Promotion (to Associate or Full Professor)
The information on this page applies to promotions to Full Professor and non-tenure track promotions to Associate Professor. For other promotions to other ranks, please visit here. For promotions with tenure, please visit here.
Final Approval Authority
President: ASCP, PROF
- Promotion Dossier
- Part I—Unit Actions (PDF)(DOC)
- Part II—Candidate’s Curriculum Vitae (DOC)
- Supporting Materials
- Part III—Chair’s Report (PDF)(DOC)
- Part IV—APT Committee Report (PDF)(DOC)
- Part V—Dean’s Report (PDF)(DOC)
- Part VI—UAPT Committee Report (PDF)(DOC)
- Board of Trustees Cover Sheet
All promotions from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor, are reviewed by the UAPT, Provost and President in the Spring of each academic year. Therefore, all promotion dossiers for these cases must be submitted by the School or College to the Provost’s office by FEBRUARY 1, for consideration before the end of that academic year.
All promotions from Associate Professor to full Professor are reviewed by the UAPT, Provost and President in the winter of each academic year. Therefore, all promotion dossiers for these cases must be submitted by the School or College to the Provost’s office by NOVEMBER 15, for consideration before the end of that academic year.
Part I (Unit Actions)
Each review level of the promotion process is responsible for recording the recommendation, the votes when necessary, and the signature in the appropriate section of Part I.
Part II (Candidate’s Curriculum Vitae/Background Information) and Supporting Materials
The candidate is responsible for fully completing all sections of Part II and submitting supporting materials.
In their Part II, promotion candidates have the opportunity to list the names of three relevant external evaluators who could evaluate their scholarly and professional activities. No review level of the promotion process is required to solicit evaluations from those listed by the candidate, and individuals not suggested by the candidate will also be solicited for evaluations. Please note that the identity of evaluators is confidential and cannot be released to candidates. Writers suggested by the candidate are considered “not arm’s length” (see below).
It is preferred that all supporting materials are submitted electronically, except for samples of books or other scholarly work. Please submit 3 hard copies of each sample. However, if needed, the following are instructions on submitting the materials in hard copy format.
The candidate should provide one copy of their supporting materials (any publications, course syllabi and notes, reviews, etc.) requested in Part II for review by the various individuals and groups who participate in the promotion review process.
The supporting materials should only include materials since the candidate’s last review (i.e., if a candidate was tenured and promoted in 1997 and is up for promotion to full professor in 2004, he/she should only include materials after the 1997 review).
The copy of supporting materials should be kept separate from the promotion application. It is important to make it as easy as possible for the evaluators and committee members to access and review the materials. All supporting materials should be placed in binders with a table of contents at the front with dividers between each type of supporting material, and colored slip sheets and/or easy read tabs.
Works-in-progress should be labeled as such. Articles or books-in-press should include reference to the publisher or journal and expected publication date. Teaching materials should be identified by course and year taught. Papers presented at conferences or lectures should be labeled to indicate the occasion, place and date. Grant applications should include copies of referee’s or reviewer’s reports and information about whether the application was funded, for what purpose, in what amount.
Candidates are encouraged to send any updated materials and information (i.e., if a pending grant becomes funded, a paper is accepted for publication, etc.) to their School/College’s faculty actions office throughout their review.
Part III (Chair’s Report)
A candidate’s Department Chair is responsible for the following:
- Setting the deadline for the submission of the candidate’s Part II and supporting materials (we recommend at least four to six weeks of preparation time);
- Insuring that the above materials are reviewed, discussed and voted on by Department faculty members with a rank at least as high as that for which the candidate is being considered;
- Completing Part III;
- Recording the department vote, his/her recommendation, and signing the appropriate section in Part I (Unit Actions);
- Submitting the dossier and the supporting materials to the Dean’s Office.
The Chair should inform candidates in writing of his/her recommendation, the recommendation of the Department faculty with a rank at least as high as that for which the candidate is being considered, and of a candidate’s right to information.
If a School/College is not organized into departments or divisions, or if a promotion candidate is the Chair of a Department, the Dean shall delegate the Chair’s responsibility to an individual who will serve as Chair for the promotion review. This should be noted on Parts I and III. Candidates should be informed that a Chair has been approved to review their promotion case.
External Evaluations (placed after the Dean’s Report in the Dossier)
Cases for promotion to Associate Professor (with or without tenure) require 10-12 external letters of evaluation, solicited by the Chair and/or Dean and shared with all levels of review. The preponderance of the letters must be written by people who are “arm’s length” to the candidate, meaning they must not be written by those with a formal professional relationship to the candidate, e.g. co-author (except for very long author lists), co-investigator, close collaborator, former advisor, advisee, mentor, supervisor, etc., or written by those with a close personal relationship or familial relationship to the candidate. Letters that are not arm’s length are permitted, but must be the distinct minority of the 10-12 letters. Please see the Templates section of the website for the correct letter to be used to solicit external evaluations. A copy of the letter that you use must be included in the dossier.
Cases for promotion to full Professor require 6 external letters of evaluation, solicited by the Chair and/or Dean and shared with all levels of review. All six of these letters must be written by people who are “arm’s length” to the candidate. These are considered the Core Letters for the promotion case and are placed in a section called “Core Letters.” Each Core letter must be prefaced by a page that provides a description of the process and rationale for choosing that person as an external evaluator. For more information, please see: Full Professor Core Letters Memo
Please see the Templates section of the website for the correct letter to be used to solicit external evaluations. A copy of the letter that you use must be included in the dossier.
Part IV (APT Report)
The School Appointments, Promotion and Tenure (APT) Committee must write a report for each case and record the APT Committee’s vote on Part I (Unit Actions), signed by the APT Committee Chair. This information is then forwarded to the Dean’s Office for the Dean’s review and report.
Part V (Dean’s Report)
The Dean is responsible for reviewing the promotion dossier, making a recommendation and forwarding the case to the Provost (via the Tenure Specialist in the Office of the Provost). The Dean should inform candidates in writing of his/her recommendation.
If the Dean decides to deny promotion, he/she must inform candidates of this in writing and of a candidate’s right to information and appeal. If the candidate decides to appeal a negative decision to the Provost, he/she must do so in writing and within ten business days from receipt of the Dean’s denial letter. If the Provost grants the appeal, the case will then continue onto the next level of review. However, if the Provost denies the appeal, thereby upholding the decision of the Dean, the candidate has no right of appeal to the President, and the review process terminates at that stage.
Part VI (UAPT Report)
The University Appointments, Promotion and Tenure (UAPT) Committee is comprised of 16 members from various Schools/Colleges on the Charles River campus. A Chair is selected to lead the UAPT Committee and is assisted by a staff member of the Office of the Provost. The UAPT Committee reviews and votes on all promotion only cases from each school participating in that particular tenure review year. After the UAPT Committee prepares their report with a recommendation to the Provost for each candidate, it is added to the candidate’s dossier. The case is then forwarded to the Provost with all supporting materials.
In the case of an ordinary review, candidates for promotion to full Professor are notified of the Provost/President’s decision by March 15th, and candidates for promotion to Associate Professor with or without tenure (or full Professor with tenure in the Law School) are notified of the Provost/President’s decision by May 15th. All candidates in each group are notified on the same date.
Board of Trustees Cover Page
This form pulls together a summary of the promotion case to present to the Board of Trustees. Most of the information may be pulled from a candidate’s CV. Chair and Dean signatures are required at the end of the form.
Tenure and/or Promotion dossiers and supporting materials should be sent to Elaine Bidianos (email@example.com, 1 Silber Way – 8th Floor). You may contact her at 3-1920 with any questions.