Evaluation

COFA follows the university’s P&T process. Below are links to the university’s policies and guidelines as well as some resources created by the college.

• The University’s General Guidelines for Promotion and Tenure
• Extension of Tenure-track Probationary Period
• Personal Circumstances Flag
• HOP 2-2010 Academic Titles and Tenure

• COFA external referee policy
• COFA peer evaluation policy
• The College of Fine Arts requires that its promotion candidates use this College of Fine Arts-specific template for the Summary of Selectivity of Publication Outlets/Performance Venues document.

• COFA Tenure-Track Assistant Professor Promotion Orientation [PDF, 641 KB]
• COFA Tenured Associate Professor to Full Professor Promotion Orientation [PDF, 592 KB] 
• COFA Professional Track Promotion Orientation [PDF, 680 KB]

• Tenure Mentor Annual Checklist [PDF, 86.2 KB]
• Tenure-Track Probationary Faculty Members Frequently Asked Questions 
• Faculty Mentoring Toolkit
  • Mentor Ground Rules Setting Document (PDF, 46 KB)
  • Mentee Ground Rules Setting Document (PDF, 45 KB)
  • Individual Development Plan Form (PDF, 59.7 KB)

Each academic department will implement a full review of the research, teaching, service, mentoring, and overall progress of each tenure-track Assistant Professor in the fall semester of their third year of service to the College of Fine Arts.

The Third Year Review is called the Mid-Probationary Review in the university-wide promotion and tenure guidelines. The purpose of this review is to provide thoughtful and evaluative feedback both to the faculty member and the department chair/school director regarding respective contributions toward satisfying standards of promotion and tenure.

The promotion candidate should treat this as the first draft of their eventual tenure dossier. 

The executive committee/budget council reviews and discusses the third year-review dossier. No voting is required. No EC/BC-drafted statements are required. The department chair/school director attends the discussion and prepares a first draft of the written report to the promotion candidate. Then, the College Promotion and Tenure Advisory Committee reviews the third-year review dossier and the first draft of the written report from the chair/director and provides additional feedback to the chair/director for incorporation into the written report. Then, the chair/director completes the written report and provides it to the candidate. The written report is eventually placed in the candidate’s tenure dossier. 

Timeline and Deadlines
The third-year review occurs during the fall semester of the third year of the promotion candidate’s tenure-track probationary period. Any extensions of tenure-track probationary period that occur prior to the third-year review will delay the third-year review by the same amount of time as they delay the up-or-out tenure review year

By October 1 – Dossier due to department/school

By December 15 – EC/BC review is completed

By December 31 – Dossier due to dean’s office 

In January – College Promotion and Tenure Advisory Committee review occurs

By February 15 – final draft of report from chair/director due to candidate. 

Dossier Materials
In all cases, the promotion candidate is to prepare these documents so that they meet all requirements of that year’s university-wide promotion and tenure guidelines for the corresponding document in their eventual tenure dossier.  

• Curriculum vitae
• Candidate statement on Teaching (4 pages max)
• Candidate statement on Research/Creative Activity (4 pages max)
• Candidate statement on Service (2 pages max)
• Candidate statement on Mentoring (2 paged max)
• At least two peer evaluation/observation reports (coordinated by dept/school chair/director)
• Instructional activity report of all courses taught while in rank (this is produced by the provost’s office)
• List of students supervised for thesis and dissertations (this is produced by the provost’s office)
• Student Course Evaluation Survey written comments for all courses taught in rank
• Complete documentation of two examples of significant works either completed in rank, forthcoming, or in-progress. 
  • Complete documentation for a publication or recording means a copy of the text or music files of the publication. 
  • Complete documentation for a performance, exhibition, or other ephemeral work would include a record of that activity sufficient for assessment of quality, like a recording, review, documentary images, or similar.
• A document providing the name of the candidate’s tenure mentor.
• Supplemental materials (per candidate’s discretion)

1. Has the chair/director articulated a specific and appropriate standard for promotion and tenure in the candidates field?
2. Are standards in this field obscure or in need of articulation, and if so, what has been done to clarify them for the candidate, for senior colleagues, for the dean and other senior administrators outside the candidate’s field?
3. Does the candidate have an appropriate senior faculty mentor? If not, should one be assigned?
4. Is the candidate on track in achieving the professional or scholarly accomplishments essential to a successful tenure case?
5. Is there a compelling and consistent record of mentoring and evaluation of the candidate’s teaching? Do these indicate strong teaching?
6. Is the candidate overburdened with service obligations? Or insufficiently involved with departmental service?
7. Are the candidate’s mentoring activities appropriate in quantity and impact for their discipline?
8. Has the candidate received appropriate feedback from the chair/director and executive committee relative to progress towards promotion and tenure?
9. How might the chair/director advise a candidate to strengthen his or her case?