E. The Promotion to rank of Associate Professor (without tenure)

Overview: The review process is a comprehensive assessment of the work of a faculty member. It is a review of the work of the candidate since the beginning of his or her appointment as well as an attempt to gauge a trajectory of the candidate’s career at the college. A candidate for promotion must hold the Ph.D. degree or other appropriate terminal degree.

In the year prior to review, the candidate consults with the department/program Chair to discuss the viability of a promotion. The process for consideration begins with notification of intent to apply to the Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion at the end of the academic year preceding the academic year in which the review takes place (early May). At the start of the year of the review, the candidate for promotion prepares an updated portfolio, described below. The Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion, the candidate’s department/program Chair, and the  Office of Academic Affairs then work together to gather all of the documentation required for the review. A number of steps are involved in this process:

• A designated representative for Academic Affairs and the Chair of the Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion assemble a Teaching Evaluation Committee, working in consultation with the candidate’s department/program Chair, and as specified in the PRS.
• The Chair of the Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion obtains a list of students taught by the candidate. These students receive a survey about the candidate’s teaching effectiveness. A similar list is prepared to include all of the advisees served by the candidate. These students will receive a survey about the candidate’s work as an advisor.
• The Chair of the Teaching Evaluation Committee convenes the committee, reviews the process of visitation, and oversees the timely preparation of letters for the Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion.
• The Chair of the Committee on Tenure and Promotion invites those non-departmental/non-program colleagues named by the candidate to submit letters of evaluation concerning service to the College.
• The Chair of the department/program reviews the process of evaluation at the department/program level with the senior members of the department/program early in the semester of review, and oversees the scheduling of class visits for senior faculty not appointed to the Teaching Evaluation Committee. The Chair then convenes the department/program meeting to discuss the candidate’s performance at the end of the review process, and oversees the timely submission of letters for the Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion.

When all of the review materials have been assembled, the Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion evaluates the candidate’s record of teaching and service. Deliberation by the Tenure and Promotion Committee usually occurs late in the fall semester of the review year. This committee makes a recommendation for or against the granting of promotion to the Vice President for Academic Affairs by the end of the fall semester. The Vice President for Academic Affairs and the President undertake their own, respective, evaluations of the candidate’s record. The Vice President for Academic Affairs’s review of the case is completed by early March. The Vice President for Academic Affairs forwards his or her recommendation, along with the Tenure and Promotion Committee’s recommendation, to the President for review. The President’s decision, if positive, results in a recommendation for the granting of promotion that is sent to the Board of Trustees at their April Meeting. Promotion is granted to members of the Rhodes Faculty by the Board of Trustees on the recommendation of the President (typically at that same meeting).

In completing the assessment and determining that a recommendation in favor of granting promotion is appropriate, the consensus of the department/program Chair, the Vice President for Academic Affairs, and the President must be that there is a need in the area of the faculty member’s expertise and teaching competence. Nothing in this paragraph alters the nature of the term contract appointments of nontenurable faculty or confers tenure on nontenurable faculty.

A number of people or groups have roles in this process, and the responsibilities of each of these are outlined below.

The responsibilities of candidates for promotion without tenure are as follows:

1. Preparation of an updated portfolio in which the candidate presents relevant materials in support of the application for tenure. This portfolio would include the following

• A current curriculum vitae.
• A written statement about the candidate’s work that focuses on the candidate’s teaching and service at Rhodes College.
• Teaching materials including, but not limited to syllabi, exams, study questions, laboratory exercises.

2. Lists of the following possible evaluators:

• The names of four members of the Faculty nominated by the candidate to serve on the Teaching Evaluation Committee; these members are to be tenured Faculty from the department/program and/or related departments/programs as specified in the PRS.
• The names of three members of the Rhodes community (tenured faculty members and/or staff members) who can provide evaluations of service to the College. One of these three can be a faculty or staff member who has left or retired from the College in the past two years. 

The responsibilities of the senior members of the candidate’s department/program are as follows: 

• Senior members review the materials prepared for the department/program by the candidate.
• Senior members will observe at least one class during the semester of the review year. (Those senior members appointed to the Teaching Evaluation Committee will observe more classes, and their specific responsibilities are described below.)
• Senior members may seek further information, not gathered as a result of the processes described above, when that information is essential in making a reasoned judgment about the candidate’s performance. While candidates for promotion cannot be privy to student, faculty, or outside colleague comments on their performance, they must be informed if the department/program has questions about matters which the candidate can reasonably be expected to answer or clarify. In such instances, the candidate makes a written response which becomes a document available throughout the review process.
• As a group, senior members meet with the Chair of the department/program to discuss the performance of the candidate, as measured against the College’s standards for promotion. At the close of this meeting, each senior member will indicate whether or not, in her/his judgment, the candidate has met the College’s standard for excellent work in both areas of evaluation: teaching (as defined in Handbook section 7A) and service (section 7C). The purpose of this meeting of senior department /program colleagues is to provide the candidate a clear and direct indication of the judgment of their department/program colleagues, while still preserving confidentiality, and so senior members are asked here only to judge whether the candidate has met the College’s standards for promotion, or not. This meeting will take place no later than October 1.
• Following this meeting the department/program Chair will prepare a very brief letter to the candidate summarizing its outcome. This letter will not contain names or number of votes. This department/program letter shall be conveyed to the candidate by October 15, with copies sent to the Vice President for Academic Affairs and the Chair of the Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion.
• Each senior member of the department/program writes an individual letter of assessment, covering both areas (teaching and service) and submits the letter according to instructions provided by the Chair of the Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion. These letters are due by October 15. 

The responsibilities of the Teaching Evaluation Committee are as follows: 

• Committee members review the materials prepared for the Committee by the candidate.
• Committee members will coordinate with the candidate to schedule visits to classes during the fall semester of the review.
• Each member of the Committee will visit a minimum of three different class sessions. The Committee will meet with the candidate at the conclusion of the class visits to discuss its observations and findings.
• Each member of the Committee then prepares a letter detailing his or her observations of the classes. When a member of the Teaching Evaluation Committee is also a senior department/program member, the letter writer should identify himself or herself as such and write a single letter. This letter will include a more substantial discussion of the candidate’s teaching than will the standard evaluation letter. All letters are submitted according to instructions provided by the Chair of the Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion. This letter is due by October 15. 

The responsibilities of the Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion are as follows: 

• In the event that a member of the Committee is from the same department/program as (or has served on an ad hoc evaluation committee for) the candidate, that member is excluded from the discussion and formulation of the Committee’s recommendation.
• The Committee will apply the College’s standard of excellence in both areas of assessment as described in Section VIII in assessing the performance of the candidate being reviewed over the entirety of his or her appointment at the College.
• The Committee will request letters of evaluation of service/campus citizenship from three outside-of-the department/program colleagues/staff members selected by the candidate.
• The Committee will distribute special surveys to the candidate’s advisees and students. In the assessment of teaching, only students with grades A through D- will be included. In addition to the special survey, the Committee will also review the record of teaching, as measured by the college-wide evaluation instrument, during the entirety of the candidate’s years at the College.
• The Committee may seek any further information, not gathered as a result of the processes described above, where that information is essential in making a reasoned judgment about the candidate’s performance. While candidates for promotion cannot be privy to student, faculty, or outside colleague comments on their performance, they must be informed if the committee has questions about matters which the candidate can reasonably be expected to answer or clarify. In such cases, the candidate makes a written response which becomes a document available throughout the review process.
• The Committee may consult materials compiled for the three preceding tri-annual reviews.
• The Committee will make a recommendation in regard to promotion to Associate Professor to the Vice President for Academic Affairs normally by the end of the fall semester (the recommendation is provided at the same time to the President). A positive recommendation means that the committee has established to its satisfaction that the candidate has met the College’s standard of excellence in teaching and service and that based on this comprehensive review the pattern of excellence evidenced in the candidate’s teaching and service can be expected to be a distinguishing mark of the candidate’s continued work at the College.
• By mid-February the Committee will inform the candidate in writing of its recommendation, positive or negative, with an explanation of the Committee’s reasoning in reaching its recommendation. 

The responsibilities of the Vice President for Academic Affairs are as follows: 

• The Vice President for Academic Affairswill review all information collected in the process of assessment.
• The Vice President for Academic Affairswill weigh the recommendation of the Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion, requesting from the Committee or its Chair additional information, if needed, to clarify the Committee’s recommendation.
• The Vice President for Academic Affairswill apply the College’s standard of excellence in both areas of assessment as described in Section VIII in assessing the performance of the candidate being reviewed over the entirety of his or her appointment at the College.
• The Vice President for Academic Affairswill make an independent recommendation for or against the granting of promotion which is then submitted, along with all materials collected in the process of assessment, to the President by early January. The Vice President for Academic Affairswill meet with the President to discuss the recommendation.
• In mid-January the Vice President for Academic Affairswill meet with the candidate and communicate his or her recommendation for or against the granting of promotion, along with that of the President.
• At the end of the meeting, the Vice President for Academic Affairswill provide the candidate with a letter summarizing his or her recommendation.
• The Vice President for Academic Affairs will inform the Chair of the Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion and the candidate’s department/program Chair of both the Vice President’s own recommendation and that of the President.