Promotion & Tenure (P&T) Timeline (25 August 2015 Proposal):

• candidate sends draft materials to MC (CV, research statement, teaching statement, selected pubs list)
• candidate receives feedback on draft materials from MC
• candidate sends 7 letter writer names to head (MC does not see these names yet!)

• head sends candidate's list to MC
• MC produces merged list of referee names
• MC produces first slide deck summarizing case including merged referee names proposal
• headsec sends MC slides and candidate materials to standing committee (SC)
• SC members discuss with suggestions/concerns/feedback on materials and referees by email
• MC collates materials suggestions after email discussion concludes and sends along to candidate
• optional: candidate revises materials based on feedback from SC
• sometimes: MC revises referee selection if serious concerns raised by SC
• head initiates letter requests after names list finalized

• after all letters received, MC produces second slide deck summarizing case and letters
• MC presents P&T case using slide deck to standing committee

1. Provide guidance and feedback to the candidate on their materials:

• • Teaching statement
    See also Professor of Teaching guidelines.

1. Develop a proposal for the external letter writers for discussion and approval by the standing committee.
   See the following for the detailed requirements: MiniCommitteeDuties.pdf
2. Digest and summarize the external letters, the teaching committee report and the candidates’ materials for the standing committee.

1. According to the CV preparation guidelines in the SAC Guide, candidates are to keep their narrative comments regarding their "Special Interests and Accomplishments" in the areas of "Teaching" and "Scholarly and Professional Activities" to a maximum of 150 words. However, in several recent cases, candidates are including in their CV's several pages of narrative on their special accomplishments in teaching, research and scholarly and professional activities. Please caution candidates to restrict their narrative. In addition, copies of course outlines are not required.
2. The SAC committee has requested the below in regards to what they require for a tenure case for Senior Instructors:
   
   ‘With both Senior Instructor files that SAC voted on last meeting, the “teaching dossier” was too long. It included 100-200 pages of more or less raw information on what is taught, detailed student comments, etc. Much of this would presumably be valuable for the departmental review and for the referees, but SAC does not require all the raw data. [The analogy is that for files in the scholarship stream, SAC does not see publications or syllabi, and instead only relies on the referee letters as well as the Head and Dean letters to review the merits of the contributions].
   
   Instead, SAC prefers to see summaries provided of student evaluations, with sufficient detail to compare to departmental norms etc. SAC does want to see the peer reviews of teaching, however. And if the candidate provides a narrative of their teaching contributions and contributions to educational leadership, that too would be useful.’ [Update: SAC does not want to see reports from individual classroom visits or the full set of comments from student evaluations any more, these should be summarized in the teaching report. -Tamara, 21 Sep 2012]