PRB annual informational meeting 2005
April 26, 2005
The Chair of the President’s Review Board (PRB) meets annually with faculty to explain the requirements for promotion and tenure and to respond to specific questions about the process.
PRB/Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs, Lucinda M. Finley
PRB
- Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs (VPFA) recommends potential PRB members to the President
- Intended to represent the university perspective, not necessarily representative of each area
- VPFA attends the meetings as a non-voting member. The Provost and/or President MAY attend meetings (and do)
- PRB makes recommendations to the Provost and President. The chair prepares a letter with the vote, and if overwhelmingly positive, uses a general form letter. Else, the chair will summarize the discussion to help explain the vote
- Standards vary by discipline and PRB reviews cases with those unique (if you will) standards in mind
- Chair’s letter should set out the standard for that discipline and explain how the candidate meets or exceeds those standards
Outside evaluators
- Should be from Tier 1 AAU public research universities, our peers or better. If your discipline is not represented within this cohort, then you may solicit from other institutions. Be sure to explain that. However, you need to make the case that the evaluator understands the standards of a research university or the case may be returned for additional letters.
- Must be disinterested; “not collaborator, advisor, co-investigator, colleagues at a prior institution” Looking for an “arm’s length” evaluation.
- Candidate’s participation in soliciting names varies; but sounds to me like it’s better not to involve the candidate, except for names of folks not to contact.
- These letters are extremely important. Some creative ways to identify potential reviews are to ask the editor of the premier journal in the discipline, or chair of the appropriate professional society.
Other aspects of the dossier
- Proofread carefully. A sloppy CV will reflect poorly on the candidate.
- Include letters from co-collaborators to explain the nature or role of the candidate’s contribution.
- Candidate’s statement of research should also explain role in collaborative projects (and hopefully agrees with the collaborator),
- Statement of research is the candidate’s opportunity to explain what you do, why you do it, how it matters, future plans and promise for the future. Show excitement and enthusiasm!
- Internal letters assess candidate’s role as colleague, may comment on teaching, university service, any collaborative projects. Any comments on scholarship will not be given the weight of the outside evaluators.
- Chair’s and Dean’s letters are very important and help explain the dossier. Negative votes should be addressed; although not much need be said if only one or two. Also explain abstentions, which PRB thinks may be conflicts of interest or someone who can’t make up their mind.
Standards
- Standards have not changed over the past 10-12 years. This point was stressed a number of times during the session.
- What has changed is the identity of the outside evaluators. That is, from whom we ask for letters. The focus is on letters from faculty at Tier 1 AAU peer group institutions.
- Collaboration is good. Just explain the candidate’s role.
- Tenure decision is on promise, or trajectory of your career. Again, this concept of a trajectory was mentioned frequently. If you slip off the path, explain why. Often there are legitimate and understandable explanations.
- PRB usually reviews 60-70 cases per year; of those maybe 3-4 receive a negative recommendation. This ratio has been consistent over the past 10 years.
- Quantity is never a substitute for quality; but specific numbers of what is appropriate output varies by discipline.
- Promotion to full is not time dependent. Candidate needs to have that national or international reputation based on what she/he has done.
- Early promotion or tenure decision should go forward “when the record warrants it.”
Miscellaneous
- VPFA is willing to come and talk to chairs/deans/faculty. She intends to offer workshops for chairs on dossier preparation next academic year. Would it be worth offering to share some of our materials or experiences?
- There will be a VPFA website coming up soon (next couple weeks). Perhaps this will mention the workshops noted above.
- Don’t assume—explain.
Notes for APT members: prepared by Susan Davis, 4/29/05
Content provider: Susan Davis
Comments: lib-staffweb@buffalo.edu
Last update: 3 June 2005