...
- A summary of the discussion within the CAC, including an explanation of the rationale for the committee’s vote and an explanation of negative votes. The dean should solicit feedback from the committee regarding the reasons for negative votes (if any) and to characterize the overall strength of the CAC’s recommendations and any areas of concern.
Explain the timing of the promotion review (e.g., mandatory review, accelerated review, or candidate invoked right of consideration) and provide justification for an accelerated review [Subsection B.3(b) or C.3(b)] or promotion after an extended time in rank (Section C.5).
Independent assessment of the candidate’s strengths and weaknesses in each of the areas below- Teaching courses at the undergraduate and graduate levels
- Research, creative activities, and other scholarly efforts
- Mentoring activities, including formal and informal supervision of students and other mentees
- Administrative and committee service to the department, college, and University, and professional public
service to the nation, state, and society - Other evidence of merit or recognition, such as awards, fellowships, and grants
Recommendations for promotion and tenure are based on the candidate’s demonstrated record of career
accomplishments, with emphasis focused on accomplishments in rank and the trajectory of those contributions, as
an indication of future performance.
Explicit contextualization and assessment of the candidate’s scholarly trajectory and sustainability based on the candidate’s demonstrated productivity, current and future funding (where relevant) and in-progress and in-preparation works. Evaluation of citations should be included as part of the evaluation of scholarly trajectory, if appropriate for the discipline.
Summarize the prestige/quality of the scholarly and creative outlets (e.g., journal, academic press, venue, or gallery).
Reflect on the reviewers’ letters. Identify and explain why letters were requested from distant collaborators if applicable. Do not quote extensively from the reviewers’ letters.
Describe the relative strength of the overall recommendation (e.g., strongly recommend or recommend).
...