Tenure-track faculty typically undergo a first-year review in the fall following their first year of employment on the tenure-track line. This is followed by a reappointment review that typically occurs in spring of the candidate’s third year, though individual contracts may specify different timelines based on previous experience. The term before a scheduled review, the Provost’s Office notifies faculty cohorts of the upcoming review, with a list of required review materials and submission deadlines (see the Annual Review Schedule). In the term before review, members of the Personnel Committee hold an informational meeting with faculty cohorts to provide additional guidance on the process and field questions from candidates.

Each review is conducted by the entire Personnel Committee. Deliberations begin when all its members have read the entire file. In the absence of a member knowledgeable in the candidate’s field, the Committee may solicit the help of other faculty to ensure that the candidate’s teaching, professional development, and service can be assessed with complementary knowledge and expertise. A committee member typically drafts the assessment letter that summarizes the committee’s deliberations and recommendation. Revisions are incorporated as needed until all committee members approve the final letter.  The letter is then sent to the Provost, who then meets with the candidate to discuss the review. The Personnel Committee’s letter and a summary of the Provost’s conversation with the candidate are placed in the candidate’s personnel review folder. 

Reappointment reviews not only serve to assess performance to date but clarify a candidate’s direction for the future. While this direction must satisfy individual, departmental, and institutional needs, it is important in all reappointment reviews that the department chair and the candidate agree on the candidate’s role and identify clear priorities for each subsequent review. The candidate’s and the department’s written statements, along with the Personnel Committee’s assessment and the Provost’s recommendations to the candidate, should, ultimately, be aligned. If any disagreement or confusion during the review arises, the candidate and department chair should address these issues directly with the Personnel Committee and the Provost. An agreed upon record of this meeting and any relevant clarifications to expectations and priorities should be included in the candidate’s file. At any time between reviews, a candidate and/or the Provost may request a meeting to clarify a candidate’s standing with regard to reappointment or tenure.

The Personnel Committee bases its deliberations upon all materials included in the candidate’s personnel review file. These include materials provided by the candidate as well as those provided or solicited by the Provost’s Office or the Personnel Committee. Documents that candidates and department chairs should consult are listed on the FPC homepage, under Resources.

Tenure reviews typically occur in the fall term of the candidate’s sixth year. The candidate is notified by the Provost’s Office of materials required and deadlines for completion of the tenure file.   The term before the scheduled review, the Provost’s Office notifies candidates of the upcoming review, with a list of required review materials and submission deadlines (see the Annual Review Schedule). In the same term before review, members of the Personnel Committee hold an informational meeting with faculty cohorts to provide additional guidance on the process and field questions from candidates.

Tenure reviews are conducted by the entire Personnel Committee. In the absence of a member knowledgeable in the candidate’s field, the Committee may solicit the help of other faculty to ensure that the candidate’s teaching, professional development, and service can be assessed with complementary knowledge and expertise. The Personnel Committee bases its deliberations upon all materials included in the candidate’s personnel review file. These include those provided by the candidate as well as those provided or solicited by the Provost’s Office or the Personnel Committee. Documents that candidates, department chairs and advocates should consult are listed on the FPC homepage, under Resources.

To compile information for the file, the candidate is asked by the Provost’s Office well in advance of the review to provide the following information:

• a list of potential external reviewers, compiled with the assistance of the department chair and annotated to describe their relationship to the candidate and his or her work. This list should identify experts in the candidate’s field(s) who can competently evaluate the candidate’s work. It should include faculty from liberal arts colleges as well as research universities, but should not include close associates or collaborators. The Provost may narrow or augment the list. The candidate and the Provost will reach an agreement on the adjusted list, and each may eliminate names for reasonable cause. In case of a disagreement between the Provost and the candidate over what constitutes “reasonable cause,” the Personnel Committee shall serve as final arbiter, and its decision shall be final. The Provost’s Office will contact from the final list a selection of potential reviewers, who are assured confidentiality and paid a stipend for their service.
• a list of former students to be contacted.
• a current curriculum vitae, copies of syllabi, publications, and the personal statement. This packet is sent to the external reviewers.
• the name of the candidate’s advocate.

As in other reviews, but most emphatically and carefully in tenure reviews, the Committee evaluates the candidate’s record in the four areas comprising the faculty member’s role: teaching, advising and mentoring, professional engagement, and service. As in reappointment reviews, teaching is evaluated on the basis of syllabi, department chair reports, student letters, and teaching evaluations, taking into consideration the candidate’s teaching load, subject matter, and pedagogy. Faculty have the option to develop teaching portfolios that will include this material plus other data that will help to contextualize teaching: assignments, samples of student work with instructor comments, peer review of teaching, etc. The absence of a teaching portfolio will not adversely affect a review. In evaluating professional development, the Committee relies upon external assessments and context provided by the candidate and the department chair, as well as informed opinion from other knowledgeable faculty who may contribute letters to the candidate’s file.

For faculty on a normal six-year tenure probationary period, even those with years of service at K before receiving a tenure track appointment, the Personnel Committee will only give significant weight to work published after the probationary period has begun. For people on an accelerated tenure clock, the Personnel Committee will only give significant weight to A) work published during the year(s) before the probationary period for which the candidate is being given credit toward tenure and to B) work produced during the accelerated probationary period of the tenure track appointment.

The Provost’s Office informs the faculty at large of the impending review and solicits written comment from current seniors, advisees, former students, and faculty. The Committee also solicits student opinion through a mailing to a broad range of recently graduated majors of the relevant department and all advisees of the candidate. Students who request confidentiality will have their names removed and their letters edited and otherwise disguised to protect their identity. The candidate may solicit letters from supporters both on and off campus.

External review letters contained in the candidate’s file are not available to the candidate or the advocate for review. If requested, the Personnel Committee will provide no more than a one page overarching summary of the external review letters to the tenure advocate, before the advocate letter is due, and will provide it to the tenure candidate after the process has been completed (i.e., the final action by the Board). In order to protect the confidentiality of the external reviewers (a condition under which they are hired), no direct quotes will be used in the summaries. Also, since external reviewers are not explicitly asked to provide a recommendation for or against tenure, no wording to that effect will be used in the summaries. The Personnel Committee does not feel bound to “tally” external reviewer opinions when making a final recommendation on tenure to the Provost.

The Committee begins its deliberations when all its members have read the entire file. In complex or unclear cases, the Committee may interview the department chair, department members, the advocate, or other faculty or administrators whose knowledge of the candidate’s performance may be relevant. A summary of such a conversation will be placed in the file. Following review of the tenure file, a committee member typically drafts the assessment letter that summarizes the committee’s deliberations and recommendation. Revisions are incorporated as needed until all committee members approve the final letter.  The letter is then sent to the Provost, who makes a separate recommendation to the President. In case of disagreement between the Faculty Personnel Committee and the Provost regarding the recommendation, consultation traditionally occurs in an attempt to reach consensus. The Provost makes a recommendation to the President. According to the Plan of Employment (IV.B.4), should the President disagree with the recommendation of the Faculty Personnel Committee, they shall meet with them in an attempt to reach consensus before making a final decision. The President subsequently makes a recommendation to the Board of Trustees. The Board will normally vote on each recommendation at its March meeting.

The Provost informs the candidate of the outcome of the review, and the Personnel Committee’s letter becomes a part of the candidate’s permanent file maintained by the Provost’s Office.  This letter is not available to the candidate for review (link to file access portion of Guide to File Preparation document). A positive tenure decision includes promotion of an assistant professor to the rank of associate professor.

According to the College Plan of Employment, Section IV.A.3, a faculty member is typically eligible to be reviewed for promotion to Professor after six years in the Associate Professor rank. However, at any time, the President, the Provost, or the department chair may nominate outstanding faculty members for consideration for promotion. An eligible candidate can initiate review proceedings in any year after eligibility is attained. 

The promotion review is a two-stage process that occurs over the fall and winter terms. Each stage of the promotion review process is conducted by the Promotion Subcommittee, whose members hold the rank of Professor. In the absence of a member knowledgeable in the candidate’s field, the Subcommittee may solicit the help of other faculty of Professor rank to ensure that the candidate’s teaching, professional development, and service can be assessed with complementary knowledge and expertise.

In the spring term preceding the review year, the Provost’s Office notifies eligible individuals of the process, with a list of required review materials for each stage and submission deadlines (see the Annual Review Schedule). In the same term, members of the Promotion Subcommittee hold an informational meeting for eligible faculty to provide additional guidance on the process and field questions from candidates.

The first stage of the review process is initiated in summer when candidates communicate to the Provost their intent to submit a short file.  Early in fall term, candidates submit an abbreviated ‘short file’ containing a curriculum vitae, copies of professional engagement works, and a personal statement in which the candidate makes a case for promotion based on teaching, and advising and mentoring, professional development, and service. The Provost’s Office will include teaching evaluations from the last two years in the short file. The Promotion Subcommittee reviews the file and writes a report to the Provost about the strengths and weaknesses of the short file. The Provost conveys this information to the candidate, who will then decide whether to proceed with the second stage of the process.

Should the candidate decide to continue to the second stage, a full ‘comprehensive file’ review will be conducted during the winter term. The candidate will be asked by the Personnel Committee to augment their personnel file, making any additions that will represent a complete record of professional activities, but in all cases, external reviews are required.

The Subcommittee bases its deliberations upon all materials included in the candidate’s personnel review file. These include those provided by the candidate as well as those provided or solicited by the Provost’s Office or the Personnel Committee. Documents that candidates, department chairs and advocates should consult are listed on the FPC homepage, under Resources.

External review letters contained in the candidate’s file are not available to the candidate or the advocate for review. If requested, the Personnel Committee will provide no more than a one page overarching summary of the external review letters to the promotion advocate, before the advocate letter is due, and will provide it to the promotion candidate after the process has been completed (i.e., the final action by the Board). In order to protect the confidentiality of the external reviewers (a condition under which they are hired), no direct quotes will be used in the summaries. Also, since external reviewers are not explicitly asked to provide a recommendation for or against promotion, no wording to that effect will be used in the summaries. The Personnel Committee does not feel bound to “tally” external reviewer opinions when making a final recommendation on promotion to the Provost.

The Promotion Subcommittee begins its deliberations when all its members have read the entire file. In complex or unclear cases, the Committee may interview the department chair, department members, the advocate, or other faculty or administrators whose knowledge of the candidate’s performance may be relevant. A summary of such a conversation will be placed in the file. Following review of the comprehensive file, a member of the subcommittee typically drafts the assessment letter that summarizes the subcommittee’s deliberations and recommendation. Revisions are incorporated as needed until all subcommittee members approve the final letter.  The letter is then sent to the Provost, who makes a separate recommendation to the President. In case of disagreement between the Faculty Personnel Committee and the Provost regarding the recommendation, consultation traditionally occurs in an attempt to reach consensus. The Provost makes a recommendation to the President. According to the Plan of Employment, Section IV.B.4, should the President disagree with the recommendation of the Personnel Committee, he or she shall meet with them in an attempt to reach consensus before making a final decision. The President’s decisions are typically announced to the Board of Trustees at their June meeting, but no Board action is required. The Provost informs the candidate of the outcome of the review, and the Personnel Committee’s letter becomes a part of the candidate’s permanent file maintained by the Provost’s Office. This letter is not available to the candidate for review.

A faculty member who proceeds through the submission of a comprehensive file and does not receive promotion will not be reviewed again for at least two years. A faculty member who submits a ‘short’ file and, after feedback from the Promotion Subcommittee, decides not to proceed with further review that year, shall be eligible for review again the following year.

Faculty on renewable non-tenure-track appointments typically undergo reappointment reviews during the penultimate year of the current appointment period, on a schedule outlined in their appointment or reappointment letter. The term before a scheduled review, the Provost’s Office notifies faculty cohorts of the upcoming review, with a list of required review materials and submission deadlines (see the Annual Review Schedule). In the term before review, members of the Personnel Committee hold an informational meeting with faculty cohorts to provide additional guidance on the process and field questions from candidates.

Each review is conducted by the entire committee. Deliberations begin when all its members have read the entire file. A committee member typically drafts the assessment letter that summarizes the committee’s deliberations and recommendation. Revisions are incorporated as needed until all committee members approve the final letter.  The letter is then sent to the Provost, who then meets with the candidate to discuss the review. The Personnel Committee’s letter and a summary of the Provost’s conversation with the candidate are placed in the candidate’s personnel review folder. 

Reappointment reviews not only serve to assess performance to date but clarify a candidate’s direction for the future. While this direction must satisfy individual, departmental, and institutional needs, it is important in all reappointment reviews that the department chair and the candidate agree on the candidate’s role and identify clear priorities for each subsequent review. The candidate’s and the department’s written statements, along with the Personnel Committee’s assessment and the Provost’s recommendations to the candidate, should, ultimately, be aligned. If any disagreement or confusion during the review arises, the candidate and department chair should address these issues directly with the Personnel Committee and the Provost. An agreed upon record of this meeting and any relevant clarifications to expectations and priorities should be included in the candidate’s file. At any time between reviews, a candidate and/or the Provost may request a meeting to clarify a candidate’s standing with regard to reappointment. The Personnel Committee bases its deliberations upon all materials included in the candidate’s personnel review file. These include materials provided by the candidate as well as those provided or solicited by the Provost’s Office or the Personnel Committee. Documents that candidates and department chairs should consult are listed on the FPC homepage, under Resources.