Please scroll down or click on the links below to read about this process.
(1) Promotion Flowchart
(2) Steps: Internal Promotion from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor
(3) Dossier Checklist: Promotion to Associate Professor
(4) Suggested Timeline for Standard Academic-Year Appointments: Departmental Review of Tenure-Track Faculty for Promotion to Associate Professor
(5) Suggested Timeline for Calendar-Year Appointments: Departmental Review of Tenure-Track Faculty for Promotion to Associate Professor
Note: SEAS follows the same policies as the FAS divisions in reviews for promotion to associate professor. Because SEAS has its own organizational structure as a School within the FAS, the SEAS individuals who perform associate-review tasks differ at times from the individuals specified in the flow-chart below and in the processes outlined throughout Section 5B. Please see the “Note” following the “Steps” table in 5B2 for more information on SEAS process. You may also consult SEAS for further information.
(1) Promotion Flowchart: Internal Promotion from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor
(2) Steps: Internal Promotion from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor
|
Step |
Explanation |
1 |
Each spring, department chairs receive from the divisional assistant dean a list of faculty scheduled for review for promotion to associate professor during the next academic or calendar year. |
Note: Promotion reviews should ordinarily be completed by the end of the assistant professor’s penultimate year of appointment. Note: With the significant disruptions to professional life resulting from the COVID-19 crisis, the FAS instituted in Spring 2020 a policy of extensions, allowing then-current tenure-track faculty the option of extending their appointment and postponing their promotion review for one semester or a year, depending on their eligibility. Similarly, FAS faculty whose appointments began in the fall term of 2020 were offered the option to extend their initial appointment by one year. In Spring 2021, recognizing the ongoing impact of COVID-19, the FAS encouraged any interested tenure-track faculty to contact their divisional dean/SEAS Dean if they wished to request an additional year of appointment and tenure-clock extension, for reasons of significant professional and/or personal disruption due to the pandemic. In January 2022, given the continuing impact of the pandemic, the FAS provided the option of a third appointment extension, for any interested tenure-track faculty who have not yet had their review for promotion to tenure and who feel that an extension would help them to address Covid-related impacts on their professional lives. In addition, the FAS stated in Spring 2021 that it will grant relief from teaching one course for any interested tenure-track colleagues (regardless of dependent-care circumstances) who were on the FAS tenure-track during the 2020-21 academic year and who teach in departments/areas that have a typical teaching load of two courses or more per year. These eligible tenure-track faculty can take this course relief any time before they come up for tenure. Please see 3.E.3, “Additional Leave and Teaching Relief,” for more information on this one-time teaching relief. Moreover, effective July 1, 2023, tenure-track faculty who take a medical leave lasting eight weeks or longer (including medical leave associated with childbirth) will have the option to take a one-year extension to their current appointment as well. During this one-year extension, the faculty member would be eligible for one semester of teaching relief . (For more information, please see Chapter 3H, “Other Leaves (Family [including Parental], Medical, and Personal) and Extensions.”) Internal and external evaluators in associate reviews should evaluate candidates by using the standard criteria for associate professor provided in Chapter 5 (the “Description” of associate professors). Evaluators should assess a faculty member’s aggregated scholarship, teaching, advising, mentoring, and service/citizenship without any penalty if the faculty member received teaching relief and/or appointment extension(s) due to the pandemic, medical, or parental leave. For example, if a candidate for promotion to associate professor was given a one-year clock extension and thus came up for associate promotion in the fifth (rather than the ordinary fourth) year after their initial appointment date, their body of work should be evaluated as if they had had four years to work towards associate promotion. Similarly, and for example, if a tenure-track faculty member was given one course of teaching relief, they should be evaluated for associate promotion as if they had taught the course for which they received relief. Clock extensions and teaching relief related to the pandemic, medical leave, or parental leave should not be counted against candidates in any way. Note: Following completion of the steps below, departments submit promotion recommendations no later than (in AY 2023-2024) March 22, 2024 (for “academic-year” appointments ending in June) or October 1 (for “calendar-year” appointments ending in December). If these dates fall on a weekend or a holiday, the deadline is the next business day. Note: This “Steps” table shows suggested timing for tenure-track faculty whose appointments end in June. The “Suggested Timelines” at the end of this chapter also show timing for appointments that end in December |
2 | Proximate to July 1 (for academic-year appointments), the divisional assistant dean sends a letter to the candidate informing them of the official start of their review. |
This letter, sent to the candidate close to July 1, informs the candidate that this is the year of their associate review, that July 1 constitutes the official start of their review process, that the next step is for the candidate to meet with their department chair to discuss the review process and necessary materials, that the candidate’s materials are due to the department by September 1 (for academic-year appointments), and that the steps of the entire review process are available in the FAS Appointment and Promotion Handbook. Note: If September 1 falls on a weekend or holiday, the deadline for the candidate to submit all of their dossier materials to the department is the next business day. In addition, September 1 (or the next business day, as appropriate) is the deadline for eligible candidates to notify their divisional assistant dean that, due to the pending birth or adoption of a child, they would like to receive the FAS’s automatic one-year appointment extension and review postponement that are granted to expecting parents. In particular, expecting parents whose birth- or adoption-date falls no later than one month after September 1 (or the next business day, as appropriate) must notify their divisional assistant dean by September 1 (or the next business day) that they wish to have this automatic appointment extension and review postponement. For more on this policy, please see Chapter 3.H.3. (“For Tenure-Track Faculty: Childcare Appointment Extension and Postponement of Review Policies”) in the FAS Appointment and Promotion Handbook. |
3 |
In July of the candidate’s penultimate year as an assistant professor, the chair and the candidate meet to discuss the department’s review procedures and materials needed for the review. The chair reminds the candidate to provide all of their materials by September 1. |
As a general principle in promotion reviews for tenure-track faculty, there is no formula at the FAS for the relative weights of research, teaching, advising, mentoring, and service/citizenship in promotion decisions. The FAS is looking for high-impact contributions in each of these areas, and “impact” can take many forms. The candidate’s materials include:
|
4 |
The chair requests divisional dean approval of a proposed review committee and, following this approval, appoints the committee |
|
5 |
The department compiles a summary teaching chart and gathers information on the candidate’s performance as an adviser and mentor of undergraduates, graduate students, and, as relevant, postdoctoral fellows |
|
6 |
The committee considers all the gathered materials and the department decides whether to proceed with the case |
If, after preliminary review of the candidate’s materials (and before sending the case to the department for initial review), the review committee wishes to seek clarification from the candidate on aspects of the candidate’s materials, the department chair is permitted to send written questions to the candidate on behalf of the review committee, with a date by which the candidate should send written answers back to the department chair. Questions should be limited to matters that the review committee deems essential to clarify. The review committee’s questions and the candidate’s response will become part of the final dossier. The review committee is under no obligation to seek clarification from the candidate on their materials. In addition to the materials described in the steps above, the committee should review the feedback letter that the candidate received after their second-year review as an assistant professor. This letter provides a fuller context for understanding how the candidate has developed and also sheds some light on the mentoring they received. After reviewing all the candidate’s materials (including any clarifications, as necessary), the committee discusses the strengths and weaknesses of the case and recommends to the department whether the case warrants further review. The department discusses the strengths and weaknesses of the case and decides whether it warrants further review. Departmental discussions of the case should be robust. If the committee recommends not proceeding with the review, the department must discuss and affirm this decision by a recorded vote. The department chair then sends to the divisional dean the current dossier, including a record of the department vote, and a draft of the letter to the candidate. After divisional dean approval, the department gives the letter to the candidate. Note: When a candidate opts, at any stage in the process, to withdraw his/her/their case from consideration, a departmental vote does not occur. Candidates wishing to withdraw their case should state this in a letter to the department chair, which the chair shares with the divisional dean. |
7a |
If the case proceeds, the department requests authorization from the divisional dean to request external evaluation letters. With the request, the department should submit a draft of the review letter and the recipient list (see Sample Table) and, if the department chooses to send an initial inquiry (see Step 7c) before the review letter, a draft of the initial inquiry letter. Note: This information should ordinarily be submitted to the divisional dean in October. |
The review letter (see the Sample Letters section of this handbook) should include:
The recipient list:
|
7b |
(Optional step, for departments choosing to solicit letters from collaborators or mentors) The department submits to the divisional dean a draft of the solicitation letter to mentors and collaborators and adds collaborator/mentor names to the recipient list that contains the arm’s-length external letter writers (see Step 7a). Note: This information should ordinarily be submitted to the divisional dean in October. |
In addition to the required five “arm’s length” letters, the department has the option of soliciting letters from past or present collaborators and mentors (whether they are at Harvard or other schools). As with the parameters for external letter writers, described in Step 7a, collaborators or mentors must:
The solicitation letter: Please use the template in Chapter 15, for soliciting evaluations from collaborators or mentors. The recipient list: When adding the names of any collaborators or mentors, please keep these names separate from the required “arm’s length” external letter writers. |
7c |
(Optional step, for departments choosing to send an initial inquiry) In October, once the divisional dean has approved the review letter (for external letter writers) and/or solicitation letter (for any collaborator/mentor letter writers), the recipient list, and initial inquiry letter, the department chair sends the initial inquiry to scholars on the recipient list |
The initial inquiry email (see the Sample Letter section of this handbook) asks recipients if they would be willing to write a letter, requesting their answer by a specific date. ● For external letters, the department writes to a number of scholars sufficient to elicit five “arm’s length” letters for inclusion in the final dossier. Please take into account that 5 affirmative responses to the initial inquiry may not ultimately result in 5 evaluations of the candidate. ● The inquiry email and all responses from scholars should be included in the final dossier. ● Any initial inquiries conducted by phone (and scholars’ responses) must be documented for inclusion in the final dossier. |
8 |
In early November, the chair sends the review letter (for external letter writers) and/or solicitation letter (for any collaborator/mentor letter writers), along with the candidate materials to all scholars who have replied affirmatively to the initial inquiry email (see Step 7c). If the chair has chosen not to send any initial inquiries, the letter(s) and candidate materials are sent directly to the scholars on the recipient list. In both cases, the chair requests receipt of letters by January |
|
9 |
After discussing all of the letters, the review committee reports to the department |
After reviewing the candidate’s materials (and all of the letters), the committee reports to the department either that the case is sufficiently strong for the department to vote on promotion or that it does not recommend promotion. |
10 |
The senior members of the department review all materials, discuss the case, and vote (February to early March) |
|
11 |
After a favorable vote, the case statement is finalized by the department chair |
The finalized case statement, prepared and signed by the department chair and the chair of the review committee, should include the following sections:
Note: The finalized case statement should be made available to the faculty in the department involved in the review. |
12 |
The candidate’s dossier is prepared by the department and sent, with a draft letter for the candidate, to the assistant dean for the division (by, in AY 2023-2024, March 22, 2024) |
The divisional dean/SEAS Dean and/or their designee reviews the dossier. Note: The divisional dean/SEAS Dean and/or their designee and the Dean for Faculty Affairs and Planning can ask for changes to the dossier at any time. |
13 |
The divisional dean, with a CAP subcommittee, reviews the dossier, and the divisional dean decides whether to approve the appointment |
In some cases, the full Committee on Appointments and Promotions may be asked to review individual promotion dossiers. The divisional dean may wish to meet with the department chair to discuss the dossier and the draft letter to the candidate, if necessary. At the conclusion of the review, the divisional dean communicates feedback regarding the case to the chair, making suggestions about additional information that should be conveyed to the candidate, both formally and informally. |
14 |
The department issues the final approved letter to the candidate |
Following revisions, when necessary, and final approval by the divisional dean, the department issues the letter to the candidate. In addition to the letter, an in-person meeting (between the candidate, the review committee chair, the department chair, and the candidate’s formal mentor) should take place after the associate review to provide further feedback and mentoring. |
15 |
If the promotion is approved, the appointment is processed in the Aurora system by the appointing department |
|
Note: As mentioned at the start of Section 5B, some of the tasks in associate reviews are performed by different individuals in, respectively, SEAS and the FAS divisions. Specifically:
- In SEAS, the John A. Paulson Dean of SEAS appoints the review committee (see Step 4 in the “Steps” table above).
- The SEAS review committee chair prepares and signs the final case statement (Step 11).
Please consult SEAS for more details on SEAS procedures.
(3) Dossier Checklist: Promotion to Associate Professor
Please securely send an electronic copy of the dossier, including a draft of the letter to the candidate, to the assistant dean for the division (AD). Please follow HUIT’s recommended practices for secure document transfer (e.g., Accellion Kiteworks, encryption, etc.), which can vary by user platform. Separate from the dossier, please securely send to the assistant dean, as two additional, distinct PDF files, the student teaching evaluations and the candidate’s publications (or, in art-making fields, copies, as appropriate, of creative works). To facilitate storing and sharing of files, please name the dossier file as follows: a) alpha-numeric characters only (no dashes, commas, slashes, etc.) b) [Last Name] [First Name] [Department Name] tenure track dossier [numerical Month, Date, and Year of dossier submission: XX YY ZZ]. E.g., Smith John Psychology tenure track dossier 1 4 15. c) If a dossier is revised and resubmitted, please repeat the original title, followed by “rev” and [Month of resubmission] [Date of resubmission] [Year of resubmission]. E.g., Smith John Psychology tenure track dossier 1 4 15 rev 1 15 15. Please follow the same naming conventions in titling the PDF of teaching evaluations and the PDF of the candidate’s publications (or creative works).
After the offer is finalized, please send 1 electronic PDF copy of the final dossier to the Appointments Office in the Office for Faculty Affairs via Aurora. Please use the naming convention outlined above.
Departments should retain documents according to practices recommended by Harvard Archives at https://grs.harvard.edu/ (please log in).
______1. Divisional assistant dean’s letter notifying the department of the candidate’s upcoming review for promotion.
______2. Divisional assistant dean’s letter notifying the candidate of the official start to their review for promotion.
______3. Case statement (including department vote by name). See description in Step 11 above.
______4. Candidate’s curriculum vitae, including a bibliography. Note: Candidates who opted in Spring 2020, Spring 2021, and/or Spring 2022 for an extension of their associate review clock due to the COVID-19 pandemic and/or parental leave and/or have thereafter extended their clock due to medical leave and/or parental leave, may include the following language in their c.v.s, if they wish: “Harvard’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences grants appointment extensions and teaching relief to tenure-track faculty, in keeping with policies related to the COVID-19 pandemic, medical leave, and parental leave. Accordingly, Harvard delayed my associate review by [INSERT NUMBER OF YEARS OR, IF LESS THAN ONE YEAR, NUMBER OF MONTHS] [INCLUDE IF APPROPRIATE: and gave me [INSERT NUMBER] course[s] of teaching relief].”
______5. A summary teaching chart, teaching awards, a list of past and present undergraduate, graduate, and (as relevant) postdoctoral advisees and mentees (including those who have moved to another research group) and informal advisees and mentees may also be included, representative course syllabi.
______6. As a separate PDF (not included in the dossier), one set of all available student evaluations of the candidate’s teaching.
______7. Teaching/advising/mentoring statement.
______8. Research statement.
______9. Service/citizenship statement.
_____10. Statement on publications overlap and joint authorship
_____11. As a separate PDF (not included in the dossier), one set of all publications, including forthcoming (or in art-making fields, copies, as appropriate, of all creative works).
_____12. If an initial inquiry was sent, a copy of the initial inquiry letter (including documentation of any initial inquiries conducted by telephone) and all replies.
_____13. A copy of the review letter soliciting external evaluations.
_____14. A copy of the solicitation letter, if any, for letter writers who were collaborators or mentors.
_____15. A list (see Sample Table) of all people to whom the review letter or solicitation letter was sent, indicating who did and did not reply.
_____16. Evaluations from at least five arm’s-length external scholars, with English translations of any written in a foreign language, typed copies of any handwritten letters, and any emails/letters from scholars who declined to participate in the review.
_____17. (If solicited, in addition to #14) Any additional letters of reference from graduate or postdoctoral advisors.
_____18. As applicable, a list of current and pending funding.
_____19. Any written communications from the department chair to the candidate, on behalf of the review committee, seeking clarification on the candidate’s materials (as per Step 6 in the “Steps” table for promotion to associate professor), and the candidate’s written responses.
_____20. A draft of the department chair’s letter to the candidate, informing the candidate of the outcome of the review, providing constructive feedback, and assessing the candidate’s strengths and weaknesses with regard to the candidate's potential for eventual tenure.
Please securely send 1 electronic PDF copy of the final signed letter for the candidate to the divisional dean, cc’ing the AD. Please follow HUIT’s recommended practices for secure document transfer (e.g., Accellion Kiteworks, encryption, etc.), which can vary by user platform.
Note: The candidate should not solicit student (or postdoc) letters, and any unsolicited student (or postdoc) letters will not be included in the dossier.
(4) Suggested Timeline for Standard Academic-Year Appointments: Departmental Review of Tenure-Track Faculty for Promotion to Associate Professor[2]
Note: Reviews for promotion should ordinarily be completed by the end of the penultimate year of appointment.
Note: With the significant disruptions to professional life resulting from the COVID-19 crisis, the FAS instituted in Spring 2020 a policy of extensions, allowing then-current tenure-track faculty the option of extending their appointment and postponing their promotion review for one semester or a year, depending on their eligibility. Similarly, FAS faculty whose appointments began in the fall term of 2020 were offered the option to extend their initial appointment by one year. In Spring 2021, recognizing the ongoing impact of COVID-19, the FAS encouraged any interested tenure-track faculty to contact their divisional dean/SEAS Dean if they wished to request an additional year of appointment and tenure-clock extension, for reasons of significant professional and/or personal disruption due to the pandemic. In January 2022, given the continuing impact of the pandemic, the FAS provided the option of a third appointment extension, for any interested tenure-track faculty who have not yet had their review for promotion to tenure and who feel that an extension would help them to address Covid-related impacts on their professional lives.
In addition, the FAS stated in Spring 2021 that it will grant relief from teaching one course for any interested tenure-track colleagues (regardless of dependent-care circumstances) who were on the FAS tenure-track during the 2020-21 academic year and who teach in departments/areas that have a typical teaching load of two courses or more per year. These eligible tenure-track faculty can take this course relief any time before they come up for tenure. Please see 3.E.3, “Additional Leave and Teaching Relief,” for more information on this one-time teaching relief.
Moreover, effective July 1, 2023, tenure-track faculty who take a medical leave lasting eight weeks or longer (including medical leave associated with childbirth) will have the option to take a one-year extension to their current appointment as well. During this one-year extension, the faculty member would be eligible for one semester of teaching relief. (For more information, please see Chapter 3H, “Other Leaves (Family [including Parental], Medical, and Personal) and Extensions.”)
Internal and external evaluators in associate reviews should evaluate candidates by using the standard criteria for associate professor provided in Chapter 5 (the “Description” of associate professors). Evaluators should assess a faculty member’s aggregated scholarship, teaching, advising, mentoring, and service/citizenship without any penalty if the faculty member received teaching relief and/or appointment extension(s) due to the pandemic, medical, or parental leave. For example, if a candidate for promotion to associate professor was given a one-year clock extension and thus came up for associate promotion in the fifth (rather than the ordinary fourth) year after their initial appointment date, their body of work should be evaluated as if they had had four years to work towards associate promotion. Similarly, and for example, if a tenure-track faculty member was given one course of teaching relief, they should be evaluated for associate promotion as if they had taught the course for which they received relief. Clock extensions and teaching relief related to the pandemic, medical leave, or parental leave should not be counted against candidates in any way.
Note: In SEAS, the John A. Paulson Dean of SEAS appoints the review committee. The SEAS review committee chair prepares and signs the final case statement. Please consult SEAS for more details on SEAS procedures.
June: Prior to the beginning of candidates’ penultimate year of appointment, chairs receive letters from the assistant dean for the division indicating which tenure-track faculty (both calendar-year and academic-year appointees) are eligible for review.
July 1: July 1 is the official start of the associate review process. Proximate to July 1, the divisional assistant dean sends a letter to the candidate informing them that this is the year of their associate review, that July 1 constitutes the official start of their review process, that the next step is for the candidate to meet with their department chair to discuss the review process and necessary materials, that the candidate’s materials are due to the department by September 1, and that the steps of the entire review process are available in the FAS Appointment and Promotion Handbook.
Note: If September 1 falls on a weekend or holiday, the deadline for the candidate to submit all of their dossier materials to the department is the next business day. In addition, September 1 (or the next business day, as appropriate) is the deadline for candidates whose birth- or adoption-date falls no later than October 1 (or the next business day) to notify their divisional assistant dean that they would like to have the automatic appointment extension and review postponement that the FAS grants to expecting parents.
In July: The chair and candidate meet to discuss the review process and the materials needed for the review. The chair reminds the candidate to submit all of their materials by September 1.
September 1 (or the next business day, if September 1 is a weekend or a holiday): Deadline for candidates to submit all of their materials to departments, and deadline for eligible candidates to notify their assistant dean that they would like the automatic appointment extension and review postponement that the FAS grants to expecting parents.
By early September:
- Department chairs request approval of review committee membership from divisional deans. After approval, the chairs appoint the review committees.
- Departments compile summary teaching charts and gather materials on the candidates’ performance as advisors and mentors of undergraduates, graduate students, and, as relevant, postdoctoral fellows.
September to early November
- Review committees consider the candidates’ materials and departments decide which cases should move forward. If the committee recommends that a case not move forward, the department must discuss and affirm this decision.
- If a case moves forward, the chair requests divisional dean authorization to collect evaluation letters, submitting for divisional dean approval a draft of the review letter to external letter writers, any solicitation letter to collaborators or mentors, a proposed recipient list, and (if departments choose to send initial inquiries), the initial inquiry email.
- Departments send approved letters to approved recipient lists. The department should give arm's length external letter writers at least six weeks to prepare their letters (dating from the mailing of the review letter), depending on the volume of materials under review.
January: Expected date of replies from letter writers.
February to early March:
- Tenured members of departments review dossiers and vote on whether to recommend promotions. A favorable vote does not have to be unanimous but must comprise affirmative votes by a significant majority of the tenured faculty in the department.
- If the recommendations are positive, departments finalize dossiers for submission to Faculty Affairs. The chairs draft a letter to the candidate for inclusion in the dossier.
(In AY 2023-2024): March 22, 2024: Deadline for submission of promotion dossiers to Faculty Affairs.
March–June: Review, as appropriate, by divisional deans and the Committee on Appointments and Promotions, followed by notification to candidates about the outcomes.
(5) Suggested Timeline for Calendar-Year Appointments: Departmental Review of Tenure-Track Faculty for Promotion to Associate Professor[3]
Note: Reviews for promotion should ordinarily be completed by the end of the penultimate year of appointment.
Note: With the significant disruptions to professional life resulting from the COVID-19 crisis, the FAS instituted in Spring 2020 a policy of extensions, allowing then-current tenure-track faculty the option of extending their appointment and postponing their promotion review for one semester or a year, depending on their eligibility. Similarly, FAS faculty whose appointments began in the fall term of 2020 were offered the option to extend their initial appointment by one year. In Spring 2021, recognizing the ongoing impact of COVID-19, the FAS encouraged any interested tenure-track faculty to contact their divisional dean/SEAS Dean if they wished to request an additional year of appointment and tenure-clock extension, for reasons of significant professional and/or personal disruption due to the pandemic. In January 2022, given the continuing impact of the pandemic, the FAS provided the option of a third appointment extension, for any interested tenure-track faculty who have not yet had their review for promotion to tenure and who feel that an extension would help them to address Covid-related impacts on their professional lives.
In addition, the FAS stated in Spring 2021 that it will grant relief from teaching one course for any interested tenure-track colleagues (regardless of dependent-care circumstances) who were on the FAS tenure-track during the 2020-21 academic year and who teach in departments/areas that have a typical teaching load of two courses or more per year. These eligible tenure-track faculty can take this course relief any time before they come up for tenure. Please see 3.E.3, “Additional Leave and Teaching Relief,” for more information on this one-time teaching relief.
Moreover, effective July 1, 2023, tenure-track faculty who take a medical leave lasting eight weeks or longer (including medical leave associated with childbirth) will have the option to take a one-year extension to their current appointment as well. During this one-year extension, the faculty member would be eligible for one semester of teaching relief. (For more information, please see Chapter 3H, “Other Leaves (Family [including Parental], Medical, and Personal) and Extensions.”)
Internal and external evaluators in associate reviews should evaluate candidates by using the standard criteria for associate professor provided in Chapter 5 (the “Description” of associate professors). Evaluators should assess a faculty member’s aggregated scholarship, teaching, advising, mentoring, and service/citizenship without any penalty if the faculty member received teaching relief and/or appointment extension(s) due to the pandemic, medical, or parental leave. For example, if a candidate for promotion to associate professor was given a one-year clock extension and thus came up for associate promotion in the fifth (rather than the ordinary fourth) year after their initial appointment date, their body of work should be evaluated as if they had had four years to work towards associate promotion. Similarly, and for example, if a tenure-track faculty member was given one course of teaching relief, they should be evaluated for associate promotion as if they had taught the course for which they received relief. Clock extensions and teaching relief related to the pandemic, medical leave, or parental leave should not be counted against candidates in any way.
Note: In SEAS, the John A. Paulson Dean of SEAS appoints the review committee. The SEAS review committee chair prepares and signs the final case statement. Please consult SEAS for more details on SEAS procedures.
June: Prior to the beginning of candidates’ penultimate year of appointment, chairs receive letters from the assistant dean for the division indicating which tenure-track faculty (both calendar-year and academic-year appointees) are eligible for review.
January 1: January 1 is the official start of the associate review process. Proximate to January 1, the divisional assistant dean sends a letter to the candidate informing them that this is the year of their associate review, that January 1 constitutes the official start of their review process, that the next step is for the candidate to meet with their department chair to discuss the review process and necessary materials, that the candidate’s materials are due to the department by March 1, and that the steps of the entire review process are available in the FAS Appointment and Promotion Handbook.
Note: If March 1 falls on a weekend or holiday, the deadline for the candidate to submit all of their dossier materials to the department is the next business day. In addition, March 1 (or the next business day, as appropriate) is the deadline for candidates whose birth- or adoption-date falls no later than April 1 (or the next business day) to notify their divisional assistant dean that they would like to have the automatic appointment extension and review postponement that the FAS grants to expecting parents.
In January: The chair and candidate meet to discuss the review process and the materials needed for the review. The chair reminds the candidate to submit all of their materials by March 1.
March 1 (or the next business day, if March 1 is a weekend or a holiday): Deadline for candidates to submit all of their materials to departments, and deadline for eligible candidates to notify their assistant dean that they would like the automatic appointment extension and review postponement that the FAS grants to expecting parents.
By early March:
- Department chairs request approval of review committee membership from divisional deans. After approval, the chairs appoint the review committees.
- Departments compile summary teaching charts and gather materials on the candidates’ performance as advisors and mentors of undergraduates, graduate students, and, as relevant, postdoctoral fellows.
March to early May:
- Review committees consider the candidates’ materials and departments decide which cases should move forward. If the committee recommends that a case not move forward, the department must discuss and affirm this decision.
- If a case moves forward, the chair requests divisional dean authorization to collect evaluation letters, submitting for divisional dean approval a draft of the review letter to external letter writers, any solicitation letter to collaborators or mentors, a proposed recipient list, and (if departments choose to send initial inquiries), the initial inquiry email.
- Departments send approved letters to approved recipient lists. The department should give arm's length external letter writers at least six weeks to prepare their letters (dating from the mailing of the review letter), depending on the volume of materials under review.
August: Expected date of replies from letter writers.
September:
- Tenured members of departments review dossiers and vote on whether to recommend promotions. A favorable vote does not have to be unanimous but must comprise affirmative votes by a significant majority of the tenured faculty in the department.
- If the recommendations are positive, departments finalize dossiers for submission to Faculty Affairs. The chairs draft a letter to the candidate for inclusion in the dossier.
October 1: Deadline for submission of promotion dossiers to Faculty Affairs.
October-December: Review, as appropriate, by divisional deans and the Committee on Appointments and Promotions, followed by notification to candidates about the outcomes.