Office of the Provost

Tenure Review: Timeline and Process

February 15

  • Faculty Affairs notifies candidate and chair
    • Includes standards, checklist, and template for external letter
    • deadline of September 15 for submission of complete dossier by department to dean via Faculty Affairs (see Faculty Handbook excerpt 1 below)
  • Chair and candidate decide on date candidate's materials due to department — May 1 recommended

March 15

  • Recommended: Chair sends list of proposed external evaluators (covering letter writers and external members of ad hoc review committee), agreed on by tenured faculty, to Faculty Affairs for review and approval, providing:
    1. URL links to prospective evaluators' current CVs/bios
    2. notes on whether evaluator proposed by candidate or department
    3. brief explanation of qualifications
    4. summary of any personal or professional relationship with candidate

April 1

  • Faculty Affairs, on behalf of dean, 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 (May 1 recommended)
  • Department sends supporting materials to those external evaluators who have agreed to provide a letter

Summer

  • Department monitors external evaluator responses, sending reminders as necessary. If needed, invites additional evaluators from approved list.

August/September

  • Department reviews materials and letters from external evaluators
  • Department votes and prepares recommendation (Department Report and Department Summary)

September 15

  • Per the Faculty Handbook, Department Report(/Recommendation) with all accompanying materials - the complete dossier - must be submitted to by department to Faculty Affairs by the established deadline, which is September 15 (see Handbook excerpt 1  below)

October

  • Faculty Affairs, on behalf of dean, sends summary of department recommendation to candidate (Department Summary).

October, November, December

  • Faculty Affairs/dean review materials and prepare dossiers for ad hoc review committee
  • Faculty Affairs/dean establish ad hoc committees (4 Brandeis faculty, 2 external members, departmental representative for each committee)

January, February, March

  • Ad hoc review committees meet and produce recommendation to dean (see Handbook excerpt 3 below)
  • Dean submits recommendation to 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
    • These are 7-9 "arm's length" letters; letters from mentors/co-authors etc may be included but will be considered supplemental to the 7-9 arm's length letters. Per these instructions - see March 15 above - the nature of any close collegial relationship will be disclosed.
  • No more than half of evaluators should have been proposed by candidate
  • Evaluators should ideally be preeminent professors (usually full) or outstanding figures in the creative arts, with few exceptions (any exceptions will be justified 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 and copy of the email 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 (as perceived)

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

Scholarship/creative works

  • What are the candidate’s significant accomplishments (publications, presentations, exhibitions, grants, patents, honors, awards, whatever matters in their field)?
  • Describe the topics of the candidate's scholarship in lay terms
  • Characterize the journals or presses where they have published so 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 external letter writers - 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 Department 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 the curriculum
  • Describe quality of advising of undergraduate (and, where relevant, graduate students): research opportunities, honors theses, research projects, dissertations, master's supervisions, etc
  • Discuss their teaching evaluations in terms of the department mean, explaining any low or unusual ratings (for example these are often lower for large lecture courses)
  • Elaborate on their accomplishments (for example, entering class teams in national competitions), teaching awards, efforts to strengthen pedagogy (including involvement in 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.
Approved: Chairs' Meeting of January 17, 2019