Approved: 5/7/04 by the Administrative Council
Updated: 8/17/15 and 9/12/19

Reviews of faculty for reappointment, promotion and tenure include thorough evaluations and recommendations made by the department or program (Primary Unit Evaluation Committee, voting faculty, and Department Chair or Program Director), college (First-level Review Committee and Dean), and campus (Vice Chancellor’s Advisory Committee and Provost) levels. The thoroughness of the review process, which takes most of an academic year, is to ensure that 1) each candidate receives a comprehensive and fair review and 2) high standards of excellence are maintained in our faculty.

As a CEAS faculty member undergoing review, your responsibilities include preparing your dossier for the review and performing well all along the way as you move through the different stages of an academic career. The following advice is meant as a guide to help you prepare for these reviews. The college does not utilize a single quantifiable metric to assess research or teaching performance.

Guidelines

The process and scope of the reappointment, promotion and tenure assessment in the College of Engineering and Applied Science is described in the document Procedures, Policies and Criteria for Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure. Deadlines for the submission of materials are also provided there.

To assist CEAS faculty as they prepare for these assessments, the following guidance is provided regarding college-level criteria for reappointment, promotion and tenure reviews. An Assistant Professor is expected to be on a trajectory to meet or exceed appropriate college norms in teaching performance, student research supervision, scholarly output in peer-reviewed publications in journals and/or journal equivalent conference proceedings, and research support, by the time of comprehensive review for reappointment, and review for tenure and promotion to Associate Professor. Similarly, Associate Professors are generally expected to perform at a level meeting or exceeding college norms at the time of promotion to Professor, to be judged as having achieved a record of overall excellence across the categories of teaching, research and service. Any faculty that wish to gain additional guidance or discuss the process of reappointment, promotion and tenure may consult with their Department Chair, the Dean or the Associate Dean for Faculty Advancement.

It is important to note that evaluations for reappointment, promotion and tenure are not compilations of annual merit review ratings. Instead, review by the First Level Review Committee (FLRC) and the Dean consider a candidate’s overall record as presented in the dossier components of the CV, statements on teaching, research and service, multiple measures of teaching, examples of scholarly works, and, in the case of tenure and promotion reviews, external letters. Also note that, in the reappointment, promotion and tenure review processes, impact and quality are important factors in forming overall judgments of a faculty member’s contributions. Quality and impact are generally judged by integrating across multiple measures of scholarly production, including for example, citations, supporting letters, journal and conference impact factors, invited talks, major national or professional society recognitions and other measures appropriate to the individual faculty member’s discipline.

As a general guide, Table 1 and Table 2 provide cumulative measures of research and teaching, respectively, for faculty who were successfully reappointed, awarded tenure and promoted to associate professor, and promoted to full professor in academic year 2018-2019. All faculty who received tenure in 2018-2019 met standards for excellence in research and meritorious in teaching and service.

Please note that the metrics provided in this advice document represent general guidelines and not absolute standards that guarantee a positive review if achieved or a negative review if not achieved.

Table 1

Selected Research Data for CEAS Faculty Reappointed, Awarded Tenure and Promoted to Full Professor in academic year 2018-2019

Review Level n Normal years since first appointment* Peer reviewed journal or "journal-equivalent"** papers PhD students advised or co-advised (graduated or in progress) Grants as PI or co-PI Invited talks
Comprehensive for Reappointment
(met standard of "on track for excellence in research at tenure review")
9 3 range: 3 - 25,
median = 9
range: 1 - 14,
median = 4
range: 1 - 12,
median = 4
range: 3 - 15,
median = 7
Tenure and Promotion to Associate Professor (met standard of excellence in research) 3 6 range: 11 - 31,
median = 21
range: 3 - 14, median = 9 range: 4 - 7, median = 6 range: 6 - 25, median = 8
Promotion to Full Professor
(met standard of overall excellence)
7 10 or more range: 24 - 84,
median = 66
range: 8 - 14, median = 9 range: 6 - 23, median = 12 range: 13 - 49, median = 18

*Not including years on parental or other leave when tenure clock stopped.
Data do not include faculty appointed with tenure or receiving significant time credit to tenure.

** papers presented at highly selective conferences (30% or lower acceptance rate), which are important venues in the computer science and computer engineering fields.

Table 2

Selected Teaching Data for CEAS Faculty Reappointed, Awarded Tenure and Promoted to Full Professor in academic year 2018-2019

Review Level n Normal years since first appointment* Number of different courses taught Average undergraduate course rating (out of 6 max) Average graduate course rating (out of 6 max)
Comprehensive for Reappointment
(met standard of "on track for excellence in research at tenure review")
9 3 range: 3 - 5,
median = 4
range: 3.0 - 5.4,
median = 4.7
range: 3.1 - 5.6,
median = 5.2
Tenure and Promotion to Associate Professor (met standard of excellence in research) 3 6 range: 5-6,
median = 5
range: 4.4 - 5.0, median = 4.5 range: 4.4 - 5.3, median = 5
Promotion to Full Professor
(met standard of overall excellence)
7 10 or more range: 3-10,
median = 7
range: 4 - 5.1, median = 4.5 range: 4.0 - 5.6, median = 5

General Service Guidance for Successful CEAS Faculty Members at the time of:

Reappointment:

Typical Meritorious Service Metrics:

  • Impactful service to the department
  • Chair or Co-chair of 3-4 sessions to-date at professional conferences
  • Service on at least one national program committee, review panel, or journal

Tenure and Promotion to Associate Professor:

Typical Meritorious Service Metrics:

  • Impactful and substantial service to department, college or campus
  • Participation in national/international conference/workshop organizing
  • Service on two or more national committees, boards, review panels, or journal editorships

Promotion to Full Professor:

Typical Meritorious Service Expectations:

  • Leadership roles at department, college and/or campus levels, and/or substantial and impactful outreach to local communities and K-12 educational systems
  • Organization of major conferences or symposia
  • Substantial service on editorial boards of major journals, conference program or governing committees of professional societies, and/or proposal review committees of federal agencies, including leadership roles.
  • National leadership role in professional or academic organizations, or public agency advisory boards; recognition of special service to the profession or the university.