack of this kind of university service cannot detract from a candidate’s case for renewal.

 

Departmental Discussion and Vote. By 15 November the Ad Hoc Sixth-Year Review Committee completes its written report. That report will be read by all MESALC faculty members who have attained the rank under review or higher. All eligible MESALC faculty members will then meet some time before Thanksgiving Break to hear the committee’s recommendations and to discuss the case. After the discussion a vote may be proposed and approved; or the faculty may choose to postpone a vote for further discussion. Once approved, a vote is taken by secret ballot; only faculty present for the discussion are eligible to vote; faculty unable to attend the discussion may submit comments to the department Chair (or the Chair of the Review Committee) to be read out during discussion. Results of the vote will be announced at the meeting, and the department Chair will notify the candidate of the vote of the department soon after it has been taken.

 

Confidentiality. The candidate’s materials are privy only to those who have the right to vote on this level of review. The deliberations and discussions of the Ad Hoc Sixth-Year Review Committee are confidential. That committee’s report to the relevant members of the department is confidential to those members of the department.

 

Materials for the Dean’s Office. Materials to be submitted by the Department to the Dean’s Office include the following:

 

1. The materials submitted by the candidate

2. Six to eight letters, solicited from outside experts competent to assess the candidate’s teaching and professional standing, accompanied by a letter from the chairperson identifying all referees solicited for references and providing a brief description of their qualifications to assess the candidate’s work. (The chair of the ad hoc review committee is designated to solicit and receive such letters.) The letter requesting appraisal should be neutral in tone; a sample copy should be forwarded, and all responses must be forwarded to the Dean. Indicate on each letter whether the recommender was the choice of the candidate or that of the department. If outside experts choose not to write, please note.

3. A cover letter from the department Chair that includes:

  • assessment of candidate’s reputation in his or her field
  • a statement of how the recommended continuance would affect the department;
  • a brief statement of the internal procedures of the department in making its decision: what ranks voted, the result of the vote, and the department Chair’s interpretation of the collective will of the department;
  • The department Chair should explain and summarize the discussion during the departmental meeting
  • The department Chair should also provide his/her own assessment of the candidate.

 

Denial and Departmental Appeal. Faculty who have been denied continuance are separated from the University by the end of their term appointment, which is usually the end of the seventh year.

 

Timeline

The process begins in the spring of the fifth year.

Date Procedure
Fifth year  
1 March Process begins; candidate receives copy of this timeline and of the document “Procedure for application for the sixth-year review of the Lecturer”
Before March Break Having read the document, the candidate consults with the Chair about the requirements and procedures
30 March Ad Hoc Sixth-Year Review Committee has been appointed by the Chair
15 April Candidate has supplied the Chair a list of 5 external reviewers, with regular and email addresses, including statement of relationship of each to the candidate
30 April All potential external experts have been contacted and requested to perform the external review
15 June Supporting materials have been submitted by the candidate to the Chair
30 June Supporting materials will have been sent by the departmental Chair or the head of the Ad-Hoc Review Committee to six to eight external reviewers
Sixth Year  
1 September First meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee has taken place
1 Sept - 1 Oct Receipt of external evaluations
1 October Teaching evaluations have been submitted from two faculty members who have observed classes. (Those faculty members are chosen by the Head of the Ad Hoc Sixth-Year Review Committee.)
1 Oct - 15 Nov Ad Hoc Sixth-Year Review Committee meets as often as necessary to make its decision and write its report
15 November Ad Hoc Sixth-Year Review Committee’s report is made available to the relevant members of the department
Before Thanksgiving Break The relevant members of the Department meet and vote; Department Chair immediately informs the candidate of the outcome of the vote
1 December Dean receives review materials from Chair
1 February Last date for Dean to report to Provost