���Ҵ�ý�ƽ������

• CEAS – College of Engineering and Applied Science
• Chair – Head of the Primary Unit (typically the Department Chair)
• CRPT – Comprehensive Review, Promotion, and Tenure
• Dean – Dean of the College of Engineering and Applied Science
• Faculty Candidate – Faculty member being evaluated
• FLRC – First-Level Review Committee
• MMTs – Multiple Measures of Teaching
• OFA – ���Ҵ�ý�ƽ������ Office of Faculty Affairs
• PUEC – Primary Unit Evaluation Committee
• TQF – Teaching Quality Framework
• VCAC – Vice Chancellor’s Advisory Committee

I. Conflict of Interest

While collaboration and cooperation are encouraged in CEAS, it is also important that all reviews be conducted in an unbiased and objective manner. Faculty members who have a professional or personal potential conflict of interest with a candidate should not serve on the candidate’s PUEC or FLRC (though they may be consulted by the PUEC or FLRC), nor in writing the Chair’s, Institute Director's, FLRC's, or Dean’s letter/report. The selection of external reviewers should also avoid conflicts of interest.��

Potential conflicts of interest include PhD or postdoctoral mentoring relationships, and close or ongoing collaborators (typically evidenced by co-authorship or co-investigator status on multiple peer-reviewed publications or grants within the past three years). As always, family members should recuse themselves from personnel reviews of immediate family members.��Questions on potential conflicts of interest should be directed by the Chair to the Dean or the Vice Chancellor for Faculty Affairs.

II. Preparation of Materials

Faculty candidates undergoing review are responsible for preparing dossier materials in accordance with campus process guidance (including the VCAC Checklist and OFA website), this CEAS document, and their primary unit criteria. These resources are helpful to understand which dossier components the candidate must prepare and submit, and which components will be prepared and provided by others. The CEAS Office of Faculty Advancement has developed the for candidates as a helpful resource that highlights general topics/categories, layout tips, and details to include to showcase their record. Faculty members facilitating CRPT reviews must ensure that all procedural steps and dossier requirements are completed in compliance with campus and college guidelines.

Dossiers should follow the latest version of the��VCAC Checklist and be submitted to the CEAS Office of Faculty Advancement by the designated CEAS deadline. The CEAS Office of Faculty Advancement is responsible for annually establishing the CEAS process deadlines and making this information publicly available. Deadlines for the primary unit review processes precede the CEAS submission deadlines by weeks or months.��

Preparation of dossier and dossier supplement materials, including steps such as soliciting external review letters and student letters, should be initiated several months in advance to ensure that all unit processes are completed by the CEAS submission deadlines.����

The primary unit is responsible for assembling and bookmarking the dossier in accordance with the VCAC Checklist and VCAC Bookmarking Instructions.

Factual Updates During the Review Process

A description of the documents that are required to be included in dossiers for comprehensive review, promotion, and tenure reviews is included in the��VCAC Checklist.��

The candidate is entitled to submit material or information that they believe is relevant to the case. Such material may be added at any review level, but copies of additions must be provided to all levels that have already considered the case.��

If a candidate wishes to submit an updated CV during the review process, the faculty member must complete and submit the .

CEAS Dossier & Dossier Supplement Requirements

From the criteria listed below, CEAS has established the following process requirements and guidelines.����

Teaching Quality Framework and the Multiple Measures of Teaching��

The college has adopted the Teaching Quality Framework for faculty reviews of teaching. The candidate should provide evidence needed for the PUEC to complete the TQF Evaluation Summary.��Faculty candidates undergoing review are expected to follow the criteria laid out in this CEAS policy, as well as any additional unit-specific TQF-related requirements specified in their primary unit’s criteria documents.��The VCAC Checklist and OFA website provide guidance regarding the multiple measures of teaching to be included in the dossier, including recommended peer evaluations at least annually. These multiple measures can also be utilized in the evaluation to fulfill the TQF component.��

Research Funding History

The candidate’s research funding history must be included in the dossier, either as part of the candidate’s CV or as a separate list. Candidates should include all funded grants and pending proposals, indicating their role (principal investigator or co-principal investigator) and their portion of the funding.

Confidentiality

Letters from external reviewers and students must be kept confidential and not provided to the faculty candidate. This restriction includes the list of external reviewers, including their CVs and/or brief biographical statements.��

For letters submitted by the students and mentees/advisees, staff supporting the review process (typically the Human Resources Liaison, or “HRL”) must ensure that all student names and identifying details are fully blinded/redacted before making the dossier supplement available to��any��faculty reviewers, including the PUEC.��

The Mandatory Reporting Policy at ���Ҵ�ý�ƽ������ applies to the CRPT process. For example, if students provide information or allegations that are related to misconduct, this information cannot be kept confidential by the unit and must be disclosed to the OIEC or other appropriate university body.��

Confidential materials must be handled and distributed in accordance with campus confidentiality requirements throughout the review process.����

III. Review Periods

Work completed during the defined review periods is considered during each evaluation. ���Ҵ�ý�ƽ������ Office of Faculty Affairs prepares timeline statements for general cases at the end of the summer.��The tenure clock officially begins as a faculty candidate starts a tenure-track appointment at ���Ҵ�ý�ƽ������ in either August or January of a given year. For some faculty candidates, the tenure clock timeline also includes years of credit (contiguous to the ���Ҵ�ý�ƽ������ appointment start date) that were negotiated at the time of hire. Negotiated years of credit are the only method by which prior work can be considered during the probationary period. Waiving the first semester of service, an option only available for January starts, does not automatically remove that first semester of work from consideration.��

For comprehensive review cases, the start date for a tenure-track position at ���Ҵ�ý�ƽ������ (indicated by the month and year) should be clearly identified in the candidate's dossier. With the start date as a key initial reference point (accounting for years of credit, as applicable), the review period for comprehensive review cases encompasses the first few years of work completed. This is considered the first review of the probationary period.

The review period for tenure and promotion to Associate Professor cases (the second and concluding review of the probationary period) considers the full tenure clock timeline, which is typically seven years in length.��The candidate’s start date in a tenure-track position at ���Ҵ�ý�ƽ������ again serves as a key initial reference point (accounting for years of credit, as applicable) and includes any work completed until the tenure review process ends.

The review period for promotion to Full Professor cases considers the complete record of achievements, with a specific focus on the faculty candidate’s record since receiving tenure or promotion to Associate Professor.��The date that tenure took effect (indicating the month/semester and year) should be clearly identified in the candidate's dossier for these cases.

IV. Voting by Action

Votes should be recorded in the categories of ‘for’ the proposed action, ‘against’ the proposed action, ‘abstain’, or ‘excused absence’. Excused absences should be limited to faculty members who are on leave and unable to participate in the review and vote. Quorum must be met. Unless further limited by unit bylaws or primary unit criteria and procedures, units should follow Robert’s Rules of Order, where a majority (at least one more than half) of eligible voting faculty cast a vote.��Additionally, unless further limited by unit bylaws or primary unit criteria and procedures, a positive recommendation by the voting-eligible faculty requires that the total sum of positive votes exceeds the total number of negative votes by at least one vote. Abstentions are considered neither positive nor negative (i.e., neutral) but do count towards meeting quorum.��The FLRC, at the college stage of the review process, will similarly follow these procedural requirements for voting by action.��

For comprehensive review for reappointment cases, and feedback-only comprehensive reviews (which are only conducted for candidates with three years of negotiated credit), votes on the proposed action correlate to whether the candidate is either (1) on track for tenure; (2) not yet on track for tenure but could meet standards for tenure with appropriate corrections; or (3) not on track for tenure. A determination shall be made for each of the areas of teaching, scholarly/creative work, and leadership and service; though there is not a separate vote held for each area during this review.�� Based on this evaluation, the faculty and review committees shall issue a recommendation.

For tenure and promotion to Associate Professor cases, votes on the proposed action indicate whether the candidate has met the requirements as outlined in Regent Policy (see section 5.D.2). In addition to the vote on the proposed action, there must also be three additional votes taken, where votes of “excellent”, “meritorious”, or “not meritorious” are recorded for the candidate’s performance in each area of teaching, scholarly/creative work, and leadership and service.��

For promotion to Full Professor cases, votes on the proposed action indicate whether the candidate has met the requirements outlined in APS 1022 (see section V(K)). Recommendations should consider overall career excellence and significant contributions to graduate and undergraduate education, with a specific focus on the faculty record since receiving tenure or promotion to Associate Professor. For this review, separate votes for each area (e.g., teaching, scholarly/creative work, and leadership and service) are not conducted.

V. Review by Primary Unit

For purposes of comprehensive review, promotion, and tenure processes, the primary unit is the tenure home of tenured and tenure-track faculty. Only tenured faculty members of equal or higher rank relative to the proposed action, who share a tenure home with the faculty member being reviewed, are authorized to vote on matters of CRPT during the review at the department level of the process. For institute-rostered faculty, the institute and tenure home (e.g., department or program) typically form a combined PUEC and conduct one review (as detailed in a Memorandum of Understanding). Each primary unit must have a minimum voting membership of at least five eligible faculty members. Supplementing the voting membership of the primary unit requires review and approval by the Dean.

Primary Unit Criteria

Regent Policy 5.D.3. (and the corresponding APS 1022) details the establishment and updating of primary unit criteria.

���Ҵ�ý�ƽ������ has established that a version of primary unit criteria designated as “current criteria” must be approved before the annual cycle of comprehensive review, promotion, and tenure process commences for tenured and tenure-track faculty. The CEAS Office of Faculty Advancement should review revisions to primary unit criteria documents. Criteria take effect upon approval by the primary unit (in accordance with unit bylaws), the Dean, and the Provost. The annual CRPT cycle commences as the spring semester of an academic year concludes.�� Accordingly, primary unit criteria documents cannot be revised and implemented during the middle of the review cycle. Any revisions approved during an academic year should be implemented during the following academic year (e.g., the next annual cycle of the CRPT process).��

Tenure-track faculty undergoing comprehensive review, or tenure and promotion to Associate Professor review—the two review types that correspond directly to the tenure clock and probationary period—must select the primary unit criteria (as detailed in Regent Policy 5.D.3.(A.1)) before the review commences. Once the tenure-track faculty candidate has selected criteria for a review, the selection is final and may not be changed during the review process.��

In some cases, the primary unit criteria at the time of appointment to a tenure-track position at ���Ҵ�ý�ƽ������ and the current criteria are the same. When this occurs, the current version of the primary unit criteria is used.��

Primary unit criteria documents may be revised between the two probationary-period reviews for a faculty member (comprehensive review and tenure and promotion to Associate Professor review). If this occurs, tenure-track faculty must be given the opportunity to select the criteria for each review.�� In all cases, the selection must be made between a) the version in place at the time of appointment in a tenure-track position at ���Ҵ�ý�ƽ������, or b) the most recent version approved and in effect prior to the start of the annual CRPT cycle (the “current criteria”).

Primary Unit Evaluation Committee and Report

The Primary Unit Evaluation Committee is a small group of tenured, voting-eligible faculty within the primary unit.��Committee membership is elected or appointed as specified in the primary unit's bylaws and in the primary unit criteria document.��

The PUEC is expected to follow the most up-to-date CRPT process information provided by the CU system, ���Ҵ�ý�ƽ������ campus (often detailed in the VCAC Checklist), CEAS, and the primary unit.��

The PUEC is responsible for conducting the first review, assisting the candidate in assembling their dossier, ensuring the completeness of the initial dossier and dossier supplement files submitted to the college, and providing a written and, often, oral summary of the candidate's dossier and recommendation to the tenured voting-eligible faculty of the primary unit.��

The PUEC report should include the following components: 1) an introductory PUEC Summary that provides relevant details about the faculty member (e.g., degrees, experience, tenure clock, scholarly and creative expertise, etc.); 2) a description of the review process; 3) substantive descriptions and evaluations of the faculty member’s (a) Teaching or Librarianship, (b) Scholarly and Creative Work, and (c) Leadership and Service (to the university, profession, and the public), based on the primary unit criteria for comprehensive review, promotion, and tenure; and 4) the PUEC’s recommendation with clear and substantive justifications. The PUEC report should clearly indicate the PUEC member names and faculty ranks.��

The written recommendation of the PUEC should be provided to the voting-eligible faculty before the unit vote, and this report becomes part of the dossier. The names and affiliations of the external reviewers and students should not be revealed in these materials. The Chair, as head of the primary unit, should not serve on the PUEC or write its report (as their recommendation is expressed in a separate report).

Primary Unit Review of Dossier

All tenured faculty members who are eligible to vote on a particular case must be allowed the opportunity to review the entire dossier before they are asked to vote on the case.��

The Chair should not vote with the primary unit, but they may be present during the primary unit discussion of the case.��

The vote(s) shall be recorded and subsequently reported in the Chair’s report.��

Report of the Chair

The Chair, as the head of the primary unit, should write a report to the Dean (in addition to the PUEC report). The Chair’s report should include a description of the review and the voting process that was followed. It should include the actions taken by the primary unit, include a brief overview of the voting-eligible faculty members, confirmation of meeting quorum, the results of the vote(s), reasons for the recommendation, and an explanation of any dissenting opinion as expressed in the vote(s). The report should also include the independent recommendation of the Chair regarding the proposed personnel action. If the Chair’s recommendation differs from the majority vote of the primary unit, the report should clearly explain the reasons for this divergence. The report must not identify any external reviewers or students by name or in any other identifying manner.��

Institute Director Letter (as applicable)

If the faculty member is rostered in an institute, the Institute Director should also provide a letter offering input on comprehensive review, tenure and/or promotion, as specified in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The Institute Director provides this input in their role as Institute Director. The institute does not vote on the candidate’s comprehensive review, tenure, and/or promotion but instead provides input to the tenure home department, which conducts the review and vote.��

The Institute Director should not attend or participate in the primary unit process, discussion, or vote.��

VI. Review by College

First-Level Review Committee and Recommendation

The Dean will appoint a First-Level Review Committee of faculty to provide a report on the merits of the cases considered in any given academic year. The members should be tenured, Full Professors. The FLRC is to serve as a college committee, not representing any individual department. In general, the FLRC will consist of 12 voting members. Members shall serve for three-year terms, staggered across departments. If a member is not able to complete their term, the Department Chair shall recommend a replacement to complete the term of the original member. Department Chairs may not serve, but they are to recommend potential members to the Dean. A member may be reappointed by the Dean for one or more additional terms.

The Dean shall appoint the Chairperson of the FLRC, and a Vice Chair from a different unit from the FLRC Chair. In addition, the Associate Dean for Faculty Advancement and a staff member of the CEAS Office of Faculty Advancement will serve as ex officio members of the committee.

The committee shall determine its own working procedures and establish a working committee of two or more of its members for each case. The entire First-Level Review Committee, except for members who have a potential conflict of interest, and/or excluding those members who have a primary affiliation in the same tenure home��as the faculty member whose case is before the committee, shall be eligible to vote on each case.��

The vote(s) shall be reported to the Dean along with a written recommendation for each case. ��To promote open consideration of the candidates within the First-Level Review Committee, confidentiality of operations is essential. Identification of subgroups assigned to review each case shall not be disclosed, and all correspondence, both to and from the committee, shall be through the FLRC Chair��or Vice Chair (the latter is used when the Chair has a potential conflict of interest), with support from the CEAS Office of Faculty Advancement staff member serving as the ex officio committee member.

The Dean will broadly outline their charge to the FLRC in a meeting with the committee at the beginning of each academic year. In making their recommendation, the members of the committee will take into account the criteria listed for each action of comprehensive review, promotion, or tenure. In accordance with university policy, no person shall be disadvantaged by gender, marital status, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, or age, although the number of years of professional work in the discipline may be a factor for consideration in the evaluation.

Dean's Recommendation

The Dean provides a written recommendation with their evaluation of each case. The First-Level Review Committee will participate fully with the Dean in the review of the recommendations by the primary units.��

In accordance with the process outlined in APS 1022 (see section VII(C)), should either the FLRC or the Dean disagree with the majority opinion of the primary unit (based on the faculty vote) on the proposed action, the Dean shall communicate in writing the nature of this disagreement with the head of the primary unit. The primary unit shall then reconsider its original recommendation and return its reconsidered judgment, including the results of any additional votes, to the dean. The Dean may then ask the FLRC to reconsider its original recommendation and cast a new vote. The recommendation of the Dean, the results of all votes of the primary unit and the FLRC, and the candidate dossier shall be forwarded together to the Provost. Where differences of opinion between the primary unit, the FLRC, and/or the Dean have occurred and have not been resolved, each party in the disagreement shall submit a brief statement outlining the areas of disagreement and the reasons for its recommendation in that context.

VII. Notification

A candidate for comprehensive review, promotion, and/or tenure is to be informed of the recommendations in writing at each step of the review process. Copies of the Chair’s report (and Institute Director’s letter, as applicable) and the PUEC report are sent to the candidate by the primary unit as they are sent to the CEAS Office of Faculty Advancement. Copies of the Dean's recommendation and FLRC recommendation are sent to the candidate by the CEAS Office of Faculty Advancement when they are forwarded to the ���Ҵ�ý�ƽ������ Office of Faculty Affairs.

I. Comprehensive Review

Per APS 1022, the outcome of the comprehensive review cases is a determination of “whether the candidate is either: (1) on track for tenure; (2) not yet on track for tenure but could meet standards for tenure with appropriate corrections; or (3) not on track for tenure.” The college defines the criterion for reappointment as whether the candidate is on track to meet the standard of "excellent"��in teaching and/or scholarly/creative work as shown in the tenure section below.��

Specifically, the candidate must demonstrate evidence of the development of an independent, innovative, and high-impact research career that will have an impact beyond the institution. An independent research program is defined as one that includes intellectual contributions that go beyond the work conducted with the candidate’s doctoral and (if applicable) post-doctoral advisor(s) and mentors. Dissemination of work is expected, can vary by discipline and subdiscipline, and consequently can take forms including, for example, peer-reviewed scholarly journal or journal-equivalent conference papers, books, book chapters, monographs, peer-reviewed conference papers, scientific/technical reports, software, datasets, publicly available technical, provisional, and awarded patents, other entrepreneurial activities, or direct impact on government policy and/or professional practice. The candidate’s graduate student advisees and co-advisees are involved in research and are on track to be co-authors or lead authors on multiple publications. The candidate is working on problems recognized as significant by experts in the field. The candidate’s scholarly/creative work shows considerable evidence of innovation, broader impact, and growth. The candidate is on track to have sufficient external funding to support their research, mentoring of students, and research-related activities at a level that would be considered a vigorous research program as defined by the candidate’s unit. External funding at the time of tenure evaluation typically includes grants on which the candidate is principal investigator (PI) or co-PI.

Regarding teaching, the candidate must be teaching courses following specific unit processes and expectations (e.g., a mixture of undergraduate and graduate courses of assorted sizes). In terms of the Teaching Quality Framework rubric, the candidate must show progress towards becoming an effective teacher, as demonstrated by proficiency levels of at least basic (or the unit equivalent) for all dimensions using the TQF rubric for each unit. See the Evaluation of Teaching section below for more details. Also, note that TQF framework rubrics may vary across primary units but must follow the principles laid out in this document. In cases where the candidate has struggled or has weaknesses in the classroom or mentoring research trainees, efforts must be underway to improve the candidate’s performance by involving mentors, the Center for Teaching and Learning, or other appropriate internal or external support structures. Those efforts should be documented and discussed in the candidate’s teaching statement and/or report from the primary unit.��

Lastly, the candidate must be actively providing internal or external service to at least one level of their professional community (e.g., program, department, institute, college, campus, professional organization, etc.).��

II. Tenure

In the following sections, the College of Engineering and Applied Science expectations are outlined for ratings of "meritorious" and "excellent" in teaching, scholarly/creative work, and leadership and service. In all cases, a clear rationale for a specific action (i.e., "excellent" rating) must be provided in the dossier, via the candidate statements, and the report from the primary unit. Per Regent Policy 5.D.2:

“(A) Tenure may be awarded only to faculty members with demonstrated meritorious performance in each of the three areas of: teaching (or librarianship), scholarly/creative work, and leadership and service (to the university, profession and/or public); and demonstrated excellence in either teaching, or scholarly/creative work.”

"(B) A recommendation of tenure based on excellence in scholarly/creative work shall include evidence of impact beyond the institution. A recommendation for tenure based on excellence in teaching shall include multiple measures of teaching evaluation and demonstrated achievement at the campus, local, national, and/or international level which furthers the practice and/or scholarship of teaching and learning beyond one’s immediate instructional setting.”��

“(C) Effort or promise of performance shall not be a criterion for excellence or meritorious performance.�� Demonstrated performance and outcomes are required for tenure.”

A. Evaluation of Teaching

The college uses seven dimensions to evaluate candidates’ teaching performance for comprehensive review, tenure, and promotion actions. These dimensions are part of the Teaching Quality Framework that was developed jointly with input from all college units. These dimensions tie to specific criteria as described in rubrics developed by the college and units. An example of the rubric is shown here, although units can have unique rubrics. These dimensions include (1) course goals and alignment; (2) course preparation; (3) teaching methods and practices; (4) presentation; (5) student outcomes; (6) mentorship/advising; and (7) professional reflection and development. There are opportunities to consider inclusive and equity-based practices throughout the TQF criteria. Unit TQF rubrics and criteria may vary slightly but are expected to cover similar content as these dimensions.

To meet the criteria for a “meritorious” rating for promotion and tenure, candidates must show evidence of sustained high-quality educational practice, typically, at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. In the context of the TQF dimensions described above, a rating of “meritorious” could be indicated by demonstrated proficiency levels of at least basic (or the unit equivalent) for all dimensions used in their unit’s TQF rubric. Note that any significant deficiency in any of the dimensions could result in a rating of “not meritorious”, depending on the severity of the deficiency. (See the Professional Rights and Responsibilities document, Part II A.2 for examples of unacceptable conduct.) The candidate must be active and effective in research mentoring and supervision for all levels undertaken (e.g., primarily PhD students, but also undergraduate students, MS students, and post-doctoral researchers as appropriate). Candidates must show evidence of an active PhD student cohort at varying stages of progression toward graduation. Candidates are expected to demonstrate effective mentoring of doctoral students, primarily, unless individual circumstances can be shown to require a different emphasis (e.g., as could be the case for some candidates being hired with tenure from an institution without a significant doctoral program). Being an effective mentor means providing rigorous training, supporting their professional development as a researcher, and facilitating their engagement with their scholarly community. Evidence of training can vary and depends on subfield-specific scholarship and collaboration norms, as explained by the candidate’s Primary Unit Evaluation Committee, but typically involves coauthored scholarly contributions, student presentations of research at professional meetings, and graduation.��

To meet the expectations for an “excellent” rating for promotion and tenure, the candidate must meet all the criteria described above for a “meritorious” rating and demonstrate in the context of the TQF that they are teaching at an advanced level with demonstrated impact beyond their classroom (e.g., as indicated by demonstrating proficiency level ratings of at least intermediate/professional in all dimensions of the unit specific TQF rubric). In addition, per Regent Policy 5.D.2 (B), the candidate must demonstrate “achievement at the campus, local, national, and/or international level that furthers the practice and/or scholarship of teaching and learning beyond [the candidate’s] immediate instructional setting.”��

B. Evaluation of Scholarly/Creative Work

The college expectations for scholarly/creative work include that the candidate establishes an independent research program that addresses significant issues with noticeable impact beyond the institution. An independent research program is defined as one that includes intellectual contributions that go beyond the work conducted with the candidate’s doctoral and (if applicable) post-doctoral advisor(s) and mentors. Dissemination of work is expected, can vary by discipline and subdiscipline, and consequently can take forms including, for example, peer-reviewed scholarly journal or journal-equivalent conference papers, books, book chapters, monographs, peer-reviewed conference papers, scientific/technical reports, software, datasets, publicly available technical, provisional, and awarded patents, other entrepreneurial activities, or direct impact on government policy and/or professional practice. The support of postdoctoral researchers, as well as MS and BS students is valued, but the primary expectation is that the candidate’s emphasis should be on advising and mentoring PhD students. The college has no specific expectations for external funding level (or expenditures from external sources), as funding can vary significantly between disciplines; however, a candidate must have sufficient external funding to support their research, mentoring of students, and research-related activities. The funding can come from sources such as federal agencies, private foundations, or industry with the faculty member typically serving as principal investigator (PI) or a co-PI. A primary focus in all areas is to show innovation and impact beyond the institution through scholarly/creative work as per the Regent Policy 5.D.2.(B) standard that requires “A recommendation of tenure based on excellence in scholarly/creative work shall include evidence of impact beyond the institution.” ����

To meet the criteria for a “meritorious” rating at promotion and tenure, candidates must show that their scholarly/creative work is disseminated in any discipline-specific appropriate manner (as listed previously), although not necessarily in the top venues within their field. The rate of publication is close to or below that of the candidate’s peers (both internal and external) at the same career stage. Graduate students are involved in research, primarily as co-authors. The candidate is developing a notable scholarly reputation at other universities and/or in industry. The candidate’s scholarly/creative work shows modest or limited evidence of innovation and broader impact, and/or may not show evidence of being independent of their doctoral or (if applicable) postdoctoral training. The candidate has applied for and may have received external funding, but not at a level sufficient to support a research group of an appropriate size necessary to maintain a vigorous research program as defined by their unit. ����

To meet the criteria for an “excellent” rating for promotion and tenure, the candidate demonstrates evidence of independent, innovative, and high-impact scholarly/creative work through the dissemination of their work in��the top venues within their field, as clearly defined by their primary unit and based on their discipline/subdiscipline. The rate of publication compares favorably to the candidate’s peers (internal and external) at the same career stage. Graduate students are involved in research and have appeared as authors (including as lead authors, as appropriate) on multiple publications. The candidate is working on problems recognized as significant by experts in the field and has developed a scholarly reputation at other universities and/or in industry. Recognized authorities outside the university acknowledge the candidate’s national and international reputation and innovative contributions to scholarly accomplishment, and the candidate may have received internal and/or external awards related to scholarly work. The candidate possesses a reputation of primary association with a particular achievement or subject, providing compelling evidence of research leadership. The candidate’s scholarly/creative work shows considerable evidence of innovation, broader impact, and sustained growth, which can include entrepreneurship activities (such as patents) and/or policy that could guide industry or governmental efforts. The candidate has a sustained research program supported in part by external funding, including grants on which they are PI, and can support a vigorous research program as defined by their unit. ��

C.��Evaluation of Leadership and Service

The evaluation of leadership and service is focused on overall contributions to the candidate’s program, department, institute, college, campus, and/or professional organization(s) in the form of semester or year-long formal and informal activities that directly support our collective teaching and research missions. Standard forms of internal service are typically committee work, faculty peer mentoring, and significant administrative and/or leadership roles. Internal service also includes serving as a member of or chairing an ad hoc committee, including faculty search committees. External service contributions take the form of service to scholarly communities through formal and informal activities that directly support that community’s educational or scholarly/creative activities. Other common forms of external service focus on reviewing papers and proposals either as an ad hoc reviewer or a member of a program committee or other formal panel; helping to organize or leading a professional meeting, workshop, symposia, or conference; serving a professional society; or participating in outreach to the public (i.e., local, state, national, or international). Per Regent Policy 5.D.2.(A), a candidate's leadership and service performance (to the university, profession and/or public) must be at least “meritorious”. ��

To meet the criteria for a “meritorious” rating at the time of promotion and tenure review, the candidate must have served on one or more departmental committees and may be involved in college-level or campus committees, primarily as a participant. The candidate may have held some leadership responsibilities within the department (or program or institute), for example, leading a graduate student recruiting committee or organizing a departmental seminar series. The candidate actively participates in department functions, including faculty hiring processes, voting (as appropriate), mentoring other faculty within their department, and attending department meetings. The candidate actively participates in activities intended to broaden inclusion in their department/unit. The candidate participates in external professional activities intended to promote their field's development. Activities may include, for example, chairing sessions at conferences, workshops, and/or symposia; serving on program boards or review panels; reviewing papers and proposals; and/or professional activities, with a focus on broadening the participation of underrepresented and non-traditional groups in science and engineering. Outreach efforts to broaden participation in science and engineering are encouraged.

To meet the criteria for an “excellent” rating typically requires substantial leadership positions and/or significant impact in the department, institute, college, campus, or society. Given that a rating of “excellent” in leadership and service is neither required nor sufficient for tenure, candidates are encouraged to focus on achieving a rating of “excellent” in scholarly/creative work and/or teaching instead.��

III. Promotion to Full Professor

In the following sections, the College of Engineering and Applied Science expectations are outlined for promotion to Full Professor. Regent Policy 5.D.3.(D) states the standard, “To be promoted to the rank of Professor (also referred to as ‘Full Professor’), an individual should have a terminal degree appropriate to their field or its equivalent, and: (1) A complete record of accomplishments as a scholar or artist that, taken as a whole, may be judged to be excellent; and (2) a record of significant contribution to graduate and undergraduate education, unless individual or departmental circumstances can be shown to require a stronger emphasis, or singular focus, on one or the other; and (3) a record since receiving tenure or promotion to Associate Professor that indicates substantial, significant, and continued growth, development, and accomplishment in teaching or librarianship, scholarly/creative work, and leadership and service.”��

The evaluation for promotion to Full Professor encompasses the candidate’s whole record (as opposed to the record solely during the tenure probationary period, as is the case for promotion and tenure review). Note that overall excellence does not require an individual rating of each area, as is the case for tenure.��

A.��A Record of Significant Contribution to Education

The college expects candidates for promotion to Full Professor to have shown commitment to undergraduate and graduate education, including efforts toward continuous improvement. The college expects candidates at this stage to meet at least some of the criteria described above for excellence in teaching during tenure review. In terms of the TQF rubric, the college expects that the candidate has achieved at least basic proficiency levels, with occasional professional and advanced proficiency in some criteria using their unit’s TQF rubric. The candidate must continue to be active and effective in PhD research mentoring and supervision, and in MS and undergraduate student and postdoctoral research mentoring if that is expected by their unit. Candidates must show evidence of an active PhD student cohort at varying stages of progression toward graduation. Candidates for promotion to Full Professor are expected to have graduated multiple PhD students over their academic career.��

B.��A Record of Significant Contribution to��Scholarly/Creative Work

The college expects that candidates at this stage continue to meet the same criteria as what is described above for excellence in scholarly/creative works during tenure review. Specifically, the candidate continues to disseminate their work in venues appropriate for their discipline and subdiscipline as described above for tenure. The candidate’s graduate students are involved in research and have appeared as authors on multiple publications since tenure. The candidate is working on problems recognized as significant by experts in the field and has maintained a scholarly reputation of leadership. Recognized authorities outside the university acknowledge the candidate’s national and international reputation and innovative contributions in scholarly accomplishment, and the candidate may have received both internal and external awards related to research. The candidate possesses a reputation of primary association with a particular achievement or subject, providing compelling evidence of scholarly leadership. The candidate’s scholarly/creative work shows considerable evidence of innovation, broader impact, and sustained growth, which can include entrepreneurship activities (such as patents) and/or direct impact on government policy and/or professional practice. The candidate has a sustained research program fully supported by external funding including grants on which they are principal investigator (PI) and is supporting a vigorous research program as defined by their unit, including funding their PhD students through graduation. ��

C.��A Record of Significant Leadership and Service

The college expects that candidates for promotion to Full Professor have taken on substantial leadership positions and/or demonstrated significant impact in the department, institute, college, campus, professional organization, or society.��

D. Substantial, Significant, and Continued Growth Since Tenure

The college expects that candidates for promotion to Full Professor have demonstrated substantial, significant, and continued growth since tenure in all aspects of their professional endeavors. At this stage, the college expects that candidates would have continued or increased the rate and/or breadth of dissemination of their scholarly work; maintained a history of effective student and, possibly, faculty peer mentoring; and have been involved in leadership and service activities at multiple levels as appropriate, etc.��