Dossier and Letters of Evaluation

Promotion Dossier

The information required for initial appointments or promotion applications is identical. Each dossier will consist of:

• Initial Appointment or Promotion cover sheet (provided by the department)
• Chair’s cover memo to the dean (department), including vote from departmental committee
• Candidate’s curriculum vitae (provided by the candidate)
• List of Evaluators (department), including rationale for choice and relationship to candidate
• Letters of support (department)
• Personal statement (candidate)

Candidate’s Responsibilities

Each faculty member needs to maintain a portfolio documenting their achievements on the One Drive that both the faculty member and their chair can access. It should include details of all accomplishments as well as their development plan, and should form the basis for discussions regarding the faculty member’s progress toward promotion. Teaching evaluations should also be included.

The candidate should also write and maintain their curriculum vitae in the correct Boston University format. For an example of this format, please click here. It is necessary to have an updated CV for the annual evaluation meeting, and if it is regularly maintained, it will be complete when compiling the dossier for promotion.

The faculty member also needs to write a personal statement for the dossier. This statement should discuss their area of excellence, their philosophy on teaching, and their academic goals. A template is available here.

Support Letters for Faculty Appointments & Promotions

Support Letters for Faculty Appointments & Promotions

Each application for initial appointment or academic promotion will contain the minimum number of support letters noted in the table below (core letters). While not required, departments may choose to include additional letters in addition to the required core letters.

It is the Department’s responsibility to request all letters without consulting or notifying the applicant relative to selection of evaluators. Candidates should be fully removed from the process and at no time should the names of reviewers or the content of evaluation letters be shared with candidates. Depending on the rank (see below), some letters are required to be at “arm’s length” – i.e., letters from individuals who don’t know the candidate, but who can assess their readiness for promotion through a strict evaluation of their CV. Thus, it is extremely important that candidates author and maintain a comprehensive and well-defined curriculum vitae.

Information on all requested evaluation letters must be included in the appointment or promotion dossier including details on why a particular evaluator may have declined a request to provide an evaluation (if available). All letters received must be included in the list of evaluation letters accompanying the dossier.

Evaluation letters must come from individuals holding a rank in academia at the same level or higher than the rank being proposed. Letters may not be provided by members of the school’s Faculty Appointments & Promotions Committee. Letters must state that the reviewer considers the candidate is qualified for the proposed rank based on Boston University GSDM academic appointment criteria. Letters must be furnished on institutional letterhead reflecting the contributor’s current academic position and must be signed.

Objective Evaluation Letters at “Arm’s-Length”

In the interest of objectivity, consistency, and transparency, support letters must be evaluative and, where required, supplied by individuals at arm’s length to the candidate. This is a requirement for all letters accompanying unmodified appointments with the exception of the rank of ASTP. Unmodified assistant professors do not need arm’s length letters, but at least one evaluation letter must come from outside the candidate’s department.  Letters are not required for Instructor-level appointments.

An “arm’s length” letter is defined as an evaluation provided by an individual who is outside the present institution of the candidate and who did not work or train with the candidate at other institutions. Although these individuals may know the candidate or may have worked with the candidate briefly in the field, they may not have been at the same institution, and may not have been the candidate’s teacher, mentor, student, or a major research collaborator. While letters from such individuals can be helpful (because they can be presumed to have a good sense of both the person and the work), it is also true that their own reputations are involved in the work being evaluated and consequently such letters may be biased. Letters from persons who may be unknown to the candidate (“arm’s length”) but can attest to the significance of the candidate’s qualifications based on their CV, are of greater value.

For Clinical or Research track faculty, arm’s length letters are not required. A chair may choose to solicit and include such a letter. However, it is acceptable to have the majority of evaluation letters for modified appointments come from internal (i.e., BU) sources, as individuals who currently or have previously worked with the candidate can provide valuable evaluation in so far as teaching, clinical, or research expertise are concerned. At least one letter is required from an external source, and evaluators must be external to the candidate’s department (for modified Assistant Professor rank) or external to the school (for modified Associate Professor or full Professor).

Internal letters should ideally come from outside of the candidate’s department or immediate work environment, from individuals who may have observed the candidate’s contributions but who are not necessarily direct mentors or scholarly collaborators. For Clinical Associate Professor and Clinical Professor ranks, three letters must be external to the school. Evaluation letters for Adjunct Clinical or Adjunct Research faculty may be from internal evaluators.

Evaluation letters are not required for title changes. This includes Emeritus appointments as well as current faculty whose title will be changed to an Adjunct position. Faculty who were not previously affiliated with BU still need evaluation letters for an Adjunct appointment, per the below charts. Additionally, evaluation letters are not required for Visiting faculty.

No evaluation letters are required for the appointment of Instructors.

A routing matrix and support letter guide for the various ranks and tracks is below:

*At least one letter must be external to the department.

*Approval Flow for Faculty Actions

1. Departmental Appointments & Promotions Committee
2. GSDM Faculty Appointments & Promotions Committee
3. GSDM Executive Committee
4. Dean of GSDM
5. Medical Campus Provost
6. President of Boston University