Page Comparison

The dean must address the topics listed below in their statement (in no particular order) in this statement.any order).  In departmentalized colleges/schools, the dean should limit the amount of information that is duplicated from the chair’s statement (Section G.3).  In a non-departmentalized college/school, the dean must also address the items required in the chair’s statement (Section G.3) unless the college/school guidelines assign that responsibility to the chair of the BC/EC.

• 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 must 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) - Associate Professor or C.3(b) - Full Professor] 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
  Explicit of review defined in Section A.7, with a focus on time in rank for tenure-track candidates and in most recent normative time in rank for tenured candidates.
  • Provide 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).
  • (including citations), research independence, and evidence of funding sustainability (if applicable).
  • Evaluate the relative selectivity of publication outlets/performance venues and prestige of honors/awards.
• 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.any reservations expressed therein.
• Describe the relative strength of the their overall recommendation (e.g., strongly recommend or recommend).

In departmentalized colleges/schools, the dean should limit the amount of information that is duplicated from the chair’s statement (Section G.3).

...

• .