Checklist for the Tenure Review Subcommittee

The following checklist is used by the subcommittee of the Physical Sciences Divisional Committee in its meeting with department chairs proposing a promotion or appointment to tenure. Department chairs and members of the department committee that prepared the tenure case should review the checklist to make sure that all relevant information is provided in the tenure package, and to be prepared for the meeting.
 

Candidate:______________________________________________________________

Subcommittee members:____________________________________________________

Date of meeting with department or program:_____________________________________

Meeting attendees:________________________________________________________

Note to subcommittee members: Mention the responsibility of the department to establish mentor committees for probationary faculty members and perform regular peer review of teaching. Information on the techniques and objectives of peer review is available at www.wisc.edu/MOO/.

Cover letter:

• Who was on the departmental review committee and who prepared the package?
• Quorum rules. Are absentee ballots accepted?
• What percentage is required to approve a promotion or tenured appointment?
• Possible reasons for dissenting votes or abstentions?
• If this is an appointment to tenure, how was the candidate selected? Was a search conducted?
• When did the tenure clock start? Is this an "early" promotion or appointment to tenure? If so, how is unusual maturity demonstrated?
• Please explain if there is any urgency or special circumstances.
• How do you rate the candidate's service to the department?
• Are department tenure guidelines (as specified in FPP 7.14.D) attached or explained?
• How has the candidate been mentored by the department in teaching? In research?

• What has the teaching load been? Is the course load considered light? Heavy?
• Has the candidate taught undergraduate courses? If not, explain.
• Have new materials or new courses been developed?
• What is the extent and effectiveness of the candidate's mentoring of graduate students?
• How was the candidate mentored with respect to teaching? Are peer evaluations included?
• Has the candidate encountered difficulties in teaching? How have the candidate and department responded? Is there evidence of development?

• Are student evaluations included for all programs/departments in which the candidate teaches? For all course taught by the candidate?
• Does department require regular evaluations of all faculty members?
• Are comparative evaluations with the whole department or tenured faculty teaching similar courses included? How does the candidate rank in teaching overall?

• Which publications contain the candidate's thesis research?
• Which publications contain work done before coming here?
• Which publications are not refereed?
• What contributions did the candidate make to each joint paper (by task)?
• Who are the coauthors (colleagues, advisers, students)?
• Is the order of authors significant? Is joint authorship common?
• What is a typical publication rate in the field?
• What is the current status of submitted papers?
• Why are there timing gaps?

• Rank-order of journals in field.
• Average acceptance rate if available and significant.
• Any unusually long review times?

• Which papers are contributed? Invited?
• What are the acceptance rates for the conferences (if significant)?

• Does the candidate have a current pipeline of students? How many finished earlier? Their current jobs?
• Does the candidate have joint papers with students?
• Do they pick up the M.S. on the way to the Ph.D.?
• How are students supported?

• Broad? Theoretical? Experimental?
• What kind of evidence is there for creativity?
• How does the candidate rank relative to his or her peers?

• What is the norm in the field?
• What is the outlook for sustained funding in the future?
• What is the role of the candidate in joint projects? Are there peer reviews or other objective evidence of candidate's individual role?
• Are there pending grants?

• Programs developed?
• Materials developed? Creativity?

• How was the list developed?
• What are the best universities in the overall field? In the candidate's specialty area?
• How is the writer associated with the candidate?
• Does the writer give specific examples of contributions? Impact of work done at Wisconsin?
• Is the writer using one of these contributions?
• Is there a comparison between the candidate and peers at other institutions?
• Would the candidate be promoted at a leading department in the candidate's area?
• Elaborate on negative comments or questions or interpretation.