College Policies

Here are some common questions and answers having to do with the reappointment process. If you have a question, please send it to Alison Miller (Alison.Miller-1@colorado.edu), and we’ll get an answer to you directly and, if appropriate, via this web page.

 

​ 

Following is a description of the policies and procedures followed in the College of Arts and Sciences in personnel cases, including comprehensive review, promotion to associate professor and/or granting of continuous tenure, and promotion to full professor.

The mission of the College of Arts and Sciences is to provide instruction and to carry out research, scholarship, and creative work in a wide variety of academic disciplines. Thus, cases coming forward to the VCAC from the College cover the range and diversity of the academy.

Despite the disciplinary variance, the College faculty adhere to a common set of principles in evaluating excellence and meritorious accomplishment in their scholarly lives. A&S faculty have a responsibility to engage in research and creative work in their disciplines. In order to achieve a standard of excellence, faculty members are expected to have research or creative-work profiles at the national and international level and to have developed programs of sustained intellectual and creative activity.

As an equal responsibility, the teaching role of the faculty is to be crafted in a way that assures that their intellectual and creative talents are reflected in all levels and forms of instruction, both graduate and undergraduate. The College regards this responsibility to teach (broadly defined) as a highly significant part of the role and mission of the College and its various departments and programs.

Finally, faculty members in the College also serve their disciplines, the campus, and the larger communities in which the University is located, with outreach and service activities that enable these communities to benefit from the research and creative activity of the faculty and the students of the College.

Every faculty member's career ideally should reflect an optimal mix of teaching, research, and service activities. In practice, individual faculty members at various times in their careers may for legitimate reasons emphasize one area more and the others less. The College and its students benefit most when we recruit and reappoint those faculty members who have the greatest promise to excel in each of these areas during their long and fruitful careers at the University. Awarding tenure is an especially important recognition of the fact that the faculty member has attained and promises to continue high levels of performance in all of these interrelated activities.

Although the basic standardsof judgment exercised in our disciplines do not vary considerably, the materials upon which those judgments of scholarly and creative work are based differ considerably from discipline to discipline.

For instance, it is extremely important that the quality of work in the pure and applied sciences be demonstrated in publications. Where applicable, success in obtaining extramural, peer reviewed grants is expected. Faculty members in other disciplines, such as those in the fine and performing arts, neither require nor have available this level of external support to do their work and therefore normally do not use this measure in assessing candidate quality. Instead, dramatic productions, successful showings of one's studio art, and creative works in costume design or on the stage are assessed in quantitative terms as well as in the qualitative evaluations made by the national artistic and performing communities upon which faculty members in these areas ultimately rely for their reputations.

Another configuration of assessment measures can be seen in the fact that some disciplines clearly regard the publication of scholarly books as a central feature of excellent performance (notably disciplines such as History, English, and foreign languages), whereas others are more dependent upon publication in refereed journals (for instance, Economics). Some disciplines, in this regard, quantify productivity in different ways, even when the same scholarly format is emphasized. For instance, in some areas of the natural sciences, where team projects are common, numerous jointly-authored papers often are seen as evidence of research accomplishment, whereas in the humanities, faculty members traditionally work in a more individualistic fashion and greater value is thus placed on single-authored papers. Therefore, the frequency of publication may be less in the latter disciplines, although the impact may be as great as in other disciplines where numerous papers are to be expected in any given year.

Books and articles written by faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences are generally considered “finished” when they are in print or in galley stage. That is, a publication can be considered finished when all corrections and modifications are complete. Works that are still in the review and revision stage are considered as works-in-progress. 

In order to be judged meritorious in research or creative work, faculty must have established a strong record of accomplishment as judged against the criteria of the primary unit and College. A meritorious record must evidence the following: regular research activity, sustained productivity in a line or lines of research going beyond the dissertation, intellectual originality and independence, high quality as indicated by publication in recognized refereed journals or similarly prestigious venues, and impact on relevant fields of scholarship. Additional indicators include external funding, invitations to publish or present, and awards.

Demonstrated excellence in research or creative work, in addition to satisfying the primary unit’s criteria for meritorious accomplishment, requires demonstrated research or creative works accomplishment that can be considered equivalent to that of the top group of tenured faculty in the discipline at a similar stage of career, here and in comparable departments or programs at other institutions. External review letters play an important role in this judgment.

Teaching is reflected in diverse contributions as well. For example, faculty teach in large lecture classes, small seminars, laboratories and studios, independent study, and supervision of creative work, scholarship, and research at both the undergraduate and graduate level. Teaching is evaluated based on a wide variety of criteria reflecting the many types of instruction that take place in the College of Arts and Sciences. The factors considered in determining whether or not a candidate has demonstrated meritorious achievement in teaching include: the record of the candidate in both undergraduate and graduate classroom instruction, the quality and quantity of individualized instruction and mentoring the candidate has performed, contributions to the curriculum of the College, thoughtful preparation of course materials and syllabi, conscientious grading, involvement of students in research activities (for example, through the Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program), work with the Faculty Teaching Excellence Program, and participation in professional pedagogical activities or organizations. 

Excellence in teaching is based on many of the same factors, but a teaching record may be deemed excellent only if it goes both qualitatively and quantitatively beyond excellent classroom teaching and beyond other standard activities that support classroom teaching. In order to document an evaluation that a candidate has achieved excellence in teaching, the department must provide evidence of significant achievements in addition to excellent classroom performance. Relevant indicators of such achievements may include a subset of the following: evidence of exceptionally strong performance in individualized instruction of graduate and/or undergraduate students, substantial contributions to curriculum development (such as creating new certification or interdisciplinary programs, or developing an unusual number of innovative new courses), effective integration of service-learning and community-based activities into coursework, important visiting professorships or artist-in-residence appointments emphasizing teaching activities, effective teaching in residential academic programs or Honors Program, significant participation in professional pedagogical organizations, the publication of noteworthy pedagogical papers or textbooks. Receipt of college-wide or campus-wide teaching awards may be an indicator of an excellent teaching case, but is not a prerequisite. Additional criteria deemed suitable by the evaluating unit that are clearly documented also will be considered.

Service to department or program is expected of all faculty members of the College. The College of Arts and Sciences subscribes to the philosophy that the record of service of junior faculty members should show a trajectory of increasing diversity and contribution over the probationary period for tenure, but that the overall commitment to service during this period should be less than for more senior faculty. In this regard, the written description of a meritorious service record offered by the Office of Faculty Affairs (dated 5 July 2000) is consistent with College expectations for junior faculty. Substantive service of high quality performed for the University, the profession, and the community is an expected component of the typical case for promotion to full professor in the College.

Taken altogether, therefore, the disciplines in the College of Arts and Sciences represent a wide diversity of intellectual activity, focus, and definition of productivity. Our personnel cases will reflect this diversity as well as the varying disciplinary criteria for measuring and assessing excellence. I hope always that the Provost and the VCAC will seek the advice of the Dean and the Arts and Sciences Personnel Committee, as well as that of the departments, in discussing the standards against which individual faculty performance is to be assessed and the measures used to assess it. In this way we can succeed in assuring fair, equitable, and vigorous application of the highest standards in all cases.

The final issues that I wish to address are the composition and review processes of the Arts and Sciences Personnel Committee. Membership on the Personnel Committee of the College is by appointment from the Arts and Sciences Faculty Senate membership (usually 4 minimum) and via nomination by the Dean. 

Our procedures for review are as follows:

Cases coming from departments with positive recommendations are assigned to 2-member subcommittees. Subcommittee members carefully read the entire file. The complete file is available to any Personnel Committee member who wishes to read it. At a Personnel Committee meeting, subcommittee members present the case and make a recommendation. A discussion and a vote follow. If this vote is negative, it is considered to be a motion for all members to read the complete file, and the case is rescheduled. Subsequent discussion and committee vote on a recommendation to the Dean are postponed to a future meeting.

Subcommittee members, Divisional Deans, or the Dean may ask the full Committee to read the complete file prior to or during the scheduled presentation. Referral of the complete file to the full Committee at any time should not be construed as implying that there is a problem with the case.

Cases coming from departments with negative recommendations automatically are read by the full Committee. When the Committee’s vote disagrees with a department's recommendation, whether it is positive or negative, the file is returned to the department for reconsideration. The Committee requires that the department response include a full department vote. Upon its return to the Dean’s office, the Arts and Sciences Personnel Committee again considers the file, and a recommendation is made to the Dean. 

Once the Personnel Committee reaches a decision, a Committee letter is written by the subcommittee chair. Letters for files read only by subcommittee members are reviewed by both readers and by the appropriate Divisional Dean. Letters for cases in which complete files are read by the full Committee are reviewed by all committee members and by the appropriate Divisional Dean. The file is then sent to the Dean for their separate recommendation. The Committee’s and Dean's recommendations are added to the file, and the file is sent to the VCAC. Copies of Personnel Committee and the Dean's letters of recommendation are provided to the candidate and to the candidate's chair or director.

No member of the Personnel Committee may participate in their own reappointment, promotion, or tenure case; in a case from their own department; or in a case regarding a family member, spouse, partner, or former student. Members of the Personnel Committee must disclose any potential conflicts of interest that might compromise objective evaluation of the case (research collaboration, close friendship, business relationship, etc.) to the chair of the Personnel Committee. Divisional Deans and the Dean attend Personnel Committee meetings to serve as liaisons between the Committee and the departments.

Confidentiality stands as a core feature of all our faculty personnel processes. It grounds the ability of the faculty to make collective, deliberative decisions about hiring, reappointment, tenure, and promotion. Violations of confidentiality not only undermine the decision making involved in faculty governance, but also can poison the atmosphere in a department or other unit.

Faculty members should neverdiscuss confidential personnel meetings with anyone who was not at the meeting or qualified to attend the meeting; one may also discuss the meeting with officers who are in line to review the case (the Dean, the AVC for Faculty Affairs, the Provost, the Chancellor). It is particularly important that faculty members not talk about such discussions with perspective colleagues or with colleagues under review. Even a decision to tell someone a piece of good news (i.e., “I voted for you!”) is inappropriate as it can, particularly in smaller units, expose the vote of another member of the unit.

Although the personnel process is confidential, faculty still have a duty to report discriminatory language or actions to the appropriate office when personnel decisions are based on race, color, national origin, sex, pregnancy, age, disability, creed, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, veteran status, political affiliation, or political philosophy or are otherwise retaliatory in nature.

The need for confidentiality and the duty to report discriminatory language or actions should be reiterated at the beginning of every personnel discussion, from hiring to promotion to full professor. Faculty members who violate confidentiality may be found to have violated the standards for appropriate professional conduct.

Reappointment and Comprehensive Review

All non-tenured tenure-track faculty members are required by the Board of Regents to undergo Comprehensive Review so as to receive advice from their colleagues about their progress and about how they might improve moving forward towards tenure and promotion. In most cases, where a colleague receives an initial four-year appointment, comprehensive review is connected with reappointment for another three years—thus the phrase comprehensive review for reappointment. In some cases, colleagues will join with three years of prior professional experience counted towards the tenure clock and thus will not need to be reappointed, but will instead have one four-year appointment prior to the awarding of tenure. They still must undergo comprehensive review for advice. This review is informally called a “Feedback Only Comprehensive Review” or a “Non-Reappointment Comprehensive Review.” It must be conducted, and the faculty must vote on the action; the vote taken by the faculty is simply to assert that the comprehensive review has been completed and appropriate advice has been provided.

Under current campus policy, faculty members may stand for tenure at any time after the completion of comprehensive review, including immediately after; that is, comprehensive review and tenure and promotion may occur within the same year or the review for tenure and promotion may occur in any subsequent year up to and including the mandatory review year. Departments and review committees must vote separately on both comprehensive review/reappointment and tenure and promotion if they coincide. All the votes must be recorded and forwarded.

Proper Recording of Votes on Tenure

To understand the proper recording of votes, we must recall the University’s standards for tenure. In order to receive tenure at the University of Colorado, faculty members must demonstrate meritorious performance in each of the three areas of teaching, research or creative work, and service, and demonstrate excellence in either teaching, or research or creative work (Regent Law 5). For example, if a faculty member were to achieve excellence in research, they would also need to be found meritorious in teaching and service; and if a faculty member were to achieve excellence in teaching, they would also need to be found meritorious in research and service. If a candidate were to be found meritorious in all three areas, or excellent in teaching or research or creative work and less than meritorious in any of the other areas, they would not meet the standard for tenure.

Units in almost all cases require confidential ballots be cast on personnel matters. Appropriate precautions must be used to insure the confidentiality of votes. While the final vote tally is information available to the candidate, the department, and other levels of review, individual votes should not be revealed. Paper ballots must not reveal the name of participating voters. Online systems that protect confidentiality such as Qualtrics may be used (for help with Qualtrics, please contact Mark Diekhoff in OIT [mark.diekhoff@colorado.edu]). Email should never be used to cast ballots or to conduct deliberative personnel conversations.Email is appropriate for setting meetings, requesting external letters, providing lists of finalists for a job, and other similar logistical matters. It is understood that personnel material may need to be posted on password-protected, read-only servers, but everyone should understand the security limitations of such sites; OIT is a good resource for thinking about the technical issues around security. The goal is always to protect the confidentiality of personnel matters.

Prior to any vote on tenure, the voting faculty in the unit should be informed of the standard necessary for the awarding of tenure (see above) at the University of Colorado, so as to avoid the casting of invalid ballots in the voting process.

Invalid Ballots

An invalid ballot will result from any of the following scenarios, including but not limited to: 

• casting an overall vote but abstaining from the vote in one or more of the three areas of teaching, research or creative work, and service; 
• voting in one or more of the three areas and abstaining from the overall vote; 
• voting less than meritorious in any of the three areas and voting yes overall; 
• voting meritorious in all three areas and voting yes overall; 
• voting excellent in research or teaching and meritorious in the other areas, and then voting no overall. 

For an example of an improperly recorded vote, please see the vote recorded below:

In this case, 28 votes are cast. The vote is recorded as 23 YES, 3 NO, 2 ABSTAIN, with votes in the three areas as follows:

Example of improperly recorded vote
	Excellent	Meritorious	Less than Meritorious	Abstention
Teaching	2	22	2	2
Research/Creative Work	26	0	0	2
Service	0	21	6	1

Since there are 6 less than meritorious votes in service, there should also be at least 6 no votes instead of 3, as, according to the standard for tenure, faculty must achieve at least meritorious in all three areas, while being found excellent in either teaching or research. Thus, in the above case, there would be 3 invalid ballots, as six votes in service did not meet the required threshold, with only 3 of them being properly recorded as no votes. Instead of a total of 28 votes cast in the above case, there would only be 25, with 3 votes being recorded as invalid.

The number of invalid votes should be recorded as INVALID, in addition to the YES, NO, and ABSTAIN votes. If invalid votes are not recorded as such, the Office of Faculty Affairs will record them as no votes.

Tie Votes

A majority yes vote as defined by the unit’s governing documents is needed for a recommendation for reappointment, tenure, or promotion. A tie vote is considered a negative recommendation to the next level of review; it also triggers a return to the prior level for reconsideration and revote if that level had provided a positive recommendation. Once the prior level has reconsidered the case and voted a second time, the case will return to the next review level for its reconsideration and a second vote.

Recommendation/Vote Disagreement Between Levels of Review

Any time there is a disagreement in the recommendation for reappointment, tenure, or promotion between any two levels of review, the case must return to the prior level of review for reconsideration and revote. For example, the primary unit recommends reappointment, tenure or promotion, and the next level, the dean’s review committee, does not. In this scenario, the case would return to the primary unit for reconsideration and revote. After reconsideration and revote at the primary unit level have taken place, the case would return to the dean’s review committee for reconsideration and revote. If, upon reconsideration and revote the outcome is still the same, the case will move on to the next level of review; in instances of disagreement between levels of review, the case will only return to the prior level of review one time. Letters need to be written at both review levels detailing the reconsideration and revote. The dean may also need to provide a second recommendation, if he/she has additional recommendations after the second round of voting has taken place.

Student Letters

The students’ voice in personnel decisions are important. ALL student letters received by a department reviewing a faculty member for reappointment, tenure, or promotion must be included in the dossier for the candidate. (If a truly offensive letter appears, the department should consult with its dean’s office and with the Office of Faculty Affairs on how to proceed). The removal of a student letter from a dossier may be found to be a violation of the standards for appropriate professional conduct.

Student letters should be placed in the file in appropriate categories: 

• student letters/emails solicited by or submitted to the unit by the candidate; 
• unsigned letters/emails gathered by the unit from students; 
• signed letters/emails solicited by the unit or submitted to the unit by a student. 

Candidates may not see the letters in the third category.

Student letters are not required as long as a department uses other appropriate multiple measures of teaching. Student letters may not, in fact, be the most representative way of gathering student responses, and thus many units now use guided student interviews.

External Letters 

In normal tenure and promotion cases, six external letters are required. These letters should be solicited following the procedures set forth in the unit’s bylaws or other personnel policies. In general, the candidate will provide a list of potential reviewers and the proper individual or group within the unit will provide another list; ideally, three would come from each list. ALL letters received must be included in the file, regardless of their recommendation. After the initial set of six letters is received, additional letters should be requested only after consultation with the dean’s office and the Office of Faculty Affairs. In non-mandatory cases (early tenure, promotion to full professor), a set of letters might lead the department to recommend that the candidate delay her/his review until another year; if the candidate agrees to withdraw, as the file is not moving forward, the letters are discarded and a new set requested when the review next occurs.

External letters are confidential and are not shared with the candidate. The names of reviewers are also confidential and should not be revealed in any evaluation documents that can be read by the candidate.

FOR HIRES WITH TENURE: Please include the external letters that the primary unit considered in reaching their conclusion that the candidate deserves an appointment with tenure at our institution. A minimum of three letters is required. The letters may be the recommendation letters submitted with the application for the position.For cases where the candidate does not hold tenure at their current institution, and/or appointment includes promotion to a higher rank, six external letters should be collected as a full review for tenure and promotion must be conducted.

This memo provides guidance to members of Primary Unit Evaluation Committees (PUEC) in their task of preparing personnel dossiers for comprehensive review, tenure, and promotion cases. The Personnel Committee members have reviewed candidates who were disadvantaged because of shortcomings in dossier preparation by the unit, reflecting poorly not only on the candidate, but on future candidates from the same primary unit.

PUEC members perform a number of functions to help a candidate prepare a quality dossier. PUEC members often forget that quality of the dossier contents and their written report sets the perception of how thorough and how rigorously the department has evaluated the case. The quality of the PUEC’s work defines the degree of trust that the review committees at the College and campus levels have in the primary unit’s judgment. Please pay particular attention to the following aspects of review and dossier preparation processes:

Curriculum Vita Review: CV construction is the candidate’s responsibility, but PUEC members can be helpful by reviewing the content and format of the candidate’s CV before it is submitted to the dossier and especially before it is sent out to external reviewers. There is a useful advisory written on the subject of CV organization for personnel dossiers on the web, and both the candidate and the PUEC should review it. In addition to the advisories contained in that document, the Personnel Committee would like to add two more:

The vague meaning of “forthcoming”: We discourage candidates and PUEC’s from describing publications as “forthcoming.” The term forthcoming means different things in different disciplines, and to different individuals within a single discipline, and so its use obfuscates the real status of the publication. If a publication is out of the author’s hands – that is, if it has been accepted for publication with no further revisions needed -use the term “in press.” If it is anything else, use an appropriate descriptor (“in preparation”, “in review”, “in revision”, “accepted with revision”, etc.)

Documenting “in Press”: Candidates and PUECs should collaborate on obtaining documentation that a publication is in fact “in press”. This is particularly important when the reappointment or promotion hinges largely on the status of an “in press” monograph or a number of “in press” articles. Documentation may include email or correspondence between the publisher or editor and the author or PUEC member.

The College’s Personnel Committee recently discussed the role that edited and co-edited monographs play in promotion or tenure dossiers. The question was whether an edited contribution should be considered primarily as a professional service, or whether it should be considered primarily as a scholarly contribution, as a book or article would be. Although not unanimous, the Personnel Committee reached agreement that the act of editing a volume is primarily a reflection of professional service and stature in the subfield. If the unit believes that editing a particular volume reflects strong scholarly effort, it is incumbent upon the PUEC to make that case. Junior faculty are advised not to invest too much energy in these endeavors until their scholarly record is excellent based on primary authorship or other creative works.

External Letter Solicitation: PUEC members should solicit recommended referees from the candidate, and should itself assemble an independent list of referees. Please do not allow solicitation of letters from individuals with close professional or personal relationships with the candidate, as this reflects very poorly on the rigor of the department, and occasionally compromises a case. Units that do not follow this advice harm not only the candidate’s case, but also their unit’s reputation in the eyes of the review committees. A useful advisory has been written that lists best and worst practices in this area (see the above URL). Both the candidate and the PUEC members are encouraged to read this advisory.

Solicitation of Teaching Evaluations: PUEC members could be putting more effort into documenting teaching, particularly in those cases where they think a case might be made for teaching excellence. Last moment peer reviews of classroom teaching communicates to review committees exactly what they are, an afterthought.

PUECs are obligated to provide evaluative assessments of at least two additional measures of teaching beyond the FCQs. PUECs that do not meet this requirement will experience a return of the dossier to the department for the PUEC to complete its work, followed by another vote by the department.

Please note this important policy change: a new campus level policy interpretation has determined that ALL student letters (current, former, graduate students, postdoctoral trainees) are to be treated as confidential and summarized in the same manner as are external referee letters.

Once the dossier has been assembled and letters solicited, the PUEC plays an important step in evaluating the merits of the reappointment or promotion case. The College Personnel Committee would like to offer PUEC members the following advice before they start to write these evaluative summaries of the teaching, research or creative work, and service records.

Credibility & Balance: The PUEC is not an advocacy assignment and members shouldn’t write from that perspective. Review committees read the PUEC report as the voice of the department and blind advocacy diminishes the reader’s sense that the department is making a dispassionate recommendation. Assertions of excellence while turning a blind eye to the shortcomings of the case (and nearly every case has some relative weakness) erodes the credibility of the PUEC and the department. An honest discussion of a period of weak publishing or a poor teaching semester will not harm the candidate. Glossing over or ignoring indicators of candidate performance only guarantees that they’ll be the focus of scrutiny and discussion at higher levels of review.

A second area of needed balance involves abstracting of quotes from external letters. Selecting only the most laudatory passages, or only the most critical statements out of context, stands in sharp contrast to the rigor and balance we try to apply to our own scholarship. The bias and “spin” do not escape the notice of higher review committees. An overall review of each letter by the PUEC would be more valuable to committee members. Review committee members read each letter in full.

Use the language of meritorious and excellent: The College Personnel Committee measures each case against the standards of the department and the College. The College standards for what constitutes a meritorious record in each area, and what constitutes an excellent record is described in the College letter to the Vice Chancellor’s Advisory Committee (VCAC). PUEC members are urged to evaluate each record using the arguments and language of that letter. Read the section on teaching excellence before making an argument for excellence based primarily on high FCQs, which is generally not a very persuasive argument to committee members.

Assessment of publishing venues: With the availability of web data that rank natural science and social science journals by citation indices or measures of impact, review committees are making judgments of journal quality as one indirect measure of the quality of the published scholarship. PUEC members should consider doing this preemptively as part of their assessment of the candidate’s record, as they are in a more informed position than are members of the Personnel Committee or VCAC to assess the role and influence of each journal used by the candidate. Consider answering the following questions: What are the best journals in this candidate’s discipline? How do the journals used by the candidate compare? What is your reference or authority for these rankings? (e.g., external letters, Web of Knowledge, journal rejection rates). For book venues, can you make analogous comparative statements? The Web of Knowledge provides data on citation indices for most journals in the natural and social sciences at: http://apps.webofknowledge.com/WOS_GeneralSearch_input.do?product=WOS&search_mode=GeneralSearch&SID=5DCj3rcwvTDWPgA9gFS&preferencesSaved= 

Your associate dean is a good source of information if you would like elaboration on any of these points.

The curriculum vita (CV) is arguably the most important component of a faculty member's reappointment or promotion dossier. It is also the least standardized document in the dossier. Most junior faculty assemble their CV based upon one or a few examples; often the example is that of their doctoral or master’s degree mentor. In many cases faculty will assume that if the CV was sufficient in style and format to be hired into a department, it must also be sufficient for reappointment and promotion purposes. This is often not the case. 

Faculty approaching a personnel review should consider reformatting their vita for the internal audiences represented by department, college or school, and University personnel committees. These committees expect to see vitae that are easily read by scholars outside the discipline, and most importantly, that are absolutely accurate and free of exaggerated entries. Alumni of college and University personnel committees will readily recall instances where a poorly constructed CV triggered suspicious scrutiny of the entire dossier. This is usually more injurious to the faculty member's and the department's reputations than it is to the outcome of the case, but it is easily avoided by constructing a clearly read and accurate document of one’s accomplishments. Below I list some general guidelines and a few observations that you might contemplate as you prepare your own CV for review, or discuss with a colleague the construction of their own CV. 

• All CVs have some discipline-specific aspects. This is not a problem to review committees. Clarity and accuracy can be achieved while retaining the disciplinary-uniqueness of the CV. Most CVs have major sections dealing with: 

1. educational background
2. academic employment history 
3. grants/awards/honors
4. research and/or creative works 
5. teaching accomplishments
6. service activities 

Making these sections distinct makes the curriculum vita easier to read. There is no set format, however, so if other additional sections make sense to you, please go ahead and utilize them. 

• Listings of scholarly publications and creative works and performances are scrutinized by review committees. Completeness and accuracy are of paramount importance in this section. You can anticipate that a reviewer will look up at least an occasional citation. 
• A common error in vitae is the mixing of refereed or juried work with similar work that is not peer-reviewed. No single error erodes the credibility of a candidate's dossier more. Candidates for reappointment r promotion and tenure are encouraged to subdivide this section into as many sub-sections as required in order to list each type of scholarly or creative work separately. Alternatively, peer reviewed work within a single listing of publications or performances should be identified by asterisks, footnoting, or similar identifiers. 
• Recent review committees have asked that venues for performances, shows, or other creative works be subdivided into those that the primary unit considers to be of national and international importance, versus those of local and regional significance.
  Candidates should seek guidance as to what performances, shows, or popular writings should be listed under "service", and which should be listed under headings of scholarly work. Multiple listing of activities under both scholarly and service activities is discouraged unless it is truly appropriate to do so. Inappropriate duplication sends a negative message to a reviewer. 
• Some disciplines commonly list jointly authored works as "with Jane Doe and John Doe." For purposes of personnel reviews, this tradition is problematic since it disguises senior and junior authorship. A preferred citation style lists each author, in order of authorship. If authorship order does not reflect relative contribution, it can be discussed somewhere in the dossier. 
• Some disciplines commonly omit inclusive page numbers from their citations. For purposes of personnel reviews, inclusive page citations (p112-116) is preferred as it allows reviewers to assess the relative magnitude and comprehensive nature of the several citations in the record. 
• Written work not yet accepted for publication should be clearly identified as such. Written work not yet submitted for publication should also be clearly identified. Separate sub-sections for this work might be considered. 
• Electronic publications should be fully cited in their own section, with some indication of size or length included. If you have information on the number of visits to a scholarly Web site, include it. If the site was anonymously peer- reviewed, it is to the candidate’s advantage to include that information. Please provide the complete URL so that reviewers may evaluate the quality and significance of the electronic document. 
• In some disciplines, publishing in conference proceedings is an important, peer- reviewed venue. In others, conference proceedings are not reviewed, or only superficially reviewed for purposes of organizing a conference into sessions. Conference proceeding should be distinguished as being peer-reviewed or not peer-reviewed with the same clarity as journal articles and monographs. 
• Listings of teaching accomplishments should also indicate faculty involvement in individualized instruction at the graduate and undergraduate levels. It is an important part of the teaching responsibilities for some faculty, and it should not be overlooked. Faculty commonly list the names and completion dates (with degrees or honors) of the students that they have served as primary mentor. Some candidates underline the names of their student coauthors in their listing of publications. This is also a good idea, since coauthoring with students can be a positive attribute of a teaching and mentoring record. Listing courses taught or FCQ ratings as part of the CV is also sometimes observed, although this same information already appears in another section of the dossier. 
• Participation in FTEP workshops might be listed under a section heading for teaching. Any study guides, manuals, workbooks, or electronic media produced for student or class use should also be listed. 
• Service to professional organizations, government agencies, department, college or school, and University should be detailed. Document outreach activities to the community undertaken on behalf of the University. Listings can be annotated when some explanation is required. 
• If you have a colleague in a discipline distant to your own, ask them to review for clarity a draft of your reappointment/promotion/tenure CV.

This list is to be used in tandem with the Requirements document that comes with your reappointment packets. Most of the materials in the reappointment packets, and many of those referenced in this document, are available on the web.

General Timeline

April:

List of candidates for reappointment, promotion, and tenure sent to departments from the Dean’s Office

Approximate Deadlines for submitting files to the Dean’s office:

(Note: Definitions below)

Oct 1: Comprehensive Review

Nov 1: Promotion to Associate Professor and/or Tenure

Jan 2: Promotion to Full Professor

March:

Decisions begin being received from the Vice Chancellor’s Office.

Definitions for Terms used on the Reappointment List sent by the Dean’s Office

For Professors

Comprehensive: A complete evaluation during the fall of the last year of the current appointment (usually the 4th year) or as indicated in the letter of offer. 

Promotion to Associate and/or Tenure: Review for tenure is required during the seventh year of probationary service. Earlier consideration is possible, but this possibility should be discussed first with the divisional dean. Tenure is normally linked with promotion from Assistant to Associate Professor, although this is determined by the department and the Dean.

Promotion to Full: This voluntary review for promotion may be requested by the department or by the professor. This may occur at any time, but is typically after six or seven years as an Associate Professor with tenure.

College Professor of Distinction: The department may submit a pre-nomination (an abbreviated packet) for an individual who is considered to be distinguished as an exemplary teacher, scholar, and public servant who has extraordinary international importance and recognition. The department will be notified whether a complete file should be assembled and submitted for further consideration. Additional information will be sent from the Dean’s office when nominations are being accepted.

Standards to be Met

The Chair’s Report should use the following language (bolded) when assessing the strength of a candidate’s file: Excellent, meritorious, below meritorious. 

Comprehensive Review:

The purpose of this review is to ascertain whether the candidate is making normal progress for promotion and tenure.

Promotion and/or Tenure:

“Tenure may be awarded only to faculty members with demonstrated meritorious performance in each of the three areas of teaching, research or creative work, and service, and demonstrated excellence in either teaching, or research or creative work."

Promotion to Full Professor:

“Professors should have the terminal degree appropriate to their field or its equivalent, and (a) a record that, taken as a whole, is judged to be excellent; (b) a record of significant contribution to both graduate and undergraduate education, unless individual or departmental circumstances can be shown to require a stronger emphasis, or singular focus, on one or the other; and (c) a record, since receiving tenure and promotion to associate professor, that indicates substantial, significant, and continued growth, development, and accomplishment in teaching, research, scholarship or creative work, and service.” (Adopted by the Board of Regents 2/17/94.)

Procedures

Each department submits one electronic dossier in PDF format for each tenure-track candidate following the instructions at this link. 

VCAC Checklist

This section gives information in addition to what is provided on the Description of VCAC Checklist Requirements, and matches the numbering from the VCAC Checklist:

1. Dean’s Recommendation. 
   1. ​Completed in the Dean’s Office. 
2. Statement of Dean’s Review Committee. 
   1. ​Completed by the A&S Personnel Committee through the Dean’s Office.
3. Chair’s Report of Department Evaluation and Recommendation. 
   1. A copy of this letter is to be given to the candidate by the department at the time the letter is finalized. 
      1. ​The Chair of the primary unit is responsible for preparing a report of the department’s recommendation. In addition to what is stated on the Description of VCAC Checklist Requirements, this report needs to relate recommendations to the standard within the department and to the standards of the Regents for this level of decision and make a case for the standard being met. This includes an assessment of the quality of journals and presses in which publications appear. For tenure/promotion files, include a copy of the letters from the comprehensive review written by the Chair, the Dean, and the VCAC. The Chair’s report should address whether or not issues raised during the Comprehensive Review were met. Is there a different standard now? Explain anomalies in time lines; e.g., PhD in 1988, but tenure now. Why? Where are PhD students (if any) placed? If faculty eligible to vote did not, provide and explanation for this.
   2. Do not reveal external reviewers’ names or the names of the institutions, or provide descriptive information about the reviewers that may identify them in any letters (whether from the Chair, the subcommittee, or any other internal letter. Descriptive information can be provided on the list of external reviewers that identifies those chosen by the department and those chosen by the candidate.)
      1. Letters disclosing outside names will be returned for editing.
   3. In preparing dossiers for submission to the Arts and Sciences Personnel Committee, chairs shall adhere to the procedures outlined in the Faculty Handbook (III 30-31):
   4. The head of the primary unit making the recommendation shall prepare a comprehensive dossier on the candidate for submission to the group or individual making both the first and second level review. The dossier shall include the following materials: ... a statement describing the procedures followed and actions taken by the unit making the recommendation, including the reasons for the recommendation and any dissenting statements from the recommendation. (This statement must include the results of any vote taken.)
   5. A chair may submit an independent opinion of a case, either in a separate letter or as part of the Chair’s Report (see Faculty Handbook I 20-21).
4. Statement of Primary Unit Evaluation Committee (PUEC). 
   1. A copy of this letter is to be given to the candidate by the department at the time the letter is finalized.
   2. There is an advisory memo written to PUEC members regarding their duties available on the College web site. Department Chairs and Program Directors are not allowed to also be members of a candidate’s PUEC.
5. Current Vita.
   1. ​This should be comprehensive and up-to-date. Include information on all career matters, not just publications. Discriminate between peer versus non-reviewed scholarly work and between performances of a scholarly nature versus service and outreach activities. See former Associate Vice Chancellor Gleeson’s memo titled “Advice on Curriculum Vita Construction for Personnel Reviews” for complete information (included in personnel packets and available on the web).
6. Faculty Statement on Research/Creative Work.
7. Faculty Statement on Teaching.
8. Faculty Statement on Service/Outreach.
9. Comprehensive Review Letters from Dean’s Review Committee and from Dean.
   1. ​Required for promotion to associate professor and/or tenure decisions only.
10. Multiple Measures of Teaching.
    1. ​The department receives the instructor’s summary FCQ directly from the FCQ office. A breadth of measures helps the Arts and Sciences committee make its assessment. A sample letter for solicitation of student comments is available on the web. If student letters are included, state how they were solicited. The most valuable letters are ones that were selected randomly (for example, every XX student from a class list, all students from a particular group, etc.).
    2. A recent policy reinterpretation provides that all letters from students (current, former, graduate students, postdoctoral trainees) are to be treated as confidential and protected in the same way as are external referee letters. 
    3. Faculty peer review is essential. This peer review, generally conducted at least once per year, should include visits to the classroom for multiple courses over multiple years. For faculty peer review, state the basis for faculty peer review, how faculty were chosen, and by whom. An evaluation by the primary review committee of the teaching portfolio (syllabi, exams, etc.) also is helpful.
11. One copy of your letter soliciting letters of evaluation (for external evaluation).
12. Six External Letters of Evaluation for Promotion and/or Tenure.
    1. ​At least six outside letters are required. Departments may want to request one or two additional letters above the required six, so that at least six are received. Do not overload the file with an excessive number of letters by requesting an excessive number. However, all outside letters that are received must be included with the file. Do not promise absolute confidentiality or privilege to the potential reviewers. Use the wording in sample letters provided by the VCAC. There is an advisory memo on external reviewer selection on the College web site.
    2. Along with the external letters include:
       1. A CV or a brief statement of qualification for each referee;
       2. A listing of who suggested each referee: the department, the candidate or both; and
       3. Information on the candidate’s relationship to each referee.
    3. If a reviewer did not write a review, indicate the reason if known. Where possible the department should request approximately an equal number of reviews from the candidate’s and the department’s list of potential reviewers. Since the six outside letters are meant to provide some sense of how candidates look to disinterested observers, letters from mentors and close collaborators are discouraged in this section. However, nothing prevents the addition of supplementary documents, e.g., from collaborators, in a separate section.
13. One copy of “Primary Unit Criteria for Promotion and Tenure.”
14. Examples of Publications.
    1. At least three publications are needed for the original notebook only. For grants, include dollar amounts of direct costs only. If the file is for promotion to full professor, remember that the committee will be looking for evidence of significant and continued growth and accomplishment since tenure. Therefore, publications since tenure are appropriate.

Miscellaneous

Supplemental Information Received by the Dean’s Office

Occasionally supplemental information such as a minority opinion from the department, additional information from the candidate, or letters from students are received directly by the Dean’s office for inclusion in a notebook. In these cases, both the candidate and the Chair are notified in writing, and are given the opportunity to review the information. According to University Counsel, a candidate is eligible to read everything in a file except the external and student letters.

Size of the Voting Unit

In cases for hiring, reappointment, promotion, and tenure, Departments and Programs with fewer than five faculty eligible to vote on a particular personnel action should select additional faculty members from a cognate department or program to bring the voting membership up to five. This expanded group will participate in the departmental discussion prior to a vote and vote on the personnel action. The names of the faculty to be added must be submitted by the Chair of the Primary Unit to the divisional dean for approval prior to any discussions or votes in which they participate. 

FCQ Comment Sheets

Comments that students write on the FCQ forms are confidential comments for the benefit of the instructor. Faculty are not required to provide these comments as part of their evaluation. Although FCQs are required and the results of the FCQs may be used for evaluation as well as for instructor feedback, that is not the case for written comments. The instructor may withhold those from the department if he or she wishes.

Less than 100% Appointments

Review timing for faculty with appointments less than 100% is the same as for full-time faculty. However, the level of expectations for quantity (but not quality) of activities will be according to the percent-time appointment during the entire review period. Standards for quality of teaching, research and service will be the same as for full-time faculty.

---

If you have questions, please contact the staff member supporting the A&S Personnel Committee at Alison Miller (Alison.Miller-1@colorado.edu).

Primary Unit Evaluation Committee Members, and Candidates for Tenure and Promotion

The University of Colorado requires a minimum of six letters of evaluation from disciplinary experts external to the University as part of every promotion and tenure review. These letters are solicited by the primary unit from lists contributed by both the candidate and by the primary unit evaluation committee (PUEC). These letters play an important role in establishing the national stature and the quality of the research or the creative work accomplishments of the faculty member under review. They also represent an attempt to calibrate the campus’ personnel action relative to norms for research intensive institutions of our caliber.

Recently, the Arts and Sciences Personnel Committee and I have become concerned about the effect that these letters can have on a candidate’s career when the authors of the letters are poorly selected. We have seen cases where a candidate’s excellence in research and creative work was obscured by the selection of external reviewers who were poorly qualified to offer an unbiasedassessment of the candidate’s merits, or who were writing from institutions with promotion and tenure standards quite different from our own. As a result, the committee and I have decided to offer a set of guidelines that PUEC members and candidates could consult in the course of nominating external evaluators.

We have found that persuasive external letters are often those that are:

1. authored by distinguished senior members of the discipline (preferably at the rank of full professor), 
2. who have an “arms-length” relationship to the candidate,
3. and whose perspectives of promotion and tenure standards are drawn from experience at AAU and other research-intensive institutions.

Our observations suggest that a candidate’s promotion or tenure review is often compromised by letters of the following types:

1. letters written by graduate or postgraduate mentors, or faculty members of the candidate’s degree-granting institution
2. letters authored by frequent collaborators,
3. letters authored by colleagues whose context for promotion and tenure standards is drawn largely from institutions which would be judged by most to have lower expectations for the quantity or quality of research or creative accomplishment,
4. a predominance of letters authored by colleagues of junior academic rank, or by individuals who were graduate school colleagues of the candidate,
5. superficial letters which do not offer analysis or professional opinion of the scholarly accomplishments of the candidate.

The A&S Personnel Committee and I do not wish to discourage the selection of letters from this second list when they are appropriate. Letters of this sort can sometimes be useful and provide supplemental perspectives to those offered by individuals in the first list. There are also occasions where referees of this second list are the most appropriate choices. In these occasions, it is incumbent upon the PUEC to explain why certain letters were solicited so as not to compromise or damage the candidate’s prospects for a favorable review.

We offer these guidelines because it appears that some units and candidates do not appreciate that letters solicited from under-qualified or potentially biased individuals may sometimes trigger a degree of scrutiny or uncertainty that would otherwise be absent. Weak letter selection not only harms the candidate, it can sometimes also be interpreted to reflect poorly on a primary unit’s rigor or standards. Committee members and I would like to encourage PUEC members and the candidates to consider these guidelines as they construct their lists of potential referees from which letters will be solicited. The associate deans are available for consultation to both candidates and PUECs who might like help in choosing a good list of potential referees.

Dossiers for a comprehensive review, tenure, or promotion must include multiple measures of teaching (see the October 1998 memo on “Ten Ideas for Satisfying ‘Multiple Measures of Teaching’" issued by AVC Todd Gleeson). The gathering of these multiple measures is a joint responsibility of the candidate and the unit; the candidate should make sure that they have in place all the multiple measures they find appropriate, and the unit should make sure that the measures it deems necessary for the evaluation of teaching on a regular basis are included. In order to clarify some issues around the gathering of such information, the Office of Faculty Affairs offers the following guidelines.

Peer Evaluation of Classroom Instruction

The most commonly used form of evaluation, peer reviews of teaching are an important part of a candidate’s teaching dossier.

We consider it a best practice that candidates and units work together to ensure that there is at least one peer evaluation per year the candidate under review has taught; larger units may be able to do reviews on a semester basis. A few letters solicited during the final semester of the probationary period are not sufficient to give a sense of the candidate’s teaching and development as a teacher.

Classroom Interviews and Student Interviews

The Office of Faculty Affairs has found that classroom interviews or interviews of groups of students (as outlined in AVC Gleeson’s memo) are often the best way to gather information about a candidate’s performance as a teacher, as faculty interviewers can acquire focused information about a candidate from a statistically relevant number of current students. OFA recommends that units use this form of gathering student response wherever possible.

Student Letters

Student letters may become part of the file in a variety of ways: the unit may solicit letters, the candidate may solicit letters or include letters they have received from students, and students may send unsolicited letters to the unit. In most cases, the letters solicited by the unit carry the most weight. There are concerns on campus about the statistical validity of small sets of student letters, and units should keep this in mind as they gather materials for the teaching dossier.

The dossier should make clear which letters fall into each of the three categories mentioned above; it is best to have clearly marked sections for each kind of letter.

If the unit collects signed letters from students (this includes emails indicating the name of the student), these letters should be kept in a separate confidential file not available to the candidate. Graduate Students, post-docs, and former students should all be considered as students. A summary of these letters should be prepared by the primary unit evaluation committee and included in the dossier; this summary is available to the candidate. While an attempt will be made to keep these letters confidential during our review process, students solicited for comment should be made aware that their anonymity cannot be protected in the last instance. Unsigned letters or other forms of anonymous information gathered from students may be included in the dossier and may be seen by the candidate.

The backs of FCQ forms provide another source of anonymous student comments. If the faculty member decides to include these forms in the file, all the forms from a course, whether or not they include comments, should be submitted to the PUEC, who in turn certifies that all the forms were submitted for their analysis.

Teaching Portfolios

Candidates may ask that their teaching portfolio be included in the dossier. Such a portfolio can provide a cross-section of a candidate’s work as a teacher. As AVC Gleeson wisely stated in 1998, “Candidates are strongly encouraged to be highly selective and concise in what is included in the dossier. Only the most representative examples should be included. Candidates who overwhelm the dossier with portfolio material have the same effect on review committees that students who submit 40-page term papers have on instructors who made 15-page assignments.”

Pedagogical Publications

Some faculty publish on pedagogy in their field. Such publications can be an important part of a file, particularly if a candidate is being considered for “excellence” in teaching. Candidates should consider carefully whether such publications should be counted in their research/scholarship/creative work portion of their dossier or in the teaching portion. In most cases, such items cannot be counted in two places, though they may be part of a description of work in twoareas.

Assessment of Non-classroom Teaching and Other Contributions to Teaching

A great deal of education takes place outside the classroom; the mentoring of graduate students and undergraduate individualized instruction are particularly noteworthy.

Faculty also contribute to the education of our students by developing new courses, creating special learning experiences, and so on. Candidates should be sure to document such efforts clearly in their dossiers. Units wishing to argue for “excellence” in teaching should note such efforts in making such a case.

External Reviews of Teaching Material

Departments may wish to give candidates the option to have teaching materials (portfolios, FCQs, peer review letters, etc.) reviewed by recognized excellent teachers in the field. This option has not often been used, but it may provide important information, particularly when a candidate is being considered for “excellence” in teaching. Such reports from external reviewers would be held as confidential.

Other Measures

This is not an exhaustive list. Candidates and units should include whatever measures of teaching they found useful and convincing.

The Vice Chancellor's Advisory Committee (VCAC) requires that dossiers for individuals undergoing a comprehensive reappointment, tenure, or promotion review contain multiple measures of teaching above and beyond the FCQ documentation. The purpose of this document is to provide ideas for satisfying this requirement to evaluation committees and faculty approaching a personnel review or promotion.

There are several ways that teaching effectiveness can be evaluated. Listed below are several that I have seen recently as Chair of VCAC. Each suggestion is accompanied by commentary, cautions, or instructions. The expressed opinions are my own. But first,

Two Facts and One Observation

Fact: Every faculty member under review has legal access to any evaluation of him or her written by another faculty member or administrator. There is no such thing as a "Confidential Memorandum" with regards to an evaluation of a colleague's teaching. Authors should understand that any report or evaluation submitted to the dossier may be read and copied by the colleague under review. The ONLY exceptions to this fact are "external letters" - defined as those letters written by experts in the discipline outside the University of Colorado, and letters written by students (graduate or undergraduate) currently enrolled at the University.

Observation: A strong case for excellent teaching is hard to make when only a single course or a single semester's teaching is evaluated. Evaluating only the course or courses being taught in the semester in which the review occurs reflects poorly on the primary unit and may put the candidate's promotion or tenure at risk unnecessarily. A colleague's best teaching may not occur coincidentally in the semester they are under review. Most faculty teach a variety of courses. A thorough evaluation of teaching attempts to sample and analyze the suite of teaching activities.

Multiple Measures of Teaching

Peer Evaluation of Classroom Instruction

This is the most common form of assessment tool VCAC members see in a dossier. Peer evaluation usually involves a senior colleague or colleagues attending one or more lectures, and writing a review of lecture skills, use of visual aids or technology, and any other pertinent aspects of the instructional activity. These visitations may be pre-announced or not. Peer evaluations are most effective when they involve multiple courses and multiple evaluators so that common trends and common impressions can be identified.

Student Letters Solicited in an Unbiased Manner

Student letters are frequently found as a component in personnel dossiers. Unbiased solicitation may involve asking all students in a class or classes to write, or it may involve writing every Nth student on a course roster and asking for comment. The method of solicitation should always be described as part of the dossier, and a copy of the solicitation letter should be included if one was used.

Other Student Letters

Faculty under review often contribute letters and email to their dossier that they have received from students. This is fine. These letters should be identified as contributed by the colleague under review. My personal opinion is that these letters have positive impact on a case only in unusual circumstances, but they do no real harm, either.

Classroom Interviews

Gaining in popularity and my personal favorite assessment tool. This is an idea pirated from the FTEP, where they use it as an assessment-training tool. I find it effective because it provides a good synthesis of faculty perspective and student opinion, it filters out vindictive or irresponsible responses sometimes seen in anonymous FCQ results, yet it protects the confidentiality of students. A model of a class interview might be as follows:

• A faculty interviewer (or team of interviewers) arranges to use the last 15-20 minutes of a candidate's class period for purposes of an evaluation. At the appointed time the interviewer arrives and the faculty member under review is excused.
• The interviewer explains the purpose of his/her visit. Depending upon the size of the class, the interviewer divides the class into several groups of five or more students. Groups of less than four may be problematic.
• Each group is asked to discuss and reach consensus on two or three questions:
• These questions might include
  • "What is the most effective aspect of Professor X'steaching?"
  • "How can Professor X most improve his/herteaching?"
  • "How would you rate Professor X's interest in helping students to learn?"
• After several minutes of free discussion within each group, groups are asked to report their answer to each question. Only answers supported by the entire group can be reported out of the group. These responses are placed upon an overhead or board so that all members of the class can see all answers.
• If time allows, the interviewer may elect to lead a discussion or ask for clarification regarding group answers.

The interview is concluded by asking all members of the class to vote on their favorite answer (of those listed on the board or overhead) to each question asked. Votes are recorded.

The interviewer then submits a written report based upon the interview in which the questions asked, the group answers, and the rank order or vote on each answer is reported.

Student Interviews

A variation of the classroom interview method described above can be used to interview groups of graduate students or undergraduate students. This method similarly protects the confidentiality of students. Student interviews should probably be conducted in the presence of more than one interviewer so as to protect the interviewer from accusations of putting any particular "spin" on the discussion.

Committee Assessment of a Teaching Portfolio

The colleague under review may submit a portfolio of their teaching activities for review by the PUEC, or by a separate committee, who in turn writes an evaluative report to the dossier. The Teaching Portfolio could include any items felt to be relevant by the candidate or the evaluation committee. Common materials are sample syllabi, sample exams or quizzes, sample graded essays or term papers, student projects, Web-based or other materials developed for courses, textbooks written, abstracts of student theses, dissertations, or honors projects, or summaries of individualized instruction of students. My personal opinion is that this use of portfolios is under-utilized. 

Direct Submission of a Portfolio to the Dossier

A faculty member under review may also elect to submit a portfolio of teaching activities directly to the dossier. Candidates are strongly encouraged to be highly selective and concise in what is included in the dossier. Only themost representative examples should be included. Candidates who overwhelm the dossier with portfolio material have the same effect on review committees that students who submit 40-page term papers have on instructors who made 15-page assignments. Candidates whose portfolios are large and not subject to abbreviation should utilize option 6 above, instead.

External Review of a Teaching Portfolio

At least one college is experimenting with sending portfolio materials out to external reviewers and asking them to comment on quality of instruction as evidenced by the portfolio. Whether this is received as a good idea or as an abuse of external reviewers has yet to be determined, but it is an idea at least worth considering. Such reports from external reviewers would be held as confidential.

Assessment of Non-classroom Teaching

Don't forget that an important aspect of teaching at the University of Colorado Boulder is graduate mentoring and individualized student instruction. This type of instruction is rarely represented in FCQ summaries. Documentation of accomplishment in this type of teaching is often a hallmark of a case for excellence in teaching. Do not overlook evaluation of this aspect of a faculty member's teaching obligation.

The Back of the FCQ Form

The handwritten commentary on the back of the FCQ form is generally considered to be a confidential communiqué between the student and the faculty member. Occasionally a faculty member will wish to include these comments. He or she may do so, of course, but all the comments for a particular course should be included for this strategy to have any credibility. My own experience is that roughly one-half of the FCQs from large courses are blank, and to submit blank forms to the dossier in order to demonstrate that no selection has taken place wastes dossier space. My recommendation is that all the forms from a course (blanks and written forms) be submitted to a member or committee of the PUEC, who in turn certifies that all the forms were submitted. The blanks can then be set aside and the forms with written comment can either be submitted to the dossier, or more appropriately, abstracted and analyzed by a committee from within the department and their report submitted to the dossier.

Other Measures

The list above is not an exclusive list. VCAC accepts any other legitimate method of teaching assessment, defined by the college/school, primary unit, or by the candidate to fit the unique nature of the teaching activities that are represented in the dossier.

How much service is too much service is a frequently asked question among junior faculty. Faculty service contributions to a department, college or school, and to the campus are essential to the successful management and governance of the Boulder campus, and all faculty members are expected to participate in such service activities at some level. The Boulder campus generally follows a tradition of placing the heaviest burden of service on the more senior members of the faculty in order to allow the junior faculty the time to establish excellence in their teaching and research/creative work areas. In smaller units, however, it is sometimes difficult to shield the junior faculty from service assignments to the same extent that larger units can. Regardless of unit size, however, some record of commitment to service, particularly at the departmental or program level, is expected from faculty members seeking reappointment or tenure.

At the time of a successful tenure decision, it is necessary to be judged “meritorious” in the number and range of service assignments completed, and in the quality of the service provided as part of those assignments. Striving to be judged “excellent” in service is desirable but not required, and does not substitute for achieving excellence in either or both teaching and research/creative work. In an effort to provide some guidance to junior faculty in answering the question “How much service is too much service?”, I asked members of the 1999-2000 Vice Chancellor’s Advisory Committee to list 3 to 5 examples of what they consider a meritorious service record for an individual at the time of his or her tenure review. A composite list of responses is listed below. There is no single formula or consensus for what constitutes a meritorious service record. Nonetheless these responses hopefully will give you some guidance in formulating your own answer to the above question, or perhaps provide a point from which to discuss this issue with your chair or director, mentor, or colleague.

1. After the first year, participation in at least one primary unit committee annually is expected, with some evidence of increasing responsibilities over time. Written endorsement of the quality and amount of unit-level service in the reappointment or promotion dossier is essential. In many units, the normal unit level service load may exceed one committee assignment per faculty member per year. There seems to be a common expectation that a candidate for tenure should be pulling their own weight, relative to other norms of their unit, by the 5th or 6th year. Major service assignments at the primary unit level are often assignments to the departmental graduate committee, executive committee, a search committee, or the curriculum committee.
2. One or a few college/school level service activities are desirable over a seven-year probationary period, but not essential. There is no absolute expectation for campus or University level service for faculty during the probationary period, as lack of service in this area can be compensated for by service contributions in areas listed below. It is often service at this level that is most interesting to junior faculty members, but it is also the type of service which can detract from other important obligations of a junior faculty member. Your chair or director should be consulted before such assignments are accepted, as they often have a better idea of how time consuming such committee work might be.
3. Moderate service to one’s professional society or organization is expected of a scholar with a developing national reputation. This might take the role of chairing a few sessions at national meetings, a record of reviewing for journals, publishers, or funding agencies. Organizing or jurying a show or conference would be another example of this type of service that demonstrates a national level of engagement. Some activity at this level may also help senior members of your profession, who may later be asked to serve as an external referee in your case, to learn of your work. This type of service can also demand excessive time from a junior faculty member, however, and a chair, director, or senior colleague might be consulted before taking on such service duties. Membership on major society committees or elected positions in societies is more an expectation of faculty contemplating promotion to full professor.
4. One significant outreach activity or project during the probationary period is often mentioned as a component of a meritorious service record. This might involve activities at the K12 level, applying your scholarly expertise in the community or State without expectation of remuneration, or other types of activity which shares the intellectual and creative resources of the University with the communities that we serve.

This list should not be interpreted as definitive or prescriptive of a meritorious service record for a faculty member approaching a tenure decision. It should, however, give you some idea of campus-level expectations of what a meritorious record might include. It should also provide junior faculty members a template from which to discuss this issue in more detail with colleagues within their own primary unit.

In 1999 the VCAC communicated to colleges and schools a strong recommendation that all units adopt a similar style of voting on personnel cases involving tenure and promotion to associate professor. In essence, the VCAC was asking for primary units to vote in a way that provides to higher level review committees a context for the overall primary unit vote, and to stimulate a substantive discussion at the department level about the relative case for excellence in teaching and/or research. This strong recommendation was communicated to units in our college orally as far as I can tell and most units, but not all units, have since modified their bylaws or procedure documents and have been voting in this way for a number of years. The ASC Personnel Committee has adopted this style of voting, and has come to expect this style of voting in units making recommendations to it.

An example of how a recorded vote in a tenure and promotion to associate professor case is as follows:

 

	Excellent	Meritorious	Less than Meritorious
Research/ Creative Work	9	6	1
Teaching	2	12	0
Service	---	15	0

Vote on Tenure/Promotion: 11 Yes, 5 No, 0 Abstentions

---

This voting procedure does not apply to comprehensive review cases, where the question is whether or not the candidate is making normal progress. Neither does it apply to cases of promotion to full professor, where the essence of the question before the faculty is whether the candidate has shown “continued growth, development, and accomplishment since promotion and tenure”, and whether “the record taken as a whole, is judged to be excellent.”

If your unit is one of the few that has not yet made this change to your voting procedures, please do so formally and in time to implement this voting procedure for tenure and promotion cases that will come before you in AY 03-04 and after.

Dossiers for a comprehensive review, tenure, or promotion must include multiple measures of teaching (see the October 1998 memo on “Ten Ideas for Satisfying ‘Multiple Measures of Teaching’" issued by AVC Todd Gleeson). The gathering of these multiple measures is a joint responsibility of the candidate and the unit; the candidate should make sure that they have in place all the multiple measures they find appropriate, and the unit should make sure that the measures it deems necessary for the evaluation of teaching on a regular basis are included. In order to clarify some issues around the gathering of such information, the Office of Faculty Affairs offers the following guidelines.

Peer Evaluation of Classroom Instruction

The most commonly used form of evaluation, peer reviews of teaching are an important part of a candidate’s teaching dossier.

We consider it a best practice that candidates and units work together to ensure that there is at least one peer evaluation per year the candidate under review has taught; larger units may be able to do reviews on a semester basis. A few letters solicited during the final semester of the probationary period are not sufficient to give a sense of the candidate’s teaching and development as a teacher.

Classroom Interviews and Student Interviews

The Office of Faculty Affairs has found that classroom interviews or interviews of groups of students (as outlined in AVC Gleeson’s memo) are often the best way to gather information about a candidate’s performance as a teacher, as faculty interviewers can acquire focused information about a candidate from a statistically relevant number of current students. OFA recommends that units use this form of gathering student response wherever possible.

Student Letters

Student letters may become part of the file in a variety of ways: the unit may solicit letters, the candidate may solicit letters or include letters they have received from students, and students may send unsolicited letters to the unit. In most cases, the letters solicited by the unit carry the most weight. There are concerns on campus about the statistical validity of small sets of student letters, and units should keep this in mind as they gather materials for the teaching dossier.

The dossier should make clear which letters fall into each of the three categories mentioned above; it is best to have clearly marked sections for each kind of letter.

If the unit collects signed letters from students (this includes emails indicating the name of the student), these letters should be kept in a separate confidential file not available to the candidate. Graduate Students, post-docs, and former students should all be considered as students. A summary of these letters should be prepared by the primary unit evaluation committee and included in the dossier; this summary is available to the candidate. While an attempt will be made to keep these letters confidential during our review process, students solicited for comment should be made aware that their anonymity cannot be protected in the last instance. Unsigned letters or other forms of anonymous information gathered from students may be included in the dossier and may be seen by the candidate.

The backs of FCQ forms provide another source of anonymous student comments. If the faculty member decides to include these forms in the file, all the forms from a course, whether or not they include comments, should be submitted to the PUEC, who in turn certifies that all the forms were submitted for their analysis.

Teaching Portfolios

Candidates may ask that their teaching portfolio be included in the dossier. Such a portfolio can provide a cross-section of a candidate’s work as a teacher. As AVC Gleeson wisely stated in 1998, “Candidates are strongly encouraged to be highly selective and concise in what is included in the dossier. Only the most representative examples should be included. Candidates who overwhelm the dossier with portfolio material have the same effect on review committees that students who submit 40-page term papers have on instructors who made 15-page assignments.”

Pedagogical Publications

Some faculty publish on pedagogy in their field. Such publications can be an important part of a file, particularly if a candidate is being considered for “excellence” in teaching. Candidates should consider carefully whether such publications should be counted in their research/scholarship/creative work portion of their dossier or in the teaching portion. In most cases, such items cannot be counted in two places, though they may be part of a description of work in twoareas.

Assessment of Non-classroom Teaching and Other Contributions to Teaching

A great deal of education takes place outside the classroom; the mentoring of graduate students and undergraduate individualized instruction are particularly noteworthy.

Faculty also contribute to the education of our students by developing new courses, creating special learning experiences, and so on. Candidates should be sure to document such efforts clearly in their dossiers. Units wishing to argue for “excellence” in teaching should note such efforts in making such a case.

External Reviews of Teaching Material

Departments may wish to give candidates the option to have teaching materials (portfolios, FCQs, peer review letters, etc.) reviewed by recognized excellent teachers in the field. This option has not often been used, but it may provide important information, particularly when a candidate is being considered for “excellence” in teaching. Such reports from external reviewers would be held as confidential.

Other Measures

This is not an exhaustive list. Candidates and units should include whatever measures of teaching they found useful and convincing.