Office of the Provost

Tenure Review: Timeline and Process

Feb. 15

  • Faculty Affairs notifies candidate and chair.
    • Includes standards, checklist and template for external letter deadline of Sept. 15 for submission of dossier to Faculty Affairs (see Faculty Handbook excerpt 1 below).
  • Chair and candidate decide on date for materials due to Department — May 1 recommended.

February/March

  • Dean, Division Heads, and Faculty Affairs meet with candidates and chairs to review process and timeline.

March 15

  • Recommended: Chair sends list of proposed external evaluators (as letter writers and members of ad hoc committee) agreed on by tenured faculty to Faculty Affairs for review and approval, providing:
    1. URL links to their current CVs or BIOs;
    2. note whether proposed by candidate or department;
    3. brief explanation of qualifications;
    4. summary of any personal or professional relationship with candidate, where known.

April 1

  • Faculty Affairs notifies chairs of approved external evaluators Department sends requests to external evaluators (see Handbook excerpt 2 below).

Late Spring/early Summer

  • Tenure candidate submits materials to department.
  • Department sends supporting materials to external evaluators who have agreed to write about candidate.

Summer

  • Department monitors external evaluators, reminding them as necessary. If needed, invites additional evaluators from approved list.

August/September

  • Department reviews materials and external letters.
  • Department votes and prepares recommendation (“Departmental Report”).

Sept. 15

  • Per the Faculty Handbook, Department recommendation with accompanying materials (complete dossier) must be submitted to Faculty Affairs by the established deadline which is September 15. (see Handbook excerpt 1  below).

October

  • Faculty Affairs sends summary of department recommendation to candidate (“Departmental Summary”).

October, November, December

  • Faculty Affairs reviews materials and prepares dossiers for the ad hoc committee.
  • Faculty Affairs establishes ad hoc committees (4 Brandeis faculty, 1 departmental representative, 2 external members for each committee).

January, February, March

  • Ad hoc committees meet and produce recommendation to Dean (see Handbook excerpt 3 below).
  • Dean writes recommendation to the Provost.

May 31

  • Faculty Handbook deadline for tenure candidates to be informed of tenure decision is before May 31 (see Handbook excerpt (4) below).

Revised Expectations

Letters from external evaluators

  • 7-9 letters needed for tenure candidates.
  • No more than half of evaluators should have been proposed by candidate.
  • Evaluators should ideally be distinguished professors (usually full) or outstanding figures in the creative arts, with few exceptions (justify exceptions in department narrative).

Departmental Report

A. Discussion of external evaluators

  • The report should clearly indicate if the evaluators were proposed by candidate, department, or recommended by external letter writers.
  • The relationship of the evaluator to the candidate should be noted.
  • An explanation from those who decline to write should be included in the dossier and the department report should comment on the response rate norms for the field.

B. Explain materials and justify decision for broad audience of scholars outside of the department or division; provide a thorough assessment of the deliberations as to the candidate’s teaching scholarship/creative works, and service.

Scholarship/creative works

What are the candidate’s significant accomplishments (publications, presentations, exhibitions, grants, patents, honors, awards, whatever matters in your field)? Describe the topics of the candidate's scholarship in lay terms. Characterize the journals or presses they have published with so that people outside of the field can understand their importance and appropriateness for the topics (top-tier? prestigious for the sub-field? perhaps less-prestigious but cutting-edge?). Note other indicators of their prestige and accomplishments (keynotes? invitations to national/international conferences or lectures? Characterize (with brief excerpts) the evaluations of the outside readers - and perhaps explain the value of their perspective (as the top researcher in the field?). Explain and respond to any negative or critical comments in the letters. State and explain the evaluation of department reviewers, including full range of opinions. Explain any negative votes or abstentions in the departmental report or in separate or concurring statements.

Teaching

Evaluate quality of teaching and mentoring of students. Describe courses, new courses that they developed, how they contribute to your curriculum. Describe quality of advising of undergraduate (and, where relevant, graduate students): research opportunities, honors theses, research projects, dissertations, masters supervisions, etc. Explain their teaching evaluations in terms of your department mean. Explain any low or unusual ratings (for example these are often lower for large lecture courses). Elaborate on their accomplishments (in this case, for example, entering class teams in national competitions), teaching awards, efforts to strengthen pedagogy (like Davis Fellows and other CTL programs).

Service

Describe in detail quality and quantity of service at all levels: department, university, and profession. Emphasize those that are most significant or meaningful.

Excerpts from the Faculty Handbook

1. Tenure and Promotion, b. procedure, ii. the department (V.A.4.b.ii)

(3). The dossier, department report, and departmental summary must be completed and submitted to the appropriate Academic Dean, in accordance with the established deadline.

  1. Tenure and Promotion, b. procedure, i. definitions (V.A.4.b.i)

(3). The dossier will also include not less than three letters of evaluation from qualified individuals outside the university, a list of all those from whom such letters were solicited, as well as a statement by the department chair as to the qualifications of the outside evaluators and their relationship (if any) to the candidate.

3. Tenure and Promotion, b. procedure, i. the ad hoc committee and the Tenured Promotions Committee (V.A.4.b.iv)

(5). The report of the ad hoc committee, including the outside scholar(s), or the Tenured Promotions Committee must contain a clear recommendation for or against promotion and/or the award of tenure. The report must include an appraisal of all significant evidence, favorable and unfavorable. It should be specific, detailed, and analytical, and must include an evaluation of the candidate’s qualifications with respect to scholarship and/or creative work; teaching; activities and service to the department, university, and the profession.

4. Reappointment within the Tenure Structure, c. assistant professor (V.A.3.c)

iv. Before May 31 of the seventh year in rank as Assistant Professor at Brandeis University (including time spent in rank as Instructor, if any, but not including time granted under the provisions of section V.A.3.d. of this Handbook), the candidate must be informed by the appropriate Academic Dean in writing either that tenure and promotion have been granted, effective in the year following the decision, or that tenure and promotion have been denied. In cases where tenure and promotion have been denied, the candidate will receive a one-year nonrenewable appointment as Assistant Professor outside the tenure structure, to take effect in the year following the decision.

Note

  • Per the Faculty Handbook, the term “department” denotes the academic administrative unit(s) to which the candidate is being appointed.