Standards, Criteria and Reviews
Standards and Criteria
Under the Faculty Rules and Regulations (PDF), all untenured faculty have a right to a written statement of their academic unit's criteria for recommending reappointment, promotion, or tenure. This standards and criteria document must be detailed, clear, objective and manifestly fair, and must indicate the relative importance ("weight") given to each criterion - research, teaching and service. The standards and criteria document should also specify, in the clearest possible terms, the procedures and electorate for each type of faculty action (reappointment, appointment, promotion) for every rank held in that academic unit.
Academic units should regularly review their standards and criteria, updating them to ensure they are in compliance with University rules as described in the Faculty Rules and Regulations and the Handbook for Academic Administration. The faculty in the academic unit should discuss and vote on any changes to the standards and criteria. The eligible voting body will vary, depending on context. For example, untenured faculty would not be eligible to vote on changes in tenure criteria. The most current version of the standards and criteria document will be shared with newly hired faculty, with untenured faculty at the time of annual or mid-contract review, and with faculty who may be candidates for reappointment, promotion, or tenure in the near future.
Department Chairs and Managers should view the most recent versions of the Standards & Criteria for each department.
Annual and Mid-contract Reviews
Annual and mid-contract reviews are conducted in the fall; annual reviews cover the previous academic year, mid-contract reviews cover the academic years since the last reappointment. Annual and mid-contract reviews should not be confused with salary reviews, which are conducted in the spring and cover the calendar year.
Annual and mid-contract reviews are an important mechanism for providing feedback and advice to faculty members with term appointments in those years when they are not being considered for reappointment or promotion.* Annual and mid-contract reviews are directed by the chair of the unit or her/his designee (a senior faculty member), and conducted at a meeting of the eligible voting faculty of the department. The written document that is produced is first vetted by the appropriate divisional dean, before being shared with the candidate.
These reviews, a confirmation of receipt form signed by the candidate, and any written response from the candidate, are archived and eventually included in the reappointment and promotion dossiers that are sent to the Tenure, Promotions, and Appointment Committee (TPAC).
Please see Chapter 9 of the Handbook of Academic Administration (HAA) for more information.
* A candidate may opt to replace the annual review with his/her re-appointment or promotion review in the academic year in which that action takes place.
Guidance Documenting the Impact of Covid-19
Special guidance regarding documenting the impact of Covid-19 on research, teaching, and service: In their statements this year we invite faculty members who are receiving an annual or mid-contract review to document the consequences of the coronavirus pandemic on all aspects of their professional activities—with respect to research, teaching, and service. We consider this information important context for evaluating the work of these faculty members during this challenging period and encourage the departments to take it into account in assessing the professional accomplishments of the faculty under review, since the annual or mid-contract review will be the document of record included in any future dossier.