Preface

This document is a companion to the University's new policy on Appointments, Promotion and Tenure (policy #201-97). It applies to [1] faculty hired after July 1, 1997 and [2] assistant, associate and full professors hired between July 1, 1995 and July 1, 1997 who chose review under policy 201-97. Serving as a guide for candidates, department chairs, deans and members of the University Council's Promotion and Tenure Committee, it describes three review processes: [1] the third-year review of assistant professors for contract renewal, [2] the review for tenure, and [3] the review for promotion 1 from the tenured ranks of associate to full professor.

This document was prepared by the Promotion and Tenure Committee of the University Council (herein referred to as the P&T Committee or "the Committee").

A. Introduction

To confer (or not to confer) tenure is the single most important decision a University can make with regard to a member of its faculty. From the individual's perspective, it is a decision of enormous magnitude--one that can have a major impact on the candidate's career. From the perspective of the University, it is a commitment to support an individual's program of scholarship and teaching throughout his or her career at Rice until retirement. Over a period a time, many such decisions can have a profound influence on the character and quality of the University. Although contract renewals and promotions that do not affect tenure are less consequential, they too have an important impact on both the individual and the institution. For these reasons the processes leading up to these decisions require great care and attention. While keeping the goals and quality standards of the University in mind, we must be scrupulously attentive to the process to ensure that all candidates receive a fair and thorough review.

Except for changes due to policy revisions, the procedures by which candidates are evaluated must also remain consistent over time, to the extent possible. A slow but steady turnover occurs in the ranks of those who evaluate candidates for promotion and tenure: new members are elected and appointed to University Council; deans and department chairs change. These guidelines are intended to provide continuity to the process; they are a tutorial for those who are new to the process and a reference for those who have participated before.

As much as possible, it is also important that the process be applied uniformly to the many different disciplines at Rice. The P&T committee recognizes that both the nature of scholarship and the venues that are used to communicate it vary widely from discipline to discipline. We do not expect a musician to be evaluated in the same light as a physicist. However, where similarities between disciplines do exist, such as the different areas of engineering or the humanities, we expect the procedures for evaluation to be very nearly identical.

This document does not establish policy, but the Committee considers the guidelines to follow historical practice and to be fully consistent with policies described in the relevant Policy 201-97.

Strict adherence to confidentiality is important at all stages of the review process. Except as specified in these procedures, all persons involved in a promotional review must hold in strict confidence all discussions and materials related to the review, including but not limited to the letters of both internal and external reviewers, letters of recommendation from deans and department chairs, testimony to the P&T Committee by deans, department chairs and internal reviewers, and all deliberations of the P&T Committee. No person meeting with the Committee should draw inferences about the process or disclose to the candidate or to others what takes place at a committee meeting at any time. The president and provost may share the Promotion and Tenure Committee's recommendations with the respective deans, but otherwise no one may disclose those recommendations either before or after the list of promotions has been published.

B. The Promotion and Tenure Process

B.1. The Review Schedule

The promotion and tenure review process consists of a sequence of stages, beginning with the candidate's department 2 and progressing through the level of the division, the University-wide Committee, the president, and finally, the Board of Trustees. At each stage the candidate's qualifications are reviewed and evaluated. The complexity and thoroughness of the process invariably requires both time and dedication on the part of all those involved. For this reason, the schedule extends over many months (an accelerated schedule is used for candidates from other institutions who are appointed to a tenure position at Rice-- see section B.3).

The process typically begins in the late spring of one calendar year, and concludes with the May Board meeting of the following calendar year. Since assistant professors must be promoted no later than their seventh year of employment at Rice (including adjustments to the tenure clock as described in policy #204-97, "Faculty Family, Medical, and Professional Leaves" ), the process must begin at the department level in the spring of their sixth year. The schedule for promotion of associate professors to full professor parallels the process detailed for assistant professors. A detailed timeline for these reviews is given in section D.

B.2. Early reviews

Early reviews are encouraged in cases where candidates are making rapid progress and show exceptionally high potential for a successful tenure review. If the department wishes to put forward a candidate early, it should make a proposal in writing to their dean, summarizing their reasons, prior to initiating the review process.

B.3. Interim reviews

When a candidate is hired at advanced standing, an interim review for tenure is usually necessary. To speed the recruitment process, these interim reviews are conducted on an ad-hoc basis and may occur at any time of the year. The process for preparation of the case follows the same guidelines as for normal reviews. Once forwarded to the provost's office, the case is read individually by the members of the P&T Committee who record their comments and vote. If any one member of the Committee feels it is necessary to call a meeting of the P&T Committee, such a meeting will be called. Once the review is concluded, the provost will forward the dossier to the president along with his recommendation and the Committee's vote.

B.4. The role of the department

The most important stage of the review process occurs in the department. It is here that the case originates, and it is here that the dossier is prepared. The faculty in the department also have the most extensive knowledge of the candidate's work and the most relevant expertise to evaluate it. It is here that the quality standards are most effectively applied. Ideally, if the departments execute their responsibilities fully and correctly, the vast majority of cases that are forwarded to the dean and to the University committee with a positive recommendation will be approved. If a candidate does not qualify for promotion, it is best that the decision to deny promotion be made at the level of the department.

B.4.a. Responsibilities of the Chair. The department chair is responsible for informing candidates about the promotion process, including the candidate's role in the review, and the typical schedule for each stage of the review. The chair should also make a reasonable effort to ensure that the candidate has fully understood the process and that any potential confusion or misunderstanding has been resolved.

The chair must also explain clearly to the candidate the expectations for meeting university-wide standards of quality and productivity in scholarship, research or other creative work, in teaching, and in professional service both within and outside the University. For assistant professors, this information should be provided to the candidate at the time of their employment, reiterated at each annual performance review, and again communicated to the candidate prior to review for promotion or contract renewal. At annual performance reviews, the chair should give assistant professors feedback about their progress toward achieving tenure and suggest constructive measures that will help address any existing deficiencies.

It is also the responsibility of the department chair to appoint the internal reviewer, with full consideration of suggestions made by the candidate, the faculty, and the dean. The department chair is also responsible for the preparation of the candidate's dossier. Although he or she may delegate much of the work to others, it is the chair who must oversee the process and ensure that the dossier is complete and complies with University guidelines. At the beginning of all meetings concerning promotion, the chair should remind the faculty of the confidential nature of the entire review process.


B.4.b The Department's Review.


Eligible candidates: Each year, the department chair should determine who among their faculty are eligible for promotion or contract renewal in the following year. This information should be obtained by a careful review of the department's records and should be confirmed with the dean and provost. Special consideration is needed to account for the effect of leaves on the tenure and contract clocks. Some reviews are mandatory (e.g., assistant professors must be reviewed for contract renewal in the third year of their first contract period, and then for promotion to associate with tenure no later than the third year of their second four-year contract period). Early reviews for tenure should be considered where appropriate (see B.2. above).

Decision to conduct a review: The Department Chair meets with the appropriate faculty in the Department to decide which, if any, of their eligible faculty they will review for promotion. Once decided, the chair will then talk to each of the faculty the department wishes to review. He or she will:

a) explain fully the review process to each eligible candidate,

b) secure their consent to proceed with the review (for mandatory reviews, this step is pro forma),

c) request suggested names of possible external reviewers, 3

d) request suggestions for the internal reviewer, 4 and

e) assign responsibility for compiling the dossier.

If a candidate refuses to agree to a review that is not mandatory, the process stops and the candidate will be reconsidered the following year. If the department decides to not conduct a review, the eligible candidates will be so informed by the chair, given the reasons for the decision, told when a future review might be expected, and advised how best to prepare for it.

The dossier: The following information must be included in the dossier:

1) An abstract summarizing the following key information about the candidate's work:

a) The candidate's department, current and proposed rank.

b) The candidate's education.

c) The candidate's teaching record at Rice, including a summary of courses taught, student evaluations for each, new courses implemented, courseware developed, and any other relevant information about teaching.

d) A list of current and past graduate students, with a record of their placement.

e) The candidate's record of scholarship, including refereed articles published in journals, articles in journals that are not refereed, books, and other relevant records of creative work. Where appropriate, a record of citations should be provided, including comparisons to other faculty.

f) A list of awards and prizes.

g) Where appropriate, a record of external support for research, giving the source of funding, title of the grant or contract, amount and time period.

h) A list of the external reviewers, indicating whether they were suggested by the department or the candidate. All external reviewers who were asked to review the candidate's case should be listed whether they agreed to participate or not. Those who did not participate should be indicated and the reasons given.

i) A record of service both to Rice University and to the external professional community. Examples include the following: service on departmental and university committees; service in the colleges and in organizations sponsored by the University and its Alumni Association; educational outreach to the community.

2) A progress report describing the candidate's program of scholarship, research or other creative work. This should describe his or her goals, accomplishments to date, work in progress, and future directions.

3) Copies of all articles, books, reviews, reports and/or other creative works produced by the candidate. Note, the status of each should be clearly stated: (1) published (date) in (journal); (2) accepted for publication (date) in (journal), with or without revisions required; (3) submitted (date) to (journal); (4) unpublished; (5) in preparation. In fields for which published articles or books are not the norm, photos, recordings, drawings, and/or other representations of creative works by the candidate should be provided. If the work was the product of a collaboration, the candidate's contribution should be clearly delineated.

4) Status of works under preparation: copies of correspondence, notification, and official contracts from publishers

5) Copies of reviews written by others about books, grants, or other creative work produced by the candidate.

6) A current curriculum vita.

7) Letters from external reviewers, copies of the letters sent by the chair to the reviewers, and a brief biography of the reviewers.

8) Letters attesting to service to professional organizations, University and Department committees, and community outreach.

Note: In cases where the department feels the outcome of the review is uncertain, it may choose to compile an internal dossier consisting of all of the above items, except for the external reviewers' letters. Once completed, it then meets to review the dossier and decide whether to proceed with a full review including the request for external letters.

It is important that the candidate provide the necessary material to the department in a timely manner. Invariably, some material will change over the period of the review. A letter may be received from an editor indicating that a book manuscript has been accepted for publication, or notification may be received that an important grant has been awarded by a government agency. Late materials such as these may be included in the candidate's dossier by forwarding them through the department chair, dean and provost, to the P&T Committee. The P&T committee will decide at its discretion when to cut off the inclusion of late materials. In the past, this has occurred when they begin their deliberations.

Dossiers of candidates for promotion from associate professor with tenure to full professor should emphasize work done since the last promotion.

The review: When the full dossier has been compiled, including the external reviewers' letters, the department chair will call a meeting to review the proposal for promotion (note: for promotion of assistant professors, all tenured faculty in the department will meet; for promotion of associate professors to full professor, only the full professors will meet). When considering a candidate for promotion the following questions should be addressed:

1. What is the impact of the candidate's work on his or her chosen field(s) of research or creative work? How has he or she influenced the understanding or practice of their discipline(s) or sub-disciplines(s)?

2. Does the candidate strengthen the department, the school and the university and if so, how?

3. What is the candidate's record of scholarly communication? The quality and impact of the scholarship or creative work is of paramount importance. Although large numbers of publications, books or other products of scholarly activity may look impressive on a curriculum vitae, they have little value if the quality of the work is lacking. We expect our faculty to be productive scholars but never at the expense of quality.

4. What has been the individual's teaching performance, and what is their potential for improvement? This evaluation should, among others, be based on the following: student teaching evaluations, peer evaluations, letters from students, prizes and awards for teaching, implementation of new courses, novel deployment of information technology for teaching, and curriculum development. In making this evaluation, it should be kept in mind that Rice's standards for teaching are higher than most of our peer institutions.

5. How does the candidate compare with others in their field, both at Rice and at other institutions, at a similar stage in their careers?

6. Has the candidate made useful contributions to service in the Rice Community and in the external professional community? Generally, the amount of service an individual faculty member contributes increases over his/her career. We expect a modest level of service from our assistant professors, sufficient to demonstrate the potential for being responsible and dedicated members of the Rice community. However, they should not spend large amounts of their time on this activity at a point in their career when it is more important for them to develop their research and teaching. By comparison, full professors, who should be recognized as leaders in their respective disciplines, are expected to be fully engaged in service activities: sharing in the responsibilities of running their department, serving on university-wide committees, participating in external professional organizations, helping K-12 development, and other comparable activities.

7. What is the probability that if promoted, the candidate will continue to be a creative scholar, a proficient teacher and an interactive member of the Rice community. It is useful to remember that tenure is not granted as a reward for past achievements; it is given with the anticipation that the promise suggested by the record of scholarship, teaching and service to date will be fulfilled many times over in the future.

8. Has the individual been involved in leadership activities and service in professional organizations in his or her field(s)? What has been the candidate's impact within the external professional communities, nationally and internationally?

Once the discussion is complete, the department chair calls for a vote on the promotion. At this point, the department chair should make a clear distinction between a vote that supports the promotion and one that supports forwarding it to the dean. These may not be the same. For example, if the department vote is divided but marginally in favor of promotion, some faculty may feel that a stronger consensus than a simple majority is required and will not want to send the proposal to the dean. In this circumstance, the department may choose to call a second vote to clarify whether it will forward the proposal to the dean.

Reporting the decision. Once the faculty has decided whether to forward the case to the dean, the department chair will immediately inform the candidate of the decision. However, under no circumstances should the chair or anyone in the department communicate the specific vote to the candidate. If the decision is positive, the chair should also review the procedures that will be followed with the candidate. If the department's decision is negative, the chair should summarize the reasons for the decision, explain fully the consequences of the decision, and inform the candidate of their right to an appeal 5 on procedural grounds.

If the department's decision is to forward the case to the dean, the chair will write a confidential memorandum to the dean in which he or she will: [1] summarize the department's deliberations, including the vote; [2] describe the reasons why the department feels the promotion is merited; [3] describe how the proposed promotion will strengthening the department; and, [4] summarize his/her own individual evaluation of the candidate's qualifications for promotion. The chair will include his or her memo in the dossier and forward it to the dean.


B.5. The candidate

Once a department chair has informed a candidate of the department's intention to conduct a review for promotion, and he or she consents, the candidate is responsible for providing the following information in support of the review:

a) Provide the names of persons who might serve as an internal reviewer.

b) The names of individuals to be considered as possible external reviewers.

c) The names of individuals in the University or elsewhere who should be asked for letters concerning the candidate's service to the university, the community, and their profession.

d) All necessary material for his/her dossier.


B.6. The external reviewers


Once the department has decided to proceed with a review and has informed the candidate and received his or her consent, the chair will consult with the dean to discuss the selection of the external and internal reviewers. These will be chosen from a list drawn from suggestions made by both the department and the candidate.

The external reviewers should be chosen from among the recognized leading scholars in the candidate's field. They should also be from programs or departments that are at least of comparable quality to Rice. In cases where a candidate's work involves more than one sub-field or discipline, it is very important that the reviewers are selected to provide a range of expertise that matches that of the candidate's. This is especially important for individuals whose work contains significant interdisciplinary content.

A minimum of six complete letters are required, of which at least half should be suggested by the department. Since some of the external reviewers may decline to write, approximately twice as many requests will be needed (note: all contact with outside reviewers with regard to the evaluation of the candidate should be conducted by the department chair, dean, provost, or president). The department should compile its list first and without any knowledge of the candidate's list. Once complete, the department will then request a list of potential reviewers from the candidate. Any names that overlap, should be designated: "Department, also selected by the candidate" and will count toward the minimum number of four letters that must be suggested by the department.

Once the dean and chair agree on the selection, the chair will write to the external reviewers asking them to write a confidential assessment of the candidate's qualifications for promotion. In making this request, the chair will use a standard letter approved by the dean and provost. Although the specific language in this letter may vary from school to school to account for the different nature of the work and modes for communicating it, all departments will use the same letter within their school. This letter (see attached sample) will consist of the following elements:

a statement of the candidate's department, their current rank and proposed rank;

a request to evaluate the impact of the candidate's work to date and potential for future contributions

a request that the writer describe any prior or existing relationship they may have with candidate such as thesis advisor, co-author, etc.;

a request for comparisons with other scholars in the same field(s);

a question whether the candidate would qualify for promotion at their institution;

a pledge of confidentiality; and,

a statement of appreciation coupled with an acknowledgement of the time and attention needed to make such assessments. The external reviewers should be asked to respond directly to the dean.

To enable their evaluation, the chair will send all necessary materials to the external reviewers. This will include, but not be limited to, the following items from the candidate's dossier (reference to numbers in previous section): 1a-g, 2,3,4,5.

In some cases, the department may wish to secure the external reviewer's consent to make an assessment before sending them the full package of materials.

Phone, e-mail, and other informal contact with the reviewers should be avoided to the extent possible, and when unavoidable, should be neutral in tone and should not prejudice or bias the reviewer. When substantive informal discussions do occur, the date and gist of the conversation should be recorded and reported in the candidate's dossier.


B.7. The Internal Reviewer


The principal function of the internal reviewer is to write an in-depth evaluation of the candidate's scholarship and/or creative professional work. If the internal reviewer has reason to be particularly knowledgeable about the candidate's teaching and service, he or she may address those aspects of the candidate's work as well. For that reason he or she will most often, but not necessarily, be from the candidate's department. However, when the candidate's work is has a significant interdisciplinary content and overlaps with other departments, consideration should be given to appointing an internal reviewer from another department. In special cases the internal reviewer may be from another institution. This may arise, for example, when no one at Rice has the expertise to evaluate the candidate's work.

All materials about the candidate's scholarship, including letters from outside reviewers will be available to the internal reviewer when preparing the written evaluation (Note: in exceptional circumstances when the "internal reviewer" is from another institution, the letters from external reviewers will not be made available to protect their confidentiality). The internal reviewer is bound by rules of confidentiality and may not discuss the case except in his or her official capacity. He or she must be especially circumspect in avoiding any conversations with the candidate during this period.

Prior to the department's review, the internal reviewer should review the dossier, write an evaluation of the candidate's qualifications for promotion and submit it to the chair for inclusion in the dossier.

During its deliberations, the Promotion and Tenure Committee, at its discretion, may ask the internal reviewer to appear before it for further consultation.

B.8. The Dean

Once a case has been reviewed by a department and forwarded to the school, the dean will make an evaluation of the candidate's qualifications for promotion. At his or her discretion, the dean may draw on the opinion of other faculty in the school by, for example, appointing a school-wide review committee. The dean may also request letters of assessment from faculty in the candidate's department. Such letters will be treated in confidence and will be included in the dossier when it is forwarded to the provost. Should letters be received by the dean from others outside the candidate's department, whether solicited or not by the dean, copies of such letters will be sent by the dean to the department.

Once the dean has completed his or her review, he or she will write a confidential memorandum to the Promotion and Tenure Committee. This memo will describe his or her evaluation of the candidate and will assess their potential impact on the long range goals of the school and the University. It will be added to the dossier and sent to the provost's office for review by the P&T Committee.

Occasionally, a dean may disagree with the recommendation of the department. This may occur when a dean feels that a candidate whom the department supports is not qualified for promotion; or conversely, a dean may feel that a candidate should be reviewed by the P&T committee when the department feels otherwise. Regardless of his/her feelings about the candidate's qualifications for promotion, the dean will in all cases forward the dossier to the Promotion and Tenure Committee along with his/her confidential letter of recommendation.

When appearing before the Promotion and Tenure Committee, deans will be asked to elaborate on their recommendation, whether it be for promotion or against. They will also discuss all faculty who are eligible for promotion but who, for various reasons, are not being reviewed in the current year.


B.9. The Promotion and Tenure Committee

The principal responsibility of the Promotion and Tenure Committee is to advise the president about all proposals for promotion and tenure that have been forwarded to the provost's office for review. During its deliberations, the Committee invites the deans and department chairs individually to discuss their recommendations. The Committee may also call internal reviewers or any other person that it feels may provide information considered vital to a fair and thorough review. Rules of confidentiality do not prevent the Committee, on its own initiative, from addressing questions to the internal reviewer about materials in the dossier, thereby conveying at least the substance of particular issues that have been raised in its deliberations.

Prior to beginning its deliberations, the Committee will ask the Teaching Committee to prepare summaries of the teaching record of each of the candidates under review. These summaries will be sent to the candidates prior to the review with a copy to their department chair and dean.

After completing its review, the provost, as chair of the committee, communicates the Committee's recommendations along with his own to the president. In making his or her decision, the president may call on other persons he or she feels may provide information considered vital to a fair and thorough review. Once he or she has had an opportunity to review each case, the President then meets with the Committee to discuss his or her decisions.

All candidates who are reviewed by the University Promotion and Tenure Committee, whether successful or unsuccessful, will be notified by the president of his decision. This communication is made immediately following the president's decision and precedes the formal approval of the Rice Board of Trustees. Unsuccessful candidates will be informed by the president of their right to an appeal 5.

In addition to discussing candidates for promotion, the Committee also discusses with each dean those individuals in their school who are eligible for promotion in the current year but are not being reviewed (the "promotables"). These are:

all assistant professors in the penultimate year of their second contract;

all professors or associate professors without tenure who are in the penultimate years of their contract;

all associate professors with tenure who have been in that rank for a total of nine or more years.

C. Contract Renewals

C.1. Candidates for contract renewal

The employment of assistant professors at Rice is governed by two consecutive contracts, each of four years duration. The first contract is awarded at the time of employment and the second is awarded following a successful review of work done during the first contract period. This review will take place no later than the spring semester of the candidate's third year of the first four-year contract period.

Successful candidates will be eligible for a one-semester junior faculty leave, which may be taken at any time following the review but not later than the semester immediately prior to the one in which they will be reviewed for promotion to associate professor by the P&T Committee.

Assistant professors whose contracts are not renewed will be entitled to one full year of employment following their review (the fourth year of their contract). Candidates will be notified in writing of the decision regarding contract renewal no later than one year prior to the termination of their contract. Candidates whose contracts are not renewed may petition the Appeals & Grievance Committee of the Faculty Council for a review of the procedures that led to the decision (note appeals are reviewed on procedural grounds only, not on issues of substance).

Note: Assistant professors who are hired on January 1, will also follow a cycle of two four year contracts. However, our policy stipulates that all candidates, regardless of when they are hired must be reviewed for their first contract period no later than their third year; and must be reviewed by the P&T Committee for tenure no later than their seventh year (with appropriate account of leaves). The latter means that the tenure clock of candidates hired on January 1 will begin on July 1 of the prior year.

The decision to award a second four-year contract to an assistant professor is a major commitment. It implies the University feels the candidate has good potential for achieving tenure at Rice. Consequently, the review process must address the same issues of scholarship, teaching and service as are addressed when a candidate is reviewed for tenure. Since the period of time is less--typically two and one half years for a contract review versus six and one-half for a tenure review-- the amount of material is less than what is expected for tenure. However, the same general standards and principles should apply; the quality and impact of the work to date and the progress and general direction toward becoming a valuable member of the Rice faculty should be the criteria.

The materials required for review of a contract renewal are thus the same as for a tenure review and should follow the same steps described in the previous sections. The only exception is that external reviewers are not required. There may, however, be cases where a department feels that the review would benefit from an external opinion. In such cases, the same guidelines for selecting and communicating with external reviewers as for a tenure review apply. The appointment of an internal reviewer is also optional.

The approvals and notification process for contract renewals follows the same path as for promotion and tenure, except that the Promotion and Tenure Committee does not participate.

D. Timelines for Promotion and Contract Renewal

The following timelines summarize the important dates involved in the review process. Except for the dates shown in bold related to the submission of dossiers to the provost's office for the review by the P&T Committee, these should be regarded as approximate and will vary from school to school (note: each department and each school is encouraged to establish its own timelines that will lead to expeditious processing of the reviews). The attached chart summarizes this process.


D.1 Promotion Review Timeline for Untenured Faculty


Spring semester prior to the review:

Candidate begins to compile internal dossier (vita, copies of published and accepted publications or creative works, and teaching evaluations).	March 1
Internal dossier complete.	April 1
Department decides whether to proceed with full promotion review.	April 1
If Department decides to proceed with review, the chair solicits names for external reviewers from candidate and eligible department faculty.	April 15
Department chair chooses an internal reviewer after consulting with the dean.	May 1
Department Chair sends out preliminary requests to external reviewers.	May 1 - May 15
Departments send letter and materials to external reviewers	June 15


Fall semester of the review:

External reviewers respond.	October 1
Dossier with external reviews complete.	October 15
Internal reviewers' report available for faculty.	October 15
Eligible faculty vote. If outcome is positive, chair forwards full dossier to dean accompanied by his or her written recommendation and a summary of the department's deliberations.	November 1
Where appropriate, dean asks school committee to review dossier.	November 15
Dean reviews the full dossier including the department's and, if available, the school committee's recommendation. He/she forwards it to the provost with his or her written recommendation.	December 1
Provost forwards dossiers to Promotion andTenure Committee.	December 15


2nd spring semester of the review:

Promotion and Tenure Committee reviews dossiers, hears testimony from department chairs, deans and, where appropriate, from internal reviewers.	January 15 - February 28
P&T Committee votes. Provost submits vote and summary of P&T deliberations along with his recommendation to the president.	March 1
President reviews P&T recommendations and meets with P&T Committee.	March 15
President informally notifies candidate(s) of his decision.	March 30
President submits recommendations for Board approval.	May Board Meeting





D.2 Contract Renewal Timeline (Assistant Professors)

Fall semester of the 3rd academic year

Candidate works with department administrator to gather materials demonstrating progress in research, publication, teaching, and service.


Spring semester of the 3rd academic year:

Preliminary dossier without external letters compiled.	March 1
Preliminary dossier complete and tenured departmental faculty meet.	March 15
Chair forwards internal dossier and recommendations to dean.	April 1
Dean reviews department recommendations and forwards his or her recommendations to provost.	April 15
President notifies candidate of renewal decision and termination notices sent to non-renewed assistant professors.	no later than June 30





D.3. Notification to candidates about outcomes of reviews


All candidates who are reviewed by the University Promotion and Tenure Committee, whether successful or unsuccessful, will be notified by the president. This communication is made immediately following the president's decision and precedes the formal approval of the Rice Board of Trustees. Unsuccessful candidates will be informed by the president of their right to an appeal. 5

Occasionally, a review does not proceed to the level of the University-wide P&T Committee but may stop at the level of the department. This will occur if the Department feels that the case is not sufficiently strong to merit review by the University-wide Committee. When a review terminates at the department, the candidate will be notified by the Department Chair immediately following the decision. The Chair will summarize the reasons for the decision and inform the candidate of his or her right to request a review of the decision by the Appeals and Grievance Committee of the Faculty Council. The dean will send written notification to the provost who will include it in the promotables file. Each year, the deans will discuss with the P&T committee all candidates in their school who were denied promotion or renewal of their contracts as a consequence of a decision at the level of the department.



D.4. Appeals

Candidates may appeal decisions by writing to the Faculty Council not later than twenty calendar days after the candidate has been officially notified that his or her promotion has not been approved. This review, which is conducted by the Appeals & Grievances Committee of the Faculty Council, examines procedural issues only and does not assess the substantive issues having to do with the candidate's qualifications for promotion. Once the review is complete, the committee files a written report of their findings to the president, who subsequently decides what action to take.

 

Endnotes

1. In this document, the word promotion will mean advancement in rank, conferral of tenure, or both. When the tenure issue alone is being addressed, it will be so indicated.

2. It is understood that in schools without a clearly defined departmental structure, the school is the candidate's principal home base. In such cases the term "school" should be substituted for "department."

3. See section B.6 for a description of the process for selecting external reviewers.

4. See section B.7 for a description of the role of the internal reviewer.

5. See section D.4 for specifics of the appeal process.

Go to Rice University Provost's Home Page

Go to Rice University Home Page