Guidance for Candidates – FPC Draft Redesign

This page provides guidance to candidates preparing for a review. It contains information on the following:

I. Personnel File Overview (what is the personnel file)
II. File Access (who can access materials in the file)
III. File Content and Timeline (what materials should be included in the file – broken down by review type; timeline for the review – broken down by review type)
IV. Format for Submission (how materials should be submitted)
V. Guidelines for Preparing Materials (important guidelines for candidates on preparing various documents – cv, personal statement, forward-looking plan, syllabi, professional engagement materials, record of workload, other materials)

Department chairs and advocates should review the information provided here to better assist their candidate in preparing for a review. They should also consult the relevant Guidance for Department Chairs or Guidance for Advocates pages for guidance and advice on mentoring the candidate and preparing their own evaluative statement for the personnel file.

Additional documents relevant to reviews include the Annual Review Schedule, FPC Review Procedures, and Guiding Principles for the teaching and professional engagement areas of faculty review.

I. Personnel File Overview

For each review a candidate undergoes, a personnel review file is assembled by the Provost’s Office from materials submitted by the candidate along with materials provided or solicited by the Provost’s Office or the Personnel Committee. These are enumerated below for each review type in the relevant “Materials for the Personnel Review File” subsection. In addition to enumerated list, the personnel review file may include any materials that the candidate wants reviewers to see. Reappointment and tenure personnel review files include a record of the entire probationary period. Promotion personnel review files cover the candidate’s time in the present rank. The personnel review file is not identical to a candidate’s permanent file that is kept in the Provost’s Office. The permanent file contains a variety of records, including contracts, scholarship and professional development reports, confidential recommendations, and miscellaneous correspondence.

Comprehensiveness of the candidate’s record is the responsibility of the candidate. Candidates may seek counsel from the chair of the Personnel Committee, as well as from the advocate and the department chair regarding what items should/could be included in the file. The Personnel Committee strongly encourages candidates, department chairs, and advocates to consult all relevant Faculty Personnel Committee documents when preparing materials for the candidate’s personnel review file.

II. File Access

Each candidate’s personnel review file will be available to members of the reviewing Faculty Personnel Committee, the Provost, and the President. Any candidate has the right to access information in their personnel review file with the exception of:

external reviewer letters for tenure and promotion reviews
FPC’s tenure and promotion file assessment memos/letters
the Provost’s review recommendation letters to the President

Department chairs have access to materials submitted by the candidate, as well as course evaluations, the candidate’s letters of appointment, and pre-tenure assessment letters from FPC and the Provost. Chairs do not have access to the items enumerated above, or to faculty, and student letters and the advocate’s statement. Advocates for tenure and promotion candidates have access to all materials in the candidate’s personnel review file except for the items enumerated above. If requested, FPC will provide no more than a one-page, overarching summary of the external review letters to the tenure or promotion advocate, before the advocate letter is due. If requested, FPC will provide the same to the tenure or promotion candidate after the review process has been completed (i.e., the final action by the Board).

III. File Content and Timeline

First-year Reappointment Review

At the end of the first year of a tenure-track appointment, the work of a tenure-track faculty member is reviewed by the Faculty Personnel Committee. The first-year review provides the candidate with an opportunity to reflect on their first year’s work at the college, intentionally develop a coherent plan for their future professional trajectory, and receive meaningful feedback from the Personnel Committee and the Provost. Because the candidate has been at the College a short time, this review involves a relatively small body of documentation. The Personnel Committee recognizes that a candidate’s first year is typically focused most intensively on teaching and curricular development, and engagement in the life of the department. Opportunities for professional engagement activities may be limited and the candidate is typically exempt from academic advising and committee service responsibilities in the first year.

In the first-year review the Personnel Committee is looking for

Evidence that the candidate is becoming an effective teacher, including establishing an inclusive classroom learning environment
Evidence that the candidate is establishing a plan for, and trajectory of, externally validated professional engagement work
Evidence that the candidate is engaged in the department

Materials submitted by the candidate

curriculum vitae – the candidate’s current CV
personal statement – containing both a reflection section and a forward-looking plan section (suggested maximum length of 1,800 words)
course syllabi – the most recent version for each course taught during the probationary period
professional engagement materials – materials that provide evidence of scholarly, creative and other forms of professional engagement and productivity
record of workload – first-year candidates are typically exempt from academic advising and committee service responsibilities in the first year. The candidate is welcome to include any notable department or other service they have engaged in during the first year.
other materials deemed relevant by the candidate, the Provost, or the Personnel Committee.

Materials provided or solicited by the Provost’s Office or Personnel Committee

an extensive statement from the department or program chair (solicited by the Provost’s office). Chairs should review the document on Guidance for Department Chairs
If applicable, evaluations from chairs of any committees on which the candidate served during the first year (solicited by the Provost’s Office upon receipt of list from candidate)
comments from all faculty members (solicited by the Provost’s office)
student course evaluations from the first year in the tenure-track position (provided by the Provost’s office). NOTE: In accordance with the FPC memo dated March 30, 2021 (Impacts of COVID on Reviews- version iii), the Personnel Committee will not look at any evaluations from Spring 2020 and will allow candidates to designate up to two course evaluations from the 2020-2021 academic year, outside of Spring 2020, to exclude from their file if they wish.
List of courses taught and course enrollments (solicited by the Provost’s office; provided by the Registrar’s office)
other materials deemed relevant by the Provost or the Personnel Committee

Timeline for the First-Year Review

The First-Year Review occurs during Fall term of the candidate’s second year in the tenure-track position, or as outlined in the candidate’s initial letter of appointment from the Provost. The exact dates for materials due for the various steps in the process are posted in the Annual Review Schedule on the FPC website.
In Spring term of the 1st year, the Provost informs candidates of the process.
By the Friday before 1^st week of Fall term, candidates submit to the Provost their personnel review file materials (enumerated above).
By the end of the 1st week of Fall term, the candidate’s department chair’s letter, and any other supporting letters, are due to the Provost’s Office.
The Personnel Committee begins review of files once all materials are received.
In late Fall or early Winter, the Provost meets with the candidate to discuss the Personnel Committee’s assessment of the file.

Guidance for First-Year Review Candidates

For guidance on preparing various documents for the file, please consult Section V. Guidelines for Preparing Materials below. Candidates should also consult the Guiding Principles pages of the FPC website for guidance in FPC’s assessment of a candidate’s record under the relevant areas of faculty responsibility.

Guidance for Department Chairs with First-Year Review Candidates

For guidance and advice on preparing for a candidate’s review, please consult the Guidance for Department Chairs page and the Guiding Principles documents on the FPC website.

Third-year Reappointment Review

Typically, at the end of the third year of a tenure track appointment, the work of a tenure-track faculty member is reviewed by FPC. The third-year review provides the candidate with an opportunity to reflect on their development as a teacher, mentor and scholar since their first-year review, articulate a coherent plan for their professional trajectory leading up to the tenure review, and receive meaningful feedback from the Personnel Committee and the Provost on both performance to date and their trajectory plan. This review is the final pre-tenure review. As such, it serves as a basis of the reappointment decision at the end of the second two-year contract. FPC has a responsibility to the candidate to state as clearly as possible any and all potential obstacles to tenure that exist in the record as it stands at the time of this review.

In the third-year review the committee is looking for:

Evidence that the candidate is establishing a record of sustained effectiveness as a teacher, including establishing an inclusive classroom learning environment
Evidence that the candidate is engaged in advising and mentoring students within the department and beyond
Evidence that the candidate has established a record of externally validated professional engagement work
Evidence that the candidate is engaged in service to the department and the College

Materials submitted by the candidate

curriculum vitae – the candidate’s current CV
personal statement – containing both a reflection section and a forward-looking plan section (suggested maximum length of 2,400 words)
course syllabi – the most recent version for each course taught during the probationary period
professional engagement materials – materials that provide evidence of scholarly, creative and other forms of professional engagement and productivity
record of workload
other materials deemed relevant by the candidate, the Provost, or the Personnel Committee.

Materials provided or solicited by the Provost’s Office or Personnel Committee

an extensive statement from the department or program chair (solicited by the Provost’s office). Chairs should review the document on Guidance for Department Chairs
evaluations from chairs of committees, elected, standing, advisory and ad hoc, on which the candidate has served, and from directors of college programs in which the candidate is involved (solicited by the Provost’s Office upon receipt of list from candidate)
comments from all faculty members (solicited by the Provost’s office)
student course evaluations since the start of the tenure-track position (provided by the Provost’s office). NOTE: In accordance with the FPC memo dated March 30, 2021 (Impacts of COVID on Reviews- version iii), the Personnel Committee will not look at any evaluations from Spring 2020 and will allow candidates to designate up to two course evaluations from the 2020-2021 academic year, outside of Spring 2020, to exclude from their file if they wish.
List of courses taught and course enrollments (solicited by the Provost’s office; provided by the Registrar’s office)
other materials deemed relevant by the Provost or the Personnel Committee

Timeline for the Third-Year Review

The Third-Year Review occurs during Spring term of the candidate’s third year in the tenure-track position, or as outlined in the candidate’s most recent appointment from the Provost. The exact dates for materials due for the various steps in the process are posted in the Annual Review Schedule on the FPC website.
In early Winter of the 3rd year, the Provost informs candidates of the process.
By the Friday before 1st week of Spring term, candidates submit to the Provost their personnel review file materials (enumerated above).
By the end of the 2nd week of Spring term, letters from the candidate’s department chair, service committee chairs, and any other persons, are due to the Provost’s Office.
The Personnel Committee begins review of files once all materials are received.
In late Spring or during Summer, the Provost meets with the candidate to discuss the Personnel Committee’s assessment of the file.

Guidance for Third-Year Review Candidates

Guidance for Department Chairs with Third-Year Review Candidates

For guidance and advice on preparing for a candidate’s review, please consult the Guidance for Department Chairs page and the Guiding Principles documents on the FPC website.

Tenure Review

A tenure-track faculty member at the Assistant Professor rank is usually reviewed for tenure and promotion to Associate Professor during their sixth year at the College. There may be special considerations that will impact the timeline, in accordance with the POE (Sec II. A. & B.) and as outlined in the candidate’s most recent letter of appointment from the Provost. The tenure review considers the candidate’s work during the first five years at the College. It is important for the candidate to be in dialogue with their department chair during their fourth and fifth years to take stock of the tenure case as it stands. The candidate should also be working to secure a tenure advocate during the fourth or fifth year so that the advocate can provide timely advice to the candidate.

In the tenure review the committee is looking for:

Evidence that the candidate has a record of sustained effectiveness as a teacher, including establishing an inclusive classroom learning environment
Evidence that the candidate has a record of sustained engagement and effectiveness as an academic advisor and mentor to students
Evidence that the candidate has a body of externally-validated professional engagement work and plans for continued engagement beyond tenure
Evidence that the candidate contributes, substantially and effectively, to the department and to faculty governance

Materials submitted by the candidate

For more details on certain categories, consult the Guidelines documents on the FPC website …

curriculum vitae – the candidate’s current CV
personal statement – containing both a reflection section and a forward-looking plan section (suggested maximum length of 3,600 words)
course syllabi – the most recent version for each course taught during the probationary period
professional engagement materials – materials that provide evidence of scholarly, creative and other forms of professional engagement and productivity
record of workload
other materials deemed relevant by the candidate, the Provost, or the Personnel Committee.

Materials provided or solicited by the Provost’s Office or Personnel Committee

an extensive statement from the department or program chair (solicited by the Provost’s office). Chairs should review the document on Guidance for Department Chairs
evaluations from chairs of committees, elected, standing, advisory and ad hoc, on which the candidate has served, and from directors of college programs in which the candidate is involved (solicited by the Provost’s Office upon receipt of list from candidate)
comments from all faculty members (solicited by the Provost’s office)
student course evaluations since the start of the tenure-track position (provided by the Provost’s office). NOTE: In accordance with the FPC memo dated March 30, 2021 (Impacts of COVID on Reviews- version iii), the Personnel Committee will not look at any evaluations from Spring 2020 and will allow candidates to designate up to two course evaluations from the 2020-2021 academic year, outside of Spring 2020, to exclude from their file if they wish.
List of courses taught and course enrollments (solicited by the Provost’s office; provided by the Registrar’s office)
evaluations from external reviewers (solicited by the Provost, according to the guidelines outlined in “Procedures of the Personnel Committee,” Section IV). Note: The candidate will be asked to provide the Provost the names of 10-12 reviewers (~3/4 of them to be from PUIs and ~1/4 from R1 schools)
written statement from the candidate’s tenure advocate (solicited by the Provost’s Office upon receipt of advocate’s name from the candidate). Advocates should review the document on Guidance for Advocates
letters of evaluation from recently graduated students (solicited by the Provost’s Office upon receipt of list compiled by the candidate and provided by candidate’s department chair)
letters evaluating advising performance from the candidate’s advisees (solicited by Provost’s Office; list provided by the Office of Academic Advising)
letters from all seniors evaluating teaching performance (solicited by the Provost’s Office)
other materials deemed relevant by the Provost or the Personnel Committee
Unsolicited letters from former students, current students, and colleagues will also be included

To compile this information, 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

Timeline for the Tenure Review

The Tenure Review process commences in Spring term of the candidate’s 5th year at the rank of Assistant Professor, or its equivalent in the case of an accelerated tenure clock, and is typically completed by Winter term of the 6th year. The exact dates for materials due for the various steps in the process are posted in the Annual Review Schedule on the FPC website.
In Spring term of the 5th year, the Provost informs candidates of the process. Candidates should inform the Provost of who their faculty Advocate is at this point.
By early July, candidates, in collaboration with their department chair, assemble a list of 10-12 potential external reviewers (about 3/4 of them to be from primarily undergraduate institutions and about 1/4 from research-focused schools) and submit it to Provost. The list should be annotated to describe the potential reviewer’s relationship to the candidate and their work. This list should identify experts in the candidate’s field(s) who can competently evaluate the candidate’s work, but should not include close associates or collaborators. See FPC Procedures for more details about the process for choosing external reviewers and their role in the review.
By early August, candidates, in collaboration with their department chair, assemble a list of recent alumni who can be contacted to speak about the candidate as a teacher/advisor/mentor. This list is sent to the Provost.
In early August, candidates submit to the Provost their External Review materials, which include CV, personal statement, copies of syllabi, and copies of professional engagement works.
By the end of the 2nd week of Fall term, 6th year, candidates submit to the Provost their Internal Review file materials (enumerated above).
Letters from the candidate’s department chair, service committee chairs, current and former students and advisees, and from persons external to the College are due to the Provost by the end of 3rd week Fall.
The Advocate’s review statement is due to Provost’s Office by Friday, 4th week Fall.
The Personnel Committee begins review of files once all materials are received.
Candidates are usually notified of the decision following the Winter meeting of the Board of Trustees (usually in March).

Guidance for Tenure Review Candidates

Guidance for Department Chairs with Tenure Review Candidates

For guidance and advice on preparing for a candidate’s review, please consult the Guidance for Department Chairs page and the Guiding Principles documents of the FPC website.

Guidance for Tenure Advocates

For guidance and advice on preparing for a candidate’s review, please consult the Guidance for Advocates page and the Guiding Principles documents on the FPC website.

Promotion Review

A faculty member typically is eligible to be reviewed for promotion to Professor after six years in the Associate Professor rank; unusually meritorious candidates may be considered earlier. Reviews are carried out by members of the Promotion Subcommittee of the Faculty Personnel Committee. An eligible candidate can initiate review proceedings in any year after eligibility is attained. Promotion reviews are a two-stage process involving review of a preliminary ‘short file’, followed by the option to proceed with a full ‘comprehensive file’ review. Each candidate who decides to continue to the second stage will need to augment their personnel file, making any additions that will represent a complete record of professional activities. The list of all materials found in the comprehensive file enumerated below under “Materials for the Promotion Personnel Review File”.

In the promotion review the committee is looking for:

Evidence that the candidate has a record of sustained effectiveness as a teacher, including establishing an inclusive classroom learning environment
Evidence that the candidate has a record of sustained engagement and effectiveness as an academic advisor and mentor to students
Evidence that the candidate has a record of sustained engagement and productivity in their professional work, including a body of externally validated work
Evidence that the candidate contributes, substantially and effectively, to the department and to faculty governance, including in leadership roles.

Candidates initially 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 provide teaching evaluations from the last two years for the short file. The Promotion Subcommittee reviews the short 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. Should the candidate decide to continue to the second stage, a full ‘comprehensive file’ review is conducted. Materials included in the comprehensive file are noted below.

Materials submitted by the candidate

curriculum vitae – the candidate’s current CV
personal statement – containing both a reflection section and a forward-looking plan section (suggested maximum length of 3,600 words)
course syllabi – the most recent version for each course taught during the probationary period
professional engagement materials – materials that provide evidence of scholarly, creative and other forms of professional engagement and productivity
record of workload
other materials deemed relevant by the candidate, the Provost, or the Personnel Committee.

Materials provided or solicited by the Provost’s Office or Personnel Committee

an extensive statement from the department or program chair (solicited by the Provost’s office). Chairs should review the document on Guidance for Department Chairs
evaluations from chairs of committees, elected, standing, advisory and ad hoc, on which the candidate has served, and from directors of college programs in which the candidate is involved
comments from all faculty members (solicited by the Provost’s office)
student course evaluations (provided by the Provost’s office). If the candidate goes up for promotion early, course evaluations since the tenure review are included; if the candidate goes up as soon as eligible on a standard timeline, course evaluations since the tenure review are included; in cases in which the candidate has been at the rank of Associate for longer than six years, the last six years of course evaluations or up to all evaluations since tenure review, depending on the candidate’s preference. NOTE: In accordance with the FPC memo dated March 30, 2021 (Impacts of COVID on Reviews- version iii), the Personnel Committee will not look at any evaluations from Spring 2020 and will allow candidates to designate up to two course evaluations from the 2020-2021 academic year, outside of Spring 2020, to exclude from their file if they wish.
list of courses taught and course enrollments (provided by the Registrar’s office)
evaluations from external reviewers (solicited by the Provost, according to the guidelines outlined in “Procedures of the Personnel Committee,” Section IV). Note: The candidate will be asked to provide the Provost the names of 10-12 reviewers (~3/4 of them to be from primarily undergraduate institutions and ~1/4 from research-focused schools)
written statement from the candidate’s promotion advocate (solicited by the Provost’s Office upon receipt of advocate’s name from the candidate). Advocates should review the document on Guidance for Advocates
other materials deemed relevant by the Provost or the Personnel Committee

Timeline for the Promotion Review

Promotion reviews are a two-stage process involving a preliminary ‘short file’ review, followed by the option to proceed with a full ‘comprehensive file’ review.
The Promotion Review process commences in Spring term of the year preceding a candidate’s eligibility, and is typically completed by Spring term of the application year. The exact dates for materials due for the various steps in the process are posted in the Annual Review Schedule on the FPC website.
In Spring term of the year preceding a candidate’s eligibility, the Provost informs candidates of the process.
By early August, the candidate informs the Provost of their desire to stand for promotion.
STAGE 1: By the end of the 2nd week of Fall term, promotion candidates submit to the Provost a short file containing a CV, short personal statement (~2500 words or less), samples of professional engagement materials, and course evaluations for the past two years (supplied by Provost’s Office). (More details on materials are provided under “Materials for the Promotion Personnel Review File”).
The Promotion Subcommittee 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 process. Candidates should inform the Provost of who their faculty Advocate is at this point.
STAGE 2: Each candidate who decides to continue in the process with a comprehensive file submission will need to augment their personnel file, making any additions that will represent a complete record of professional activities (enumerated above).
By the end of 9th week of Fall term, candidates proceeding with the full review, in collaboration with their department chair, assemble a list of 10-12 potential external reviewers who hold the rank of full professor (about 3/4 of them to be from primarily undergraduate institutions and about 1/4 from research-focused schools) and submit it to Provost. The list should be annotated to describe the potential reviewer’s relationship to the candidate and their work. This list should identify experts in or close to the candidate’s field(s) who can competently evaluate the candidate’s work, but should not include close associates or collaborators.
By December 1, candidates submit to the Provost their External Review materials, which include the candidate’s CV, personal statement, copies of syllabi, and professional engagement materials.
By the end of the 1st week of Winter term, promotion candidates submit to the Provost their Internal Review file materials (enumerated above under “Materials for the Promotion Personnel Review File).
Letters from the candidate’s department chair, service committee chairs, and from persons external to the College are due to the Provost by the end of 2nd week Winter term.
The Advocate’s review statement is due to Provost’s Office by the end of the 3rd week of Winter term.
The Personnel Committee begins review of files once all materials are received.
Candidates are notified of the decision, usually following the Spring meeting of the Board of Trustees.

Guidance for Promotion Review Candidates

Guidance for Department Chairs with Promotion Review Candidates

For guidance and advice on preparing for a candidate’s review, please consult the Guidance for Department Chairs page and the Guiding Principles documents on the FPC website.

Guidance for Promotion Advocates

For guidance and advice on preparing for a candidate’s review, please consult the Guidance for Advocates page and the Guiding Principles documents of the FPC website.

Renewable Non-tenure-track Reappointment Review

Faculty on renewable non-tenure-track appointments undergo periodic review on a schedule outlined in their letter of appointment/reappointment. These reviews are typically conducted in spring term and provide candidates with an opportunity to reflect on their development as a teacher, advisor/mentor and community member and receive meaningful feedback from the Personnel Committee and the Provost on their performance.

In the renewable non-tenure-track reappointment review the committee is looking for:

Evidence that the candidate has a record of sustained effectiveness as a teacher, including establishing an inclusive classroom learning environment
Evidence that the candidate has a record of sustained engagement and effectiveness as an academic advisor and mentor to students
Evidence that the candidate contributes, substantially and effectively, to the department and to faculty governance
Evidence of effectiveness in other areas of responsibility specified in the candidate’s letter of appointment

Materials submitted by the candidate

curriculum vitae – the candidate’s current CV
personal statement – containing a reflection section
course syllabi – the most recent version for each course taught during the probationary period
professional engagement materials – optional unless otherwise specified as an expectation of the candidate’s appointment
record of workload
other materials deemed relevant by the candidate, the Provost, or the Personnel Committee.

Materials provided or solicited by the Provost’s Office or Personnel Committee

a statement from the department or program chair (solicited by the Provost’s office). Chairs should review the document on Guidance for Department Chairs
evaluations from chairs of committees, elected, standing, advisory and ad hoc, on which the candidate has served, and from directors of college programs in which the candidate is involved (solicited by the Provost’s office)??
comments from all faculty members (solicited by the Provost’s office)??
student course evaluations since the candidate’s last review. NOTE: In accordance with the FPC memo dated March 30, 2021 (Impacts of COVID on Reviews- version iii), the Personnel Committee will not look at any evaluations from Spring 2020 and will allow candidates to designate up to two course evaluations from the 2020-2021 academic year, outside of Spring 2020, to exclude from their file if they wish.
list of courses taught and course enrollments (provided by the Registrar’s office)
other materials deemed relevant by the Provost or the Personnel Committee

Timeline for the Renewable Non-tenure-track Review

The Renewable Non-tenure-track Review typically occurs during spring term of the penultimate year of the current appointment period, or as outlined in the candidate’s most recent appointment letter from the Provost. The exact dates for materials due for the various steps in the process are posted in the Annual Review Schedule on the FPC website.
In early Winter of the penultimate appointment year, the Provost informs candidates of the process.
By the Friday before 1st week of Spring term, candidates submit to the Provost their personnel review file materials (enumerated under the section “Materials for the Renewable Non-tenure-track Personnel Review File”).
By the end of the 2nd week of Spring term, letters from the candidate’s department chair, service committee chairs, and any other persons, are due to the Provost’s Office.
The Personnel Committee begins review of files once all materials are received.
In late Spring or during Summer, the Provost meets with the candidate to discuss the Personnel Committee’s assessment of the file.

Guidance for Renewable Non-tenure Track Review Candidates

Guidance for Department Chairs with Renewable Non-tenure Track Review Candidates

For guidance and advice on preparing for a candidate’s review, please consult the Guidance for Department Chairs page and the Guiding Principles documents on the FPC website.

IV. Format for Submission

Candidate materials should be submitted in pdf format to preserve intended formatting and accessibility for users. In some cases (e.g. for videos or interactive online materials) another file format or a document with active links may be more appropriate. When assembling materials for submission, we ask that candidates create a series of folders that correspond to the “List of materials submitted by the candidate” under the relevant review types below. and include relevant documents in each folder, and use informative file names (e.g. Lastname_CV.pdf; Journal title or brief publication title_year.pdf). Each piece of documentation should be a separate document (e.g. keep the CV and personnel statement as separate documents; keep individuals publications, grant proposals, posters, etc. as individual, appropriately named documents). Place relevant documents into their respective folders and submit electronically as a compressed file (via email, file transfer program or cloud storage link). The Provost’s Office will extract materials and place them in a personnel review file housed on the FPC Sharepoint site. Candidates, chairs and advocates will be provided with access to relevant files (see policies on File Access for further information).

V. Guidelines for Preparing Materials

As noted in Section III. File Contents and Timeline, candidates are required to submit certain materials for the personnel review file. To help candidates understand what might be included in each category of these required materials, and to help generate consistency in the depth and breadth of coverage among files, the Personnel Committee provides the following guidelines for these materials:

Curriculum Vitae

The curriculum vitae provides a brief but comprehensive record of a candidate’s achievements and activities during their career, with particular emphasis on the period under review. There are no page limits on the CV. The goal is to convey information with clarity and accuracy, in a logical and organized format that is easily interpreted by those outside the candidate’s discipline. Candidates are not expected to discuss everything listed on the CV in the personal statement but where items on the CV are referenced in the personal statement, candidates should make sure that referenced details (e.g. publication title or year; committee name or position) are consistent between the two documents.

While the specific content and format of the CV can vary within and among disciplines, most CVs contain the major sections indicated below. Suggestions on entry particulars for each section are also provided.

educational background – degree name and area of specialization, awarding institution, year conferred
academic and other relevant employment history – position title, institution/organization, years of service
grants and awards from successful proposals – granting agency and program title, specific project name – if applicable, year of award and length of time held. This includes grants from international, national, community and college sources.
honors and prizes – prize name, year awarded, optional comments on the nature of the honor/prize
research and/or creative works – full bibliographic citations of works or activities, with subsection headings by type (e.g. peer reviewed publications, book chapters, book reviews, juried exhibitions, concert performances, conference/symposium/panel presentations, etc). Works that are invited or which the candidate organized should be noted as such. 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 place of the publication date (“in preparation”, “in review”, “in revision”, “accepted with revision”, etc.). In all cases, candidates should provide complete bibliographic citation details consistent with a formatting style used in their discipline (e.g. MLA, Chicago, APA, etc., with the appropriate descriptor replacing year of publication in cases of works yet to be published). The most recent correspondence with the publisher/press confirming the current state of work not yet available to the public or private body should accompany a copy of the manuscript in the personnel review file.
teaching accomplishments – list of courses taught (course number and title, course audience and level)
professional development activities – list of participation in workshops, conferences, symposia, etc. related to teaching, disciplinary field, leadership, etc. see Shanna’s work for additional examples
mentoring activities – beyond those associated with regular teaching responsibilities. E.g. supervision of SIPs, independent studies, research apprenticeships, teaching assistant training); advising or mentorship to student organizations (if not included in service activities below), faculty colleagues (e.g. as chair, advocate, faculty support network),etc.
service activities – to the candidate’s college, local and professional communities (committee/organization name and position title, years served; peer reviewer activities,… ) see Shanna’s work for additional examples
other – subsection titles as appropriate: e.g. professional memberships

Personal Statement

The personal statement serves a narrative framing of the candidate’s work across the four areas of review: teaching and curricular development; advising and mentoring; professional engagement; and service to the College and community. It serves as an important tool used by reviewers to frame their discussion of a candidate’s case. As such, the statement should contain the candidate’s articulation of what has been accomplished during the probationary or promotion review period (reflective) and forecasting of emergent projects or developing interests (the forward-looking plan). Within this framework, the candidate should provide insight into how they engage in particular work, and why (in the context of their professional disciplinary, departmental, college-wide and/or community interests).

In composing the statement, the candidate is encouraged to address each area of review in a separate subsection, while drawing attention to where areas of responsibility overlap significantly. Likewise, candidates are encouraged to present the reflection and forward-looking plans as separate subsections, but the Personnel Committee is open to alternative approaches as long as the narrative provides clear distinctions for the reader. Candidates are also encouraged to use language that is understandable and illustrative to the reader. The goal is to develop a statement that provides a clear picture of a candidate’s journey in the four areas of review, and what their plans are for the near future. It should be written in a way that a colleague or reviewer unfamiliar with a candidate’s work can understand that work and the contexts in which the candidate operates. In writing the statement, the candidate should place emphasis on framing their work rather than comprehensively listing things already clear from the rest of the file.

For the personal reflection portion of the statement, candidates should, where appropriate, describe their areas of specialization, contributions and impacts, as well as contextualize challenges, explain strategies for addressing these, and highlight outcomes resulting from adjustments the candidate has implemented. Candidates should place emphasis where they think it belongs, while also attending to areas that others (e.g. Personnel Committee and Provost letters) have noted as noteworthy of attention.

The candidate’s forward-looking plan should conceptualize and concretize the candidate’s future goals, including anticipated deliverables and/or impacts on intended audiences, including constituencies on and off campus. It operates, essentially, as a framework through which the candidate’s work will be understood and assessed by the Personnel Committee in the candidate’s next review. In short, the candidate provides the Personnel Committee with both the context and content that guides the Personnel Committee’s assessment. Both the Personnel Committee’s review feedback letter and the Provost’s meeting and the subsequent written summation will be informed accordingly. FPC encourages the candidate to develop this plan in consultation with their department or program chair to help create clarity and establish broad agreement over a candidate’s goals and those of their affiliated department or program. For more on how to approach the plan, consult the “How to approach the foward-looking plan” section.

Because the personal statement is not meant to be a catalogue of the entirety of one’s time at the college, the Personnel Committee requests that candidates adhere to the following lengths for their statements. Please use maximum 12-pt font, single spaced.

1st year and renewable non-tenure-track reviews: 1800 words or less
3rd year review: 2400 words or less
Tenure and promotion review: 3600 words or less (2400 words for the promotion short file)

To aid candidates in preparing their personal statements, candidates at any stage may request samples of successful statements from the FPC chair.

What follows are some questions that may help candidates prepare the reflection portion of their personal statement. It is by no means necessary that candidates address all these directly or exclusively. For guidance on the forward-looking plan, consult the “How to Approach the Forward-looking Plan” section.

Teaching and Curricular Development

Within your department, for what distinct areas are you responsible?
What new courses or programmatic initiatives have you originated? What have these been in response to?
What, if any, have been your contributions to curricular programs beyond your department?
What courses have you significantly revised, and how?
What have been your major teaching successes?
What approaches have you used to foster an inclusive learning environment?
What have been your most serious concerns about your teaching or about particular courses, and how have you addressed them? In this area, pay particular attention to how you have addressed specific critiques from students, course evaluations, colleagues’ class observations, comments from previous personnel reviews, or recommendations from the department chair.
[COVID Impact – Candidates may designate up to two course evaluations during the pandemic period, outside of Spring 2020, to exclude from their file if they wish (from the 2020-2021 academic year). What courses did you choose to exclude? The Personnel Committee does not need any reasoning for the exclusion, just an indication to not look for those course evaluations.]
also view “Teaching Effectiveness at Kalamazoo College” under Guiding Principles
Forward-looking: view the section “How to Approach the Forward-looking Plan“

Advising and Mentoring

How would you describe your approaches to advising and mentoring? How have they evolved over time?
What approaches have you used to foster inclusivity in your advising and mentoring practices?
What have been your major contributions to the education of students beyond the classroom, through SIPs, internships, academic advising, special programs (e.g. Posse, Toyata Scholars, etc.), TA training, office hours or other labor-intensive student contact, other mentoring roles?
Are there areas of faculty mentorship you are involved in? (e.g. TLC new faculty mentor; new colleague mentoring)
Has your role as advisor or mentor informed your other areas of faculty responsibility, and if so, how?
How has your role as advisor or mentor impacted the trajectory of your advisees/mentees?
Forward-looking: view the section “How to Approach the Forward-looking Plan“

Professional Engagement

How do you define your field(s) of professional engagement?
What is the relationship between your fields, if you have more than one?
How do you define the trajectory of your work since your last review?
What might an outsider to the field, looking over your record of scholarship, not understand about this record?
What, if any, are the particular conditions within your field(s) that affect your contribution to the ongoing professional “conversation” within and beyond it?
What has been or could be the impact of your professional engagement work on your intended audience?
What is the evidence of external validation of your scholarship that is traditional to your field, as well as validation of any non-traditional scholarly work you do?
Have your professional engagement activities informed your other areas of faculty responsibility, and if so, how?
also consult the document on “Defining Professional Engagement at Kalamazoo College” under Guiding Principles
Forward-looking: view the section “How to Approach the Forward-looking Plan“

Service to the College and Community

What have been your major contributions to your department, faculty governance and the wider College community, apart from your teaching, advising/mentoring, and professional engagement responsibilities?
What particular skills, knowledge, or commitments do you bring to the College community, beyond the classroom? To the wider Kalamazoo community, if relevant? To your professional communities?
What have been your major contributions to your professional community outside the College?
Have your service activities contributed to your other areas of faculty responsibility, and if so, how?
Forward-looking: (view the section “How to Approach the Forward-looking Plan“

How to Approach the Forward-looking Plan

The forward-looking plan, like the personal statement overall, is intended to be a holistic representation of a candidate’s contributions to the College and should stipulate the candidate’s priorities and intentions within and across the four review areas. Candidates can opt to dedicate a separate section in the personal statement for the forward-looking plan or elect to integrate it into the four respective review sections. The formulation of the forward-looking plan should be done in collaboration with the department chair to ensure both agreement about the candidate’s approach and support for any stated deliverables.

While the forward-looking plan requires a candidate to name specific goals in order to set anticipated benchmarks for assessment, this approach will not foreclose new developmental trajectories or prevent a reconsideration of previous goals, whether due to unexpected shifts or unanticipated opportunities. Any changes can be addressed in the personal statement and/or forward-looking plan in the next review. With each subsequent review, candidates will update the forward-looking plan in accordance with pertinent developments, including setting new goals and naming anticipated deliverables.

Candidates should be attentive to signaling the ways their work at the College engages in inclusive learning practices. The Personnel Committee understands that departments (or fields) may vary in their determination of what constitutes an inclusive learning environment; additionally, different courses within the same department may have different determinants regarding inclusive learning practices. While the Personnel Committee expects all candidates to detail how they foster inclusivity in their teaching and advising, it may also be appropriate for some candidates to discuss inclusivity in the areas of service and/or professional engagement. For more information about inclusive learning, consult the “On Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility” section in the Teaching Effectiveness Guiding Principles.

What follows are some suggestions that may assist candidates, with specific consideration to the role that the forward-looking plan plays at the different review levels. These suggestions are not intended to be proscriptive, but rather are offered as a way for candidates to envision an approach at and across various stages in a candidate’s career. With each subsequent review, candidates will update the forward-looking plan in accordance with pertinent developments.

Teaching and Curricular Development

What specific curriculum goals are you setting and why?
What specific pedagogical goals are you setting and why?
What inclusive learning practices are you committed to developing or continuing? How will you measure the successful implementation or impact of these practices?
Do you anticipate working with other academic programs or campus centers?
Are there any curricular and/or pedagogical innovations you plan to incorporate?
Do you offer service-learning or experiential education courses?
Do you plan to attend pedagogy conferences or trainings?

Advising and Mentoring

What type of advising or mentorship beyond the classroom do you anticipate will play a dominant role in your work? (Consider SIPs, internships, office hours, working with Teaching Assistants or Research Assistants, and/or other advising or mentorship expectations.)
What type of advising or mentorship goals do you have, or intend to work toward, by the next review?

Professional Engagement

How have you approached the assembly of an ongoing professional agenda?
What type/s of professional engagement will you pursue? Why have you chosen to pursue this professional route?
What type/s of professional outputs will you produce and why?
If you are opting to pursue products other than peer-reviewed publications, how will your professional engagement commitments and products need to be considered and assessed? By whom?
What products do you anticipate completing by the next review? How/Why have you selected these products as your professional engagement outputs? What role do they play in advancing your ongoing agenda?

Service to the College and Community

What types of service do you anticipate will play a prominent role in your work? (Consider current or future departmental responsibilities or contributions, campus standing committees or ad hoc committee service, local community engagement, field-specific professional service.)
What type of service do you plan to undertake, or intend to work toward, by the next review?

FIRST YEAR REVIEW: Charting a Path and Setting a Goal-Oriented Trajectory

The first-year review forward-looking plan provides candidates with an opportunity to signal the modes of engagement they identify as central to the work they want to do at K. It empowers candidates to declare, in collaboration with the department, how they intend to approach and produce a work agenda that will ensure their professional advancement. Candidates should consider the four areas of review as a holistic means to represent and delineate the multifaceted faculty responsibilities that frequently overlap or function interconnectedly. In year one, candidates will set both short- and long-term goals that will situate them as a particular type of educator, mentor/advisor, academic professional, and serving member of the community, on and off campus.

*Candidates should meet with the department chair by Spring (or sooner) to discuss ongoing departmental expectations in the four areas of review and collaborate on a plan that addresses candidate’s goals and meets departmental needs. The department chair and candidate should agree on a timeline to review and discuss the candidate’s personal statement and forward-looking plan prior to the Fall week 0 submission deadline. After receiving the review feedback from the Personnel Committee and Provost, the candidate should meet with the department chair to discuss it and solidify the candidate’s forward progress.

MOCK CANDIDATE SAMPLE PLAN – FIRST YEAR REVIEW

Teaching and Curricular Development: create new course at advanced level (to be taught Fall of year 3); intent to modify an existing course to count toward Environmental Studies concentration (year 2); refine a particular assignment to move students toward public scholarship audience, with intent to move learning beyond the classroom.
Advising and Mentoring: implementation of a particular practice as begin to acquire academic advisees and supervise SIPs, with means of assessment to gauge success.
Professional Engagement: one essay in an edited collection; ongoing contribution to public humanities site; attendance and presentations at a yearly national conference important to field.
Service to College and Community: begin service on Experiential Education Committee; ERACCE training.

THIRD YEAR REVIEW: Updating and Refining the Path

The third-year review forward-looking plan provides candidates with an opportunity to update, refine, and solidify their ongoing work agenda. Candidates should consider the four areas of review as a holistic means to represent and delineate the multifaceted faculty responsibilities that frequently overlap or function interconnectedly. In year three, candidates will continue to set both short- and long-term goals that build on a trajectory established in the first-year review.

*Candidates should meet with department chair by Winter (or sooner) to discuss ongoing departmental expectations in the four areas of review and collaborate on a plan that addresses candidate’s goals and meets departmental needs. The department chair and candidate should agree on a timeline to review and discuss the candidate’s personal statement and forward-looking plan prior to the Spring week 1 submission deadline. After receiving the review feedback from the Personnel Committee and Provost, the candidate should meet with the department chair to discuss it and solidify the candidate’s forward progress.

MOCK CANDIDATE SAMPLE PLAN – THIRD YEAR REVIEW

Teaching and Curricular Development: collaborate with CCE to modify course with service-learning component; research and implement a pedagogical shift to engage with best practices for service-learning courses; ERACCE-informed practices for inclusivity in classroom/pedagogy.
Advising and Mentoring: attendance at advising practicums, with concrete integration into academic advising practice; ERACCE-informed practices for inclusivity in advising students.
Professional Engagement: one peer-reviewed journal article based on long-standing project; continue attending conference in field, but transition to panel chair/moderator or roundtable moderator.
Service to College and Community: considering committees with greater faculty governance role and how/why these committees coincide with interests or larger goals; taking over as department’s SIP coordinator or SIP symposium organizer.

TENURE REVIEW: Confirming the Trajectory and Forecasting New Paths

The tenure review forward-looking plan provides candidates with an opportunity to confirm their commitment to an ongoing trajectory and begin forecasting new paths. Candidates should consider the four areas of review as a holistic means to represent and delineate the multifaceted faculty responsibilities that frequently overlap or function interconnectedly. In the tenure review year, candidates will continue to set both short- and long-term goals that build on a trajectory established in previous reviews.

*Candidates should meet with department chair by Spring (or sooner) to discuss ongoing departmental expectations in the four areas of review and collaborate on a plan that addresses candidate’s goals and meets departmental needs. The department chair and candidate should agree on a timeline to review and discuss the candidate’s personal statement and forward-looking plan prior to the August 1 external review materials submission deadline.

MOCK CANDIDATE SAMPLE PLAN – TENURE REVIEW

Teaching and Curricular Development: create online profile for students’ service-learning work; create a course that centers a new research project or design course for Shared Passages.
Advising and Mentoring: take students to national conference in Chicago to participate in poster session on service-learning work;
Professional Engagement: begin work on service-learning project pedagogy article.
Service to College and Community: interest in being on election ballot for FPC post-tenure; will assist in writing departmental self-study; develop a peer workshop model for SIPs in the department.

PROMOTION REVIEW: Continuing the Trajectory and Charting New Paths

under development

*Candidates should meet with department chair by Spring to discuss ongoing departmental expectations in the four areas of review and collaborate on a plan that addresses candidate’s goals and meets departmental needs. The department chair and candidate should agree on a timeline to review and discuss the candidate’s personal statement and forward-looking plan during fall term prior to the December 1 external review materials submission deadline.

MOCK CANDIDATE SAMPLE PLAN – PROMOTION REVIEW

under development

Course syllabi

Candidates are expected to provide students with a syllabus for each course that they teach. In cases where a course is taught multiple times during the review period, only the most recent version need be included. If a candidate sees the need to include multiple iterations of a syllabus, the reasoning should be explained in the personal statement (e.g. to illustrate substantive changes in the course). Each syllabus should be submitted as a separate file, named as course number and abbreviated course name.

Course syllabi may vary with instructor and course type, but at a minimum a syllabus should contain the following: course name and number; course description; meeting times; professor contact information and office hours; required texts or other materials; course goals and format/pedagogical approaches; an outline of the course schedule for the term, with associated readings or other materials, as appropriate, to provide an overview of the organization and progression of topics/skills/etc. over the ten week term; a list of assessment items that contribute to overall course grade (detailed descriptions of assessment items are not required but may be included if the candidate wishes).

Professional Engagement Materials

Candidates should provide copies of products resulting from professional engagement activities. Depending on the nature of the professional engagement work, these materials may take various forms. Some examples include:

scholarly and creative products (e.g. published articles, books, book chapters, book reviews, conference papers and posters, grant proposals – funded or not funded along with reviewers’ comments; project reports; audio or video recordings – a list of access links is sufficient; photos of works of art; catalogs of exhibitions; etc.)
manuscripts of submitted works, along with correspondence with the publishing venue that indicates the current state of the work (e.g. received, in review, accepting pending revision, etc.)
materials developed for workshops
other materials that showcase outputs from professional engagement work

Record of Workload

This record is an annotated list of workload beyond regular teaching responsibilities, some of which may also be present on the CV and some of which may not be appropriate for the CV but nonetheless represents part of a candidate’s workload that should be made visible to reviewers. Subdividing by area of review will help with organization. In cases where a listing may fit under multiple categories, the candidate should include it under the category in which it is discussed in the personal statement. While examples may exist for all four areas of review, the list below shows some typical examples for the two most common categories.

Advising and Mentoring

list of SIPs supervised, including details on student name, SIP year and title, and optional comments on the nature of the work or supervision
list of non-SIP projects supervised (e.g. independent studies, faculty-student research projects; teaching assistantship mentoring and supervision)
typical number of academic advisees per year
advisory roles in service to student organizations or other campus groups or offices
other commitments deemed relevant by the candidate

Service

list of standing, elected, advisory and ad hoc committees or programs served on, years in which service took place; indicate whether position involved leadership role – e.g. chair, vice-chair
departmental or programmatic service commitments
roles in service to student organizations or other campus groups or offices
service positions in professional societies or organizations (e.g. vice president, planning committee, etc.)
other commitments deemed relevant by the candidate

Other Materials (optional)

In addition to the list of required materials, candidates have the option to include any additional materials that they want reviewers to see. Some examples include teaching materials that represent major investments of a candidate’s time, energy and creativity such as (such as a lab manual, project manual, assignment details and rubrics); letters of evaluation from students, faculty, other colleagues and external associates beyond those solicited by the Provost’s Office; media coverage from professional engagement work.