[table of contents] [previous] [next]

 
 
III. THE STANDING FACULTY OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

C. PROMOTION TO ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR

    Promotion to the rank of Associate Professor in SAS is an appointment for an indefinite term and thus must be made only after a very careful evaluation of the candidate and of the needs and plans of the department and of SAS. Persons recommended for promotion to tenure should show evidence of significant scholarship, as recognized by specialists in the appropriate field of study both inside and outside the University. Candidates must exhibit breadth of intellectual interests relevant to the academic needs and plans of their department and the School of Arts and Sciences and effective teaching and service to the department and to the University.

  1. Affirmative Action Requirements (SAS Form 99-4)

    No search is required when a promotion within the Standing Faculty is considered. However, the Affirmative Action Officer must be convinced that equitable consideration for promotion has been given to all other untenured faculty members in the department with equal or greater number of years in the same rank, including female and minority faculty members.

  2. External Reviewers (SAS Form 99-17)

    When a department decides to make a formal review to consider promotion from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor, it must request the candidate to nominate up to three persons from outside the University to serve as external reviewers. In addition, the department should nominate at least eight persons to serve as external reviewers. These reviewers should be persons selected for their national and international scholarly standing as well as for their knowledge and judgment of the field of the candidate. The names of the reviewers nominated by the department should not be made known to the candidate. The letter that requests the evaluation will be sent from the department, but must conform closely in spirit to the sample letter contained herein. The letter must request comparisons which are as quantitative as possible and must not "lead" the reviewer by suggesting, for example, that the department wishes to promote the person being reviewed. A sample of the suggested letter (SAS Form 02-18) is enclosed. The actual letter is to be reviewed by the appropriate Associate Dean before it is sent.

    The Provost's Staff Conference requires six external letters in the dossier in addition to any written by reviewers nominated by the candidate. If fewer than six letters are received from reviewers proposed by the Department, the Department must ask for authorization of additional reviewers to ensure that the minimum of six letters is received.

    Please review Section II.I on page 11 (Confidentiality of Employee Records.)

  3. Deadlines for Recommendations

    Recommendations for promotion from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor can be made at any time during a person's appointment as an Assistant Professor. However, University policy requires that an Assistant Professor be notified of his or her promotion or termination no later than the end of the sixth full year of service as an Assistant Professor.

    Departmental recommendations should reach the Dean's Office no later than the beginning of the spring term of the sixth full year of service. Obviously, the department must begin its own review well before that time. In the event that advice from the department is not received in time to permit the Personnel Committee, the Dean, and the Provost's Staff Conference to complete their reviews before June 30 of the sixth full year of the appointment, the Dean will send a notice of termination to the faculty member to protect the interests of the School of Arts and Sciences.

    Important note: the deadline for action before the end of the sixth year of service may be modified if the tenure probationary period is extended according to the University's Policy on Extension of Tenure Probationary Period (2006 Handbook, Section II.E.3. revised February 24, 2006), which is as follows:

    When a qualifying events occurs, the following members of the faculty are eligible for an extension of the corresponding probationary period: (a) non-tenured members of the standing faculty --the tenure probationary period; (b) clinician-educators, members of the research faculty – the promotion review period . The qualifying events that trigger eligibility for an extension are:

    1. a child is born, adopted, or placed for foster care, into the faculty member's household and the faculty member is the primary or co-equal parental caregiver
    2. by reason of a serious health condition (as defined in Section 2611(11) of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993) persisting for a substantial portion of the period for which the extension is sought, the faculty member is required to act as the primary or co-equal parental caregiver for a child, or the primary caregiver for a spouse, or domestic partner (as defined in the domestic partner benefits policy); or
    3. by reason of a serious health condition (as defined in Section 2611(11) of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993) persisting for a substantial portion of the period for which the extension is sought, the faculty member is unable to perform the functions of his or her position.

    In the event that both spouses or domestic partners (as defined in the domestic partner benefits policy) are members of the standing faculty, or clinician-educators, or the research faculty, both spouses and domestic partners are covered by sections A.1 and A.2 of this section.

    The length of each extension shall be one year. The faculty member shall complete the Notification of Extension form and transmit it to the Provost’s office, with copies to the department chair and Dean, within one year of the birth, adoption, or foster care placement. Deans and department chairs are responsible for ensuring that all faculty eligible for an extension receive the Notification of Extension form. 

    Extensions of the tenure probationary period shall be without prejudice to the obligation of the University to provide faculty members with twelve-months' notice of termination.

    When a faculty member who has taken an extension under this section is being reviewed for tenure or promotion to associate professor, the dean, in his/her letter soliciting evaluations from external reviewers, should explicitly state that the candidate has taken an extension pursuant to this policy. The dean should further state that the policy of the University of Pennsylvania is to evaluate the productivity of each candidate who has been granted an extension as if he or she had been in probationary status for the normal duration, so that the candidate is not penalized for having received the extension.

    Upon being notified of a faculty member’s application for a one-year extension of the probationary period, the University will approve the application unless specific and compelling factors require its denial. The action of the Provost shall be communicated in writing to the faculty member and shall specify the revised date of tenure review and termination date of the probationary period and (in the event that the request is denied) shall specify the grounds for the denial.

    For untenured members of the standing faculty on the tenure track, the total probationary period cannot exceed ten years. For assistant professors on the clinician-educator track, and assistant professors on the research track, the total probationary period cannot exceed thirteen years.

     

  4. Dossier for Promotion to Associate Professor (SAS Form 99-10)
  1. Chair's Letter

The tenured members of the department should evaluate the candidate for promotion to tenure in terms of his or her accomplishments to date and potential for continued professional growth in both scholarship and teaching. The Chair's summary of this evaluation should include both the positive and negative aspects of the discussions. The Chair should comment on the candidate's scholarly achievement to date, potential for continued growth, teaching record, and other contributions to the department and to the University. A description of the academic program of the department should be included, along with a clear indication of how the candidate fits within that program. The priority of the candidate's subfield relative to other aspects of the program should be made clear. The Chair's letter must include the formal vote of the faculty on the recommendation including the manner in which the vote was taken. Positive votes, negative votes, abstentions, and absences must all be included in this statement. No dossier will be considered by the Personnel Committee if it lacks an explicit statement of the formal vote. Minority opinion should be summarized in the Chair's letter or in a separate letter from a faculty member designated by the Chair. Faculty members on leave or temporarily absent should be given an opportunity to express their views.

  1.  Curriculum Vitae of the Candidate

The candidate is responsible for preparing an up-to-date curriculum vitae which includes scholarly accomplishments and plans, teaching experience at the University (course numbers and descriptions, numbers of students, dissertation supervision, graduate student placement, and undergraduate independent study supervision), and administrative and committee work. All work published and in progress should be included in the bibliography.

Candidates must provide inclusive pagination for all bibliographical citations in the curriculum vitae (exact page numbers for articles, number of pages for books and monographs). In addition, the Chair should annotate the curriculum vitae or append to it a statement that will enable readers of the dossier: (1) to distinguish the journals in which the candidate's work appears that are refereed from those that are not; and (2) to identify the writings that are primarily by the candidate in cases of multiple authorship. The Chair should identify the most significant scholarly journals in the field and indicate the protocol for the field with regard to the order of names on jointly authored works. Include all professional reviews of books written by the candidate. No dossier for promotion to Associate Professor will be considered by the Personnel Committee if it lacks this information. Two copies of each major publication, accompanied by a check list (SAS Form 99-20) to ensure their return, must be included.

When a candidate for promotion has, had, or will have grant support from outside agencies, the Department should use SAS Forms 99-28, 99-29, and 99-30 to elaborate.

  1. Personal Statements

The candidate is encouraged to provide a personal statement(s) detailing research, teaching, and service approaches and goals. Typically, this statement--or these statements--greatly strengthen the understanding of the candidate in the various stages of review.

  1. Teaching Chronicle (SAS Form 99-15)

 

  1. Evaluation of teaching

Although evaluations of teaching must accompany any recommendation for promotion, the evaluation in the case of promotion to Associate Professor with tenure must be especially thorough. The dossier must contain all available School or departmental course evaluations. If small advanced graduate courses have not been evaluated, that fact should be noted in the teaching chronicle. Student comments from the School or departmental evaluation forms should be included. If the number of comments is large, a representative sample should be included together with a statement concerning the method of selection.

Letters should be solicited from teaching assistants who have worked under the supervision of the candidate. If this number is large, a sampling of TA's from different courses will be sufficient. Letters should also be solicited from current or former students. Please do an appropriate random solicitation, indicate in the dossier how the solicitation was carried out, and include all letters received. Precede such letters by a sample of the soliciting letter (see SAS Forms 99-26 and 99-27 for suggested letters). Material should be organized to indicate the source of all evaluations, and whether the students are graduate or undergraduate students.

Letters may also be included from faculty who have observed the candidate's teaching, worked with the candidate in jointly taught courses, or served in a teaching mentoring role for the candidate. The particular relation should be made explicit.

The Chair is responsible for providing enough information so that the teaching data can be appropriately assessed. A departmental analysis of the teaching data in a format that is consistent from case to case within the department would be helpful. Average departmental ratings and plots of instructor quality ratings versus class size can be helpful. In interpreting the teaching evaluation of a faculty member teaching a specific course, it might be helpful to know how those ratings compare with the ratings of other faculty who have taught the same course.

  1. Faculty Distribution by Rank (SAS Form 99-16)
  1. Letters from University Faculty

At least three letters from University faculty from within the department and, if appropriate, from other departments or schools must be included. The report of an ad hoc departmental committee may be substituted for individual letters from department faculty.

  1. Letters from External Reviewers

The list of approved external reviewers (SAS Form 99-17) and a sample of the Chair's standard letter requesting the reviews should precede the letters. Non-respondents should be noted on the list. The letters should be included in the order in which the names appear on this list. Other external letters may be included after those from reviewers on the approved list. If these latter letters are to be given weight by the reviewing committees, some indication of the credentials of the reviewers and of the circumstances under which they appear should be included.

  1. Notification of Candidate

It is the responsibility of the Chair to notify the candidate in writingof the official action taken before June 30 of the penultimate year of the candidate's probationary term. If promotion has not been approved, the Chair should notify the candidate with a letter similar to that suggested in SAS Form 99-21. A copy of the letter countersigned by the candidate must be sent to the Dean's Office together with a Faculty Equal Opportunity Compliance Statement (SAS Form 99-5).

  1. Procedures when the Department does not Recommend Promotion

After either a formal (external) or an informal (internal) review of the candidate's qualifications, the department may decide, for either scholarly or programmatic reasons, that it does not wish to recommend that the candidate be promoted to Associate Professor. In this event, a formal recommendation that the candidate not be promoted must be forwarded to the SAS Dean no later than the beginning of the spring semester of the candidate's sixth year as an Assistant Professor.

Important note: the deadline for action before the end of the sixth year of service may be modified if the tenure probationary period is extended according to the University's Policy on Extension of the Tenure Probationary Period (see Section III.C.3.).

  1. Dossier Prepared for Dean

In general, one copy of all documentation which was considered in making the decision should be forwarded to the Dean. The dossier should include:

  1. Chair's Letter

The Chair's letter should summarize the discussion in the department and state the reasons that the department decided not to recommend promotion. The formal vote of the faculty members must be included. Dissenting opinion, if present, should either be summarized in the Chair's letter or in a separate letter from a faculty member designated by the Chair.

  1. Curriculum Vitae of Candidate

The curriculum vitae should be presented in a manner similar to that presented for a positive recommendation.

  1. Evaluation of Teaching

All teaching evaluations considered by the department in making its recommendation should be included. All available course evaluations, whether formally considered or not, should be included. Evaluation by faculty peers is encouraged.

  1. Letters from University Faculty

Any letters from University faculty, either in the department or in other departments or schools, that were considered in the evaluation by the department should be included.

  1. External Letters

All letters from external reviewers, if any, that were pertinent to the evaluation should be included. If these were solicited from an approved list, the list and a sample of the Chair's letter of solicitation should be included. If the letters were written by external scholars not on the approved list, the standing of the writers and the occasion for the letter should be explained.

  1. Documentation of Affirmative Action Procedures

 

  1. Notification of Candidate

It is the responsibility of the Chair to notify the candidate in writing of the official action taken before June 30 of the penultimate year of the candidate's probationary term. A letter similar to that suggested in SAS Form 99-21 should be used for this notification. A copy of the letter countersigned by the candidate must be sent to the Dean's Office together with a Faculty Equal Opportunity Compliance Statement (SAS Form 99-5).

 

  1. Appeal of Unfavorable Recommendation

If the department does not recommend promotion, the candidate may appeal the case to the Dean. The candidate should present, in support of the appeal, whatever information he or she believes has either been overlooked or inappropriately evaluated. If the Dean believes that the department has not considered all aspects of the case, the Dean may ask the department to reconsider the case. The Dean also has the option of forwarding the dossier to the Personnel Committee without the endorsement of the department. In this event, which should be extraordinarily rare, the Dean must inform the Chair of the department of this action and the reasons for it.

 

  1. Procedures for Resubmission of Case by Departments - see section F.

 


 
[table of contents] [previous] [next]


School of Arts and Sciences, University of Pennsylvania
Last Modified: Tuesday, 05-Aug-2008 09:26:34 EDT