G. The Promotion to rank of Professor Review

Overview: Promotion to the rank of Professor recognizes a sustained trajectory of significant achievement in teaching, scholarship, and service to the College since the appointment to Associate Professor. Given the need for an extensive period of time in which to establish such a trajectory, application for promotion to Professor normally occurs six years or more after promotion to Associate Professor. In teaching, the successful candidate should have maintained or exceeded the level of teaching effectiveness achieved for tenure. In scholarship, there should be concrete evidence of scholarly productivity that has contributed significantly to the candidate’s professional profile. In service, the candidate should demonstrate a level of meaningful and effective service to the College beyond that required for tenure. Potential candidates are encouraged to discuss their plans for promotion with their department/program Chairs and a designate of the Office of Academic Affairs.

The Process: 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). By May 31 (preceding the academic year of review), the candidate for promotion submits the names of at least six outside reviewers of professional work. The due date for submission of materials will be early August. The Faculty Committee will consider the application in the fall semester.

The candidate for promotion prepares an updated portfolio according to instructions provided by the Chair of the Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion.

Participation in the review process:  Normally every senior member of a candidate’s department/program participates in the review process; the minimum number of reviewers is three. In cases where fewer than three senior members of the department/program exist, the Vice President for Academic Affairs, in consultation with the Chair of the Department/Program, will appoint ad hoc members of the faculty to bring the number of participants in the review up to three. These external faculty will act in the capacity of senior departmental/program members for the purposes of the candidate’s evaluation, and their assessments of the candidate will be given equal weight with assessments from faculty within the candidate’s department/program. In selecting faculty, the Vice President for Academic Affairs will consult with an Associate Dean of Academic Affairs, the candidate, and the candidate’s department/program chair.

For all faculty with significant interdisciplinary teaching commitments, regardless of the size of the home department, the Vice President for Academic Affairs will normally invite the Chair or another senior member of the relevant interdisciplinary programs to evaluate the faculty as an ad hoc member of the candidate’s department.

The responsibilities of candidates for promotion are as follows:

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

• A letter, or personal statement, addressing qualifications for promotion in the areas of teaching, scholarship activities, and service (These letters typically average from 4-5 typed, double-spaced pages.)
• A current curriculum vitae, including a complete bibliography of published work or evidence of creative activity;
• A representative sample of syllabi, examinations, and class or laboratory exercises covering the period since the appointment to Associate Professor;
• Copies of publications, evidence of creative activity, and other materials related to professional work since the appointment to Associate Professor;
• An optional research statement that outlines the current and future trajectory of their scholarly work and/or places their scholarly work in the context of an overall strategy for external reviewers. 

2.  Lists of the following possible evaluators:

A-Required:

• Names of at least six (6) outside evaluators of scholarly production or creative works (These persons should be recognized scholars in the discipline; none of them should have a personal, vested stake in the professional standing of the candidate; the candidate should describe the extent of the acquaintance with the outside evaluators and indicate what work each outside evaluator is in a position to review.);
• Names of three (3) members of the Faculty from outside the candidate’s department/program and/or College staff who can comment on the candidate’s citizenship at the College. One of these three can be a faculty or staff member who has left or retired from the College in the previous two years.

B-Optional:

• If the candidate chooses the option of soliciting an additional letter from a representative outside of the Rhodes College community that focuses on the candidate’s service performance and campus citizenship, then the candidate may provide the names of up to three individuals outside of the Rhodes community.
• If the candidate chooses the option of soliciting additional survey information from students that the candidate considers unofficial advisees, then the candidate may provide the names of these students and state the nature of their advising relationship with them.

The responsibilities of the senior members of the candidate’s department/program, and of faculty acting in this capacity, are:

• To review the portfolio prepared for the department/program by the candidate being reviewed;
• To be especially mindful of the particular expectations for scholarly performance as prescribed for the academic department/program of the candidate as specified in the PRS;
• To seek 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;
• To write an individual letter of assessment that is submitted according to instructions provided by the Chair of the Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion. (In the case that the letter is written by a Professor in the Faculty, a recommendation in regard to the promotion is made; in the case that the letter is written by an Associate Professor in the Faculty, an evaluation without a recommendation is offered.)

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

• In the event that a member of the Committee is from the same department/program as the candidate being reviewed, that member is excluded from the discussion and formulation of the Committee’s recommendation;
• In the event that a member of the Committee is a candidate to be considered for promotion, that member resigns from the Committee;
• The Chair of the Committee and a designated representative for Academic Affairs select two (2) outside evaluators for the candidate’s scholarly work, taken from the list provided by the candidate, and select two (2) additional outside evaluators after consultation with the Chair of the department/program;
• To apply the standards as prescribed in Section VIII above in assessing the performance of the candidate being reviewed since the appointment of the candidate as an Associate Professor at the College;
• To be especially mindful of the particular expectations for scholarly performance as prescribed for the academic department/program of the candidate and as specified in the PRS;
• To collect information about teaching effectiveness and student advising duties from special student surveys, including interviews with students, if deemed necessary;
• 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 since the appointment of the candidate as an Associate Professor at the College;
• If the candidate chose the option of soliciting additional survey information from unofficial advisees and has stated the nature of their advising relationships, the Committee will distribute special surveys to the specified students.
• If the candidate chose the option of soliciting an additional letter from a representative outside of the Rhodes College community, the Committee invites one of those individuals named by the candidate to submit a letter of evaluation concerning service.
• To seek 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 achievements;
• To make a recommendation in regard to appointment with promotion to Professor to the Vice President for Academic Affairs on or about December 5 (the recommendation is provided at the same time to the President); and,
• To inform the candidate, normally by mid-December, of the result of the recommendation, positive or negative, made by the Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion, with an explanation of the Committee’s reasoning in reaching its recommendation.

The responsibilities of the Vice President for Academic Affairs are:

• In cases where a candidate’s department/program contains fewer than three senior faculty members, to select senior faculty from outside of the candidate’s home department/program who have first-hand experience of the candidate’s work in the areas of teaching, research, and/or service to act as senior departmental/program members for the purposes of the candidate’s evaluation.
• To obtain, with the assistance of a designated representative for Academic Affairs, the agreement of outside evaluators to review the candidate’s scholarly work and to submit in a timely fashion a report of these evaluations to the Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion;
• To be especially mindful of the particular expectations for scholarly performance as prescribed for the academic department/program of the candidate and as specified in the PRS;
• To review all information collected in the process of assessment;
• To 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;
• To make an independent recommendation which is then submitted with all materials collected in the process of assessment to the President; this is to be done on or about January 10 (If the President agrees with a recommendation to promote, the President forwards this recommendation to the Board of Trustees for action.); and,
• To inform the candidate of the result of the recommendation, positive or negative, made by the Vice President for Academic Affairs, with an explanation of the Vice President for Academic Affairs′ reasoning in reaching his or her recommendation.

In the event that a review for promotion reaches a negative outcome, the faculty member must wait at least three years from the date of the previous application before reapplying for consideration.