Third–Year Review


Each academic department will implement a full review of the research, teaching, service, and overall progress of each tenure-track Assistant Professor in the spring semester of his or her third year of service to the College.

The purpose of this review is to provide thoughtful and evaluative feedback both to the faculty member and the department chair/director regarding respective contributions toward satisfying standards of promotion and tenure.

Procedural Timeline

April (year 2, 4th semester) Department notifies Assistant Professor of impending Third-Year Review
April (year 2, 4th semester) Department notifies Dean’s Office of Assistant Professors undergoing Third-Year Review
April (year 2, 4th semester) Assistant Professor begins assembling materials to submit*
September (year 3, 5th semester Provost’s Office distributes CIS survey and Graduate Committee report to Dean’s Office for candidates undergoing Third Year Review. Dean’s Office sends copies to the department.
Spring (year 3, 6th semester) Assistant Professor submits materials to chair/director, due date determined by dept/school
April 15 (year 3, 6th semester) Chair/director submits written report to the Dean’s Office
April (year 3, 6th semester) COFA promotion and tenure advisory committee reviews dossier, dean and chair/director will also attend these meetings
April (year 3, 6th semester) Chair/director meets with Assistant Professor to share results and advise the candidate.
May (year 3, 6th semester) Chair/director documents the process, evaluation of the candidate, and any resultant advisement in a memo to the dean. This written review is included in the eventual P&T file.


*Materials should include:

  • Three written statements (each approximately one page in length) provided by the candidate emphasizing his/her perceived strengths in 1. Research/creative activity, 2. Teaching, 3. Service
  • Curriculum vitae
  • Faculty annual reports (a copy of each one completed while in rank)
  • At least two peer evaluation/observation reports (coordinated by dept/school chair/director)
  • Instructional activity report of all courses taught while in rank
  • Course instructor survey summary evaluations for all courses taught while in rank
  • List of students supervised for these and dissertations
  • Supplemental material (per candidate’s discretion)

Questions for Chair/Director and P&T committee to consider

  1. Has the chair/director articulated a specific standard for promotion and tenure in the candidates field?
  2. Are standards in this field obscure or in need of articulation, and if so, what has been done to clarify them for the candidate, for senior colleagues, for the dean and other senior administrators outside the candidate’s field?
  3. Does the candidate have an appropriate senior faculty mentor? If not, should one be assigned?
  4. Is the candidate on track in achieving the professional accomplishments essential to a successful tenure case?
  5. Is there a compelling and consistent record of mentoring and evaluation of the candidate’s teaching? Do these indicate strong teaching?
  6. Is the candidate overburdened with service obligations? Or insufficiently involved with departmental service?
  7. Has the candidate received appropriate feedback from the chair/director and P&T committee relative to progress towards promotion and tenure?
  8. How might the chair/director advise a candidate to strengthen his or her case?

*Note: Department chair Mid-Probationary Review will be included in the P&T file


Page last updated: 2/7/2019