Third year reviews

Policy on "Third-year" Review of Tenure-Track Faculty

College of Natural Sciences

Departments and Sections in the College of Natural Sciences are required to conduct a comprehensive review of performance of all tenure-track faculty approximately three years after their initial appointment as an Assistant Professor.

This review must address accomplishments of the candidate in the areas of:

• Research and Scholarly Activity
  • Publications since arriving at UT
  • Grants support at UT
  • Graduate student supervision
• Teaching
  • The assessment of teaching must include peer evaluations conducted by at least two different faculty members and include several different meetings of two or more different courses.  (Copies of these evaluations are due to the Dean’s office the first week in April.)
• Service.

The review must be both evaluative and consultative, but in keeping with long-established practice, each Department/Section has considerable latitude in structuring the process to suit its own culture and purposes.  Departments/Sections may choose, for example, to conduct the review in a candidate's 5^th, 6^th, or, in the case of a faculty member whose appointment started in mid-year, 7th semester in rank; to charge either the full Budget Council or an ad hoc committee with the task of performing the review; to review either a full dossier equivalent to that ordinarily presented for promotion, or simply curriculum vitae and ancillary materials necessary for an assessment of teaching; and to seek or to forego external letters of evaluation.  The chair of the candidate’s Department/Section is responsible for providing written feedback to the candidate and, together with a member of the review committee, for meeting with the candidate to discuss the report.  The Chair needs to provide a written statement that this meeting has occurred.

A written report on the review must be submitted to the Dean of the College by June 15^th of the candidate’s third year in rank; such reports are commonly no longer than two pages, but should summarize all relevant information.  The report must include a brief description of the process that was employed, including how the review committee was constituted, what materials were reviewed and the conclusions that were reached, including any recommendations in problem areas.  The candidate should be given the opportunity to provide a separate document responding to the report.  The Dean's Office must receive copies of any written evaluations or other materials that are given to the persons reviewed and of any responses provided.

This policy is made available to all newly appointed tenure-track faculty at the time of their appointment.

Post-tenure reviews

GUIDELINES FOR POST-TENURE REVIEW

College of Natural Sciences

Article 3.14 of the Handbook of Operating Procedures establishes the U.T. Austin policies on post-tenure review. As a further aid to assuring a fair and objective evaluation process, the following supplemental guidelines are provided to govern procedures within the College of Natural Sciences.

(1) Post-Tenure Review Committee (PTRC): The PTRC shall comprise three or more faculty members normally holding the rank of Full Professor, either elected by the faculty or appointed by the department chair.  This could be a modified P&T Committee or a separate standing committee.  However, they should be representative of the faculty as a whole and have experience and skill in a variety of areas of concern, in particular teaching, research, and service (at the departmental level or higher).

(2) Substitutions: Each person being evaluated will be told who is on the Post-Tenure Review Committee.  The person being evaluated shall have the right to request the department chair to replace one member of the committee (such replacement to affect only the evaluation of the person making the request).  If such a request is made, the department chair and the person making the request shall mutually agree on a replacement.  In the unlikely event that mutual consent cannot be reached on a suitable replacement, the Budget Council will select the replacement.

(3) Materials: As indicated in Article 3.14 of the Handbook of Operating Procedures, the department will give each faculty member a copy of previous annual reports, statistical summaries of student teaching evaluations for the review period, and the results of previous annual reviews for the evaluation period.  The faculty member will submit a resume and annual report, and may provide any additional materials he or she wants to be considered by the committee. The department chair will notify each person being evaluated at least six months in advance of the actual evaluation.  Persons being evaluated will be told what matters will be considered in the evaluation and asked to verify that records used in the evaluation process are up-to-date.  Furthermore, they will be offered an opportunity to meet with the committee, prior to the completion of the evaluation, to discuss the evaluation.

(4) Reports: Upon completion of its review, the committee will present to the department chair a written report on its findings.  The report will document the faculty member's contributions to teaching, research, and service during the evaluation period (preceding six years), interpreting each of these in the broadest sense.  The report must conclude with one of the two following summary statements: either “… is making a contribution consistent with that expected of a tenured faculty member” or "…is not making a contribution consistent with that expected of a tenured faculty member.” [1]

(5) Submittal: The department chair will communicate the full contents of the report to the person who was reviewed, as well as to the Dean of the College of Natural Sciences.  The chair may provide additional narrative regarding the review if desired.  If the chair of the department is one of those selected for post-tenure review, the chair of the PTRC will submit the result of the evaluation to the chairman, who will then forward it with a cover letter to the dean.

(6) Action: Recognizing that the department has a vested interest in helping its faculty perform well, if the result of the evaluation is unsatisfactory, the department may recommend to the Dean that the problem be addressed internally rather than by immediate recourse to the actions prescribed in the Handbook of Operating Procedures, Section 3.14.

(7) Timetable:

Mar 31 – Faculty members are notified/reminded of review process

July 3 – Faculty members are given copies or access to previous annual reports, statistical summaries, etc.

Oct 1 – Faculty member submits a current resume and other materials

Oct - Dec – PTRC meets and reviews materials

Feb 2 – Written report to faculty member and to Dean

Feb – Dean either forwards summary report to Provost, or appoints a peer review committee.

Aug 1      –      CNS peer-review committee report due; outcome reported to the faculty member, the Department Chair, and the Provost.

(Details of H.O.P. Sec. 3.14 at http://www.utexas.edu/provost/policies/post_tenure/memo2000.html)

[1] It is recognized that simply categorizing a person's contribution in this way will commonly understate the full worth of an individual's contribution to the University.  This review is limited to a determination that the person under review is or is not performing at a satisfactory level.  If the performance is at least satisfactory, then the PTRC need not delve any further.  Thus these reviews certify a person's satisfactory performance, but do not even attempt to measure total performance when it is beyond a satisfactory level.  The appraisal of a faculty member's full contribution is a more substantial task, usually requiring assessment by experts outside the University in addition to internal assessment.  For this reason, comments that characterize a person's contributions in more descriptive ways ("excellent", "superior", "outstanding") may not be productive in the context of this limited review.