C. Professors in Residence

Please scroll down or click on the links below to read about this process.

a.   Description
b.   Search Flowchart
c.   Steps
d.   Dossier Checklist

(2)   Reappointment of Professors in Residence

(1)   Appointment to Professor in Residence

a.  Description

Professor in residence appointments are reserved for senior scholars who, ordinarily, have held senior, tenured professorial appointments at another academic institution and (1) fulfill a well-defined but potentially time-limited programmatic or administrative need; (2) have the capacity to make significant contributions to the FAS throughout the term of their appointments; and (3) have had a considerable impact on their field, including demonstrated excellence in teaching and research. Candidates should ordinarily have a doctorate (with the exception, as appropriate, of appointments in the arts). Appointments to this rank are made for a term of up to five years with approval from the Dean and the Provost. These appointments are renewable for one additional five-year term contingent upon review and approval of the Dean and the Provost. Professors in residence have voting rights in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences and voting rights as senior faculty in the department, except on decisions relating to appointments to the tenured rank.

 

b.  Search Flowchart: Professor in Residence
 

search flowchart pir

c.  Steps: Appointment to Professor in Residence

Note: The appointment process for professors in residence closely resembles the appointment process for external appointments to tenure.

 

Step

Explanation

1

The department chair writes to the divisional dean requesting authorization for a professor in residence search

The search plan should address:

  • A description of the field or area(s) of the search and a description of the importance of the subfield being requested to the discipline as a whole and how it fits into the department’s academic plan.
  • How the anticipated appointment is expected to serve the curricular needs of the department, including the teaching and advising of undergraduate and graduate students, and whether the appointment will be coterminous with a senior administrative position.
  • Why this position is best served by a term-limited professorial appointment.
  • The names of the proposed search committee members, including the chair, who will have primary responsibility for ensuring that the search is broad, wide-ranging, and thorough and that proactive efforts are made to identify candidates from diverse populations, including women and minorities. The committee consists of tenured faculty members. The department should ask a representative of the appropriate center, institute, or initiative to serve on or consult with the search committee when there is an overlap in research interests. (Note: Once a final candidate is identified in the search process, former undergraduate, graduate, or postdoctoral advisors of the candidate should not serve as chair.)
  • A copy of the draft advertisement for the position.
  • The process by which candidates will be identified to ensure the creation of the most highly qualified and diverse pool of applicants.
  • The space (office, studio, and/or laboratory) that will house the proposed appointment and any other important resource considerations.

In consultation with the Edgerley Family Dean of the FAS, the divisional dean reviews individual requests in light of divisional priorities and resources, including space. If the deans decide to pursue the appointment, they will seek approval to proceed from the Provost.

2

After authorization from the Provost and divisional dean, the department advertises the position and makes inquiries at other institutions

  • All advertising copy must be reviewed and approved by the assistant dean for the division before it is submitted to the appropriate journals and other venues. Advertisements and inquiries should describe the position broadly and should list a date after which the department will stop accepting applications, or the department can encourage candidates to apply by a specific date, while indicating that applications will be reviewed until the position is filled. At least one form of the advertisement should be published in print. Advertisements should clearly state required documents and must indicate that Harvard is “an equal opportunity employer and all qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability status, protected veteran status, gender identity, sexual orientation, pregnancy and pregnancy-related conditions, or any other characteristic protected by law.”
  • The dossier for the finalist must include a teaching/advising statement that describes the candidate’s philosophy and practices related to undergraduate, graduate, and (as relevant) postdoctoral teaching and advising. The dossier should also include teaching and advising materials, including a teaching chart ideally listing ten years of courses [in reverse chronological order], any teaching awards, a list of undergraduate and graduate theses supervised [and postdoctoral advisees, as relevant], representative course syllabi, and teaching evaluations. Note: In the teaching chart, please indicate which, if any, courses were taught remotely, whether partially or in full, due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
  • The advertisement should ask all candidates to submit with their original application materials:
    • A teaching/advising statement. (The department may request the other teaching materials only from the finalist.)
    • A research statement.
    • A statement describing efforts to encourage diversity, inclusion, and belonging, including past, current, and anticipated future contributions in these areas.
  • The divisional dean/SEAS Dean may, as needed,  request additional information from or about candidates at relevant points in the search process. 
  • Candidates should not solicit student (or postdoc) letters, and any unsolicited student (or postdoc) letters will not be included in the final dossier.
  • Harvard is required to solicit and record, when available, each applicant’s gender and racial/ethnic information, which is accomplished through the ARIeS system. Applicants are not required to provide demographic information.

3

The department submits a short list of candidates for approval by the divisional dean

The short list consists of candidates the department has determined are the most qualified for the job in terms of credentials, accomplishments, standing in the field, teaching experience, and field of expertise. To build the strongest pool for the short list, the committee should discuss in early and ongoing conversations how to attract diverse applicants, including women and minorities.

The department sends the following to the divisional dean and the assistant dean for the division:

  • The names of the short-list candidates.
  • The candidates’ materials (e.g., letters of application, CVs, research statement, teaching/advising statement, and statement on diversity, inclusion, and belonging).
  • A brief summary of the search process to date, including discussion of how the demographics of the short list compare to the data in the Departmental EEO Report.
  • The Departmental EEO Report displaying aggregate demographic data from the search. This report, which does not identify characteristics of individual applicants, can be retrieved through the ARIeS system. See Chapter 2 in this handbook for more information on Affirmative Action policies.

4

If approval is granted, the department invites short-list candidates to campus for interviews

Note: Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, please follow Harvard and other guidelines regarding presence on campus, social distancing, etc.

Candidates meet with members of the department. The visits may include formal seminars, lectures, or presentations of working papers, as well as informal meetings with faculty, graduate students, and others. The assistant dean for the division should be given a list of dates of any seminars, lectures, or presentations.

5a

The department requests authorization from the divisional dean to solicit external evaluation letters. With the request, the department should submit a draft of the blind letter, the recipient list (see Sample Table), and, if the department chooses to send an initial inquiry (see Step 5b) before the blind letter, a draft of the initial inquiry letter

The blind letter (see the Sample Letters section of this handbook) should include:

  • A broad description of the field of the search.
  • The criteria for appointment to a professor in residence position at Harvard.
  • The comparison list (see below).
  • A request that the individuals named be compared, absolutely and relatively.
  • A request for names and evaluations of other comparable candidates,including members of diverse populations (e.g., women and minorities) who in the respondent’s view may have been overlooked.
  • An indication that the University will make every effort possible to keep the response confidential and will make it available only to the senior members of the department and others directly involved in the formal review process.
  • The deadline for receipt of responses and contact information. (Note: The department should give letter writers at least six to eight weeks to prepare their letters—dating from the mailing of the blind letter, not the initial inquiry.)

The comparison list:

  • The comparison list includes four to five tenured scholars in the field; in some instances, it may be appropriate to include highly accomplished senior researchers, curators, artists, or others. The list must include at least two full professors, and must have gender diversity. The comparison list may be taken directly from the short list or may be built around comparisons to the finalists, depending on the most appropriate course of action.
  • The letter should note that the individuals listed have not necessarily been asked if they are willing to be considered and that the list has been selected for the purposes of the department’s own internal evaluation.
  • It is expected that the list will be diverse, including gender and racial/ethnic diversity.
  • The list should be in alphabetical order and include title/current rank, home institution, year of doctorate and institution, and a link to the scholars’ websites.

The recipient list (see the Sample Table in this handbook):

  • The recipient list should include active scholars who are ordinarily full professors within the field (or fields, in interdisciplinary cases).
  • It is expected that the list will be diverse, including gender and racial/ethnic diversity.
  • In science and engineering cases, some of the external reviewers may be prestigious senior researchers from corporations or research institutes, rather than universities.
  • In certain arts and humanities cases, some of the external reviewers may be well-established museum curators or artists.
  • The list (see Sample Table) should be in alphabetical order and include title/current rank, home institution, year of doctorate (if available), a link to the scholars website, email address, and the rationale for including each scholar on the list.

5b

(Optional step, for departments choosing to send an initial inquiry)

Once the divisional dean has approved the blind letter, 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.

  • The department writes to a number of scholars sufficient to elicit at least 12 to 15 evaluations for inclusion in the final dossier. These letters are in addition to any letters the department might solicit from past advisors. Please take into account that 12 affirmative responses to the initial inquiry may not ultimately result in 12 external 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.

6

The chair sends the blind letter to all scholars who have replied affirmatively to the initial inquiry email (see Step 5b). If the chair has chosen not to send any initial inquiries, the blind letter is sent directly to the scholars on the recipient list

  • The department writes to a number of scholars sufficient to elicit at least 12 to 15 responses for inclusion in the final dossier. These letters are in addition to any letters the department might solicit from past advisors and collaborators.
  • The names of outside scholars declining write an evaluation should be noted in the case statement. Any explanatory emails/letters from these scholars explaining that they could/would not participate in the review should be included with the other external evaluations.

7

After discussing the external letters, the search committee selects a final candidate

Note: In selecting the final candidate, if the research interests of the appointment overlap with a center, institute, or initiative, the department should take into account the views of that unit.

8

The search committee drafts a case statement; the tenured members of the department review all materials, discuss the case, and vote

  • The draft case statement for the candidate summarizes the committee’s conclusions, including the strengths and weaknesses of the case with regard to teaching and advising, research, and citizenship, including contributions related to diversity, inclusion, and belonging (see Step 10 for all of the necessary elements of the final case statement).
  • The department reviews the draft case statement, the external letters, and all of the candidate’s materials and discusses the strengths and weaknesses of the case. This discussion should be in-depth and rigorous. The department should also assess whether the candidate has met the criteria for professor in residence. As part of this discussion, the department should assess the impact the candidate has had on the field and the candidate’s potential for future contributions.
  • The tenured members of the department vote on whether the case is strong enough to proceed. 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.

9

After a favorable vote, the chair asks each tenured member of the department, including those on the search committee, to write a confidential letter to the Edgerley Family Dean of the FAS

These letters express the faculty members’ views on the appointment and will be included in the candidate’s dossier to be reviewed by the Committee on Appointments and Promotions (CAP) and the Provost. A dossier is not submitted to CAP for initial review until a substantial number of letters from the tenured members of the department are received.

(For inclusion in the dossier, letters should be sent electronically to the ad hoc coordinator in the Office for Faculty Affairs, ryoung@fas.harvard.edu.)

10

The case statement is finalized by the department chair, for review by the divisional/SEAS Dean

The finalized case statement, prepared and signed by the department chair and the chair of the search committee, for review by the divisional/SEAS Dean (see Step 11), should include the following sections:

  • A one-paragraph executive summary of the candidate’s contributions and the department’s recommendation.
  • Background and context: A description of the candidate’s area and how it fits into the department’s academic plan (and, if applicable, administrative needs) and why this position is best served by a term-limited professorial appointment. Include information about how this appointment would relate to  FAS/SEAS faculty working in similar or adjacent intellectual fields.  Describe the teaching needs that the appointment would address. 
  • Summary of the search process:
    • List key dates, such as and not limited to:
      • The dates of search committee meetings and departmental meetings about the case
      • Visits or other interactions with short-list candidates
      • The date that the department sent requests for external letters.
    • Describe all efforts to identify candidates from diverse populations, including women and minorities; please address the demographics of the pool as displayed in the Departmental EEO Report available in ARIeS.
    • Include copies of correspondence and advertisements and records of telephone conversations.
  • Comparands: Provide a list of names, home institutions, and links to each comparand's home page, with a brief rationale for each comparand.
  • External letter writers:
    • Describe the logic underlying the composition of the external letter writer group, especially in cases where the candidate is multidisciplinary.
    • Describe how many letters were solicited, how many requests were declined, how many letters were received, and any inferences from the pattern of responses.
  • The intellectual case for the candidate:
    • A summary of the candidate’s scholarly contributions.
    • An analysis of how these contributions meet the intellectual criteria for professor in residence, including the impact the candidate has had on the field and the candidate’s potential for future contributions. This analysis should clearly draw on both the external letters (including comparison of the candidate with comparands) and considered judgments of departmental faculty. Short quotes from the letters may be included but should not substitute for robust analysis of the letter contents and their relation to the department's deliberations. Please directly address any letters that provide negative evaluations of the candidate.
  • Teaching, advising, and service:
    • An evaluation of teaching and advising effectiveness in a variety of settings with both undergraduate and graduate students (and postdocs, as relevant)
    • Please describe the candidate's service to the department, home institution, and broader academic community
    • Please include an evaluation of contributions related to diversity, inclusion, and belonging.
  • If available, a link to a videotaped talk (ideally, the candidate’s job talk or suitable alternative).
  • A comparison of the candidate with all other leading candidates (in particular, women and minorities), and reasons why the other leading candidates were not chosen.
  • A summary of the department's discussions of the case.
  • Strengths and weakness: A discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of the candidate’s case as noted in the external evaluations and the internal conversations of both the search committee and the department. This analysis of strengths and weaknesses should reflect in-depth and rigorous committee and departmental deliberations of the candidate's entire dossier.
  • Departmental vote: A record of the department vote, by name, with an “as of” date for the vote tally.
  • Signatures: An indication of the primary author of the statement.

Note: The finalized case statement should be made available to the faculty in the department involved in the review.

11

The candidate’s dossier is prepared by the department and sent to the assistant dean for the division

  • Please send one electronic copy of the dossier to the assistant dean via Accellion Kiteworks (secure document transfer: filetransfer.harvard.edu). For a full checklist of what the dossier should include, please see below.

The divisional dean/SEAS Dean and assistant dean will review the dossier, including close attention to the case statement.  If the case statement needs further work, the assistant dean will convey feedback to the department, along with any questions or feedback about the other materials. 

  • The submission deadline is March 1 for appointments beginning July 1 and October 1 for appointments beginning on January 1.

12

The Committee on Appointments and Promotions reviews the dossier

The Committee on Appointments and Promotions (CAP) reviews the dossier and advises the Edgerley Family Dean of the FAS on the next step for the dossier, which can include the following:

(1)   The case is sufficiently strong to forward to the Provost

(2)   CAP needs further information or the department needs to modify   the case statement before the Dean decides whether to forward the case to the Provost, or

(3)   The case is not strong enough, and CAP advises the Dean to turn down the professor in residence case. In the latter case, the Dean notifies the department in writing within a reasonable timeframe.

13

The Provost reviews the case

The Office for Faculty Affairs forwards the case to the Provost, who makes the final decision on whether or not to approve the appointment.

14

If the decision is favorable, the offer of appointment is issued by the Edgerley Family Dean of the FAS

The offer letter (drafted in consultation with the divisional dean by the Office for Faculty Development) contains information on title, appointment, salary, responsibilities, etc. The Office for Faculty Development makes any revisions to the offer letter. When appropriate, the dean for faculty development will work with a center, institute, or initiative to develop a supplementary letter for the candidate that describes the resources available through the center. The candidate’s acceptance of the offer must be made in writing to the Edgerley Family Dean of the FAS.

15

If offer is accepted, the appointment is processed in the Aurora system by Office for Faculty Affairs

The Office for Faculty Development provides all documentation for processing, with the exception of the original I-9 form and any necessary payroll documents, which the FAS financial administrator or the department administrator delivers to Central Payroll.

The department administrator will remind the faculty member to sign electronically the Harvard University Participation Agreement by the start of their appointment.

 
Professor in Residence Targeted Searches

In rare cases, a professor in residence search may coincide with the recruitment of a specific candidate (a “targeted” search). In these instances, departments may skip steps 2 and 3 in the above process. Departments send an optional initial inquiry letter (which should not include the candidate’s name), followed by a blind letter. Additional materials such as curricula vitae and publications (or copies of creative works) are not sent out with the blind letter. The department should give letter writers at least six to eight weeks to prepare their letters—dating from the mailing of the blind letter. As always, the initial inquiry letter, blind letter, and recipient list (see Sample Table) are reviewed by the divisional dean prior to being sent. Note: In a targeted search of this kind, the search committee should not be chaired by an advisor of the candidate, but advisors are permitted to serve on the committee.

 

d.  Dossier Checklist: Professors in Residence

Please send an electronic copy of the preliminary dossier to the assistant dean for the division (AD), via Accellion Kiteworks (secure document transfer: filetransfer.harvard.edu). To facilitate storing and sharing of files, please name the file as follows: a) alpha-numeric characters only (no dashes, commas, slashes, etc.).  b) [Last Name] [First Name] [Department Name] PIR dossier [Month, Date, and Year of dossier submission, expressed numerically: XX YY ZZ]. E.g., Smith John Psychology PIR 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 PIR dossier 1 4 15 rev 1 15 15. Departments should retain documents according to practices recommended by Harvard Archives at https://grs.harvard.edu/ (please log in)

______1.     Case statement (including department vote by name). See description in Step 10 above. Note: The case statement must include a description of all efforts to identify candidates from diverse populations, including women and minorities.

______2.     The Departmental EEO Report displaying aggregate demographic data from the search, available through ARIeS.

______3.     The department’s request for search authorization, the divisional dean’s letter approving the search request, and the Provost’s letter approving the search request.

______4.     Candidate’s curriculum vitae and bibliography.

______5.     Summary teaching chart (ideally listing ten years of courses) and teaching/advising materials (including teaching awards, list of undergraduate and graduate theses supervised (and postdoctoral advisees, as relevant), representative course syllabi, and teaching evaluations).

______6.     A teaching/advising statement, describing philosophy and practices related to undergraduate, graduate, and (as relevant) postdoctoral teaching and advising and including the number of graduate students for whom the candidate had primary responsibility (required only if the candidate knows they are under consideration for the appointment).

______7.     A research statement.

______8.     Statement describing efforts to encourage diversity, inclusion, and belonging, including past, current, and anticipated future contributions in these areas.

______9.     A copy of the optional initial inquiry letter, if used, the blind letter (including the comparison list), and the recipient list (see Sample Table) (indicating who did and did not reply). See description in Step 5a above.

_____10.     Copies of all responses to the optional initial inquiry letter, if used, and responses to the blind letter, including those from anyone who declined to give a formal response, with English translations of any written in a foreign language and typed copies of any handwritten letters.

_____11.     A list of all publications (or in art-making fields, creative works).

_____12.     Total citation count for the candidate and comparands (please use the Sample Citation Table, if appropriate to the field, in Chapter 15).

_____13.     Citation count for each of the candidate’s publications.

_____14.     Selected significant articles and most recent articles, major books, significant unpublished manuscripts, and important reviews of the candidate’s major publications. In art-making fields, copies, as appropriate, of selected significant creative works and most recent creative works, and important reviews.

Note: The candidate should not solicit student letters, and any unsolicited student letters will not be included in the dossier.

(2) Reappointment of Professors in Residence
 

 

Step

Explanation

1

The department chair requests materials from the candidate during the penultimate year of appointment

Materials should include:

  • A curriculum vitae, including bibliography.
  • Teaching and advising materials, including: a list of past and present undergraduate and graduate theses supervised (and current and former postdoctoral advisees, as relevant, and including those who moved to another group), representative course syllabi, and evidence of teaching effectiveness, such as teaching awards.
  • A teaching/advising statement that describes the candidate's philosophy and practices related to undergraduate, graduate, and (as relevant) postdoctoral teaching and advising.
  • A statement regarding administrative duties, if appropriate.

2

The chair requests divisional dean approval of a proposed review committee. After approval from the divisional dean, the chair appoints the committee.

The committee consists of tenured colleagues who will evaluate the case, including a tenured faculty member from another department/SEAS voting cluster. The request should name the committee chair and other review committee members.

3

Department compiles a summary teaching chart and gathers information on the candidate’s performance as an adviser of undergraduates and mentor of graduate students and, as relevant, postdoctoral fellows

  • The summary teaching chart summarizes, in reverse chronological order, all courses the candidate has taught, including course titles, enrollments, and overall course scores and instructor scores. Note: In the teaching chart, please indicate which, if any, courses were taught remotely, whether partially or in full, due to the COVID-19 pandemic.)
  • All teaching evaluations since the beginning of the candidate's appointment should be collected. Please include a PDF of evaluations: 
    • For evaluations prior to Fall 2019, please go to https://q.fas.harvard.edu/qguide.htm. Click on "Results Before 2019-20" and log in. Download for each course:
      • "Course Evaluations and Instructor/TF Summary"
      • "View Comments by Question" (and choose "View all comment questions in one report")
    • For evaluations from Fall 2019 onward, please go to https://q.fas.harvard.edu/qguide.htm. Click on "Click here to view course evaluation data" and log in. Download for each course:
      • The comprehensive document titled, " Table of Contents for [Year][Term] Report for Students"
  • The review committee should:
    • Solicit feedback from the candidate’s current and former advisees, as appropriate.  To gather advisee feedback on advising/mentoring, which should be summarized in the case statement, the department chair (or their designee) either speaks with or writes to the candidate’s current and former students and, as relevant, postdoctoral fellows, including those who have moved to another group. If the feedback takes written form, the chair should make clear that the emails or letters will be kept confidential and advisees’ names will be redacted (as is also the case with oral feedback) before the emails or letters are shared with committee members (although the dean or her designee may request any information regarding the case if questions arise). The emails or letters should not be included in the dossier.
    • Observe the candidate’s teaching.

4

The committee considers the case

The review committee should take into account all aspects of the candidate’s job description, including the candidate’s teaching/advising, scholarship, and administrative service, if appropriate.

5

The committee drafts a case statement and reports its findings to the department

The draft case statement for the candidate summarizes the committee’s conclusions, including the strengths and weaknesses of the case with regard to teaching/advising, research, and citizenship (see Step 8 for all of the necessary elements of the final case statement).

6

The department reviews the materials, discusses the case, and votes on the reappointment according to its standard procedures

This discussion should be in-depth and rigorous. A favorable vote does not have to be unanimous but must comprise affirmative votes by a significant majority of the voting faculty. If the department decides against reappointment, the department chair sends to the divisional dean the current dossier, including a record of the department vote, and a draft of the letter to the candidate and explains the department’s decision. After divisional dean approval, the department gives the letter to the candidate.

7

After a favorable vote, the chair asks each tenured member of the department, including those on the review committee, to write a confidential letter to the Edgerley Family Dean of the FAS

These letters express the tenured faculty members’ views on the reappointment and will be included in the candidate’s dossier to be reviewed by the Committee on Appointments and Promotions (CAP).

(For inclusion in the dossier, letters should be sent electronically to the ad hoc coordinator in the Office for Faculty Affairs, ryoung@fas.harvard.edu.)

8

The department sends the candidate’s dossier, including a draft letter to the candidate, to the assistant dean for the division

Please send one electronic copy of the dossier, including a draft letter to the candidate, to the assistant dean via Accellion Kiteworks (secure document transfer: filetransfer.harvard.edu).

The dossier should consist of:

  • A case statement describing the review procedures, making the case for the reappointment of the candidate, and discussing the candidate’s teaching and advising effectiveness (including a summary of advisee feedback from currant and former advisees, solicited by the department chair). The case statement should also include a record of the department vote, by name, with an “as of” date for the vote tally. The case statement should also indicate who authored it and be signed by both the author and the chair. Note: The finalized case statement should be made available to the faculty in the department involved in the review. 
  • The candidate’s curriculum vitae.
  • Summary teaching chart
  • A teaching/advising statement
  • Teaching and advising materials, including a list of undergraduate and graduate theses supervised (and postdoctoral advisees, as relevant, and including those who have moved to another group), representative course syllabi, and evidence of teaching effectiveness, such as teaching awards.
  • All teaching evaluations since the beginning of the candidate's appointment.
  • A draft letter to the individual, to be reviewed by the divisional dean, discussing the review. The letter covers any concerns about performance and/or need for services that might affect the future.

Note: The candidate should not solicit student (or postdoc) letters, and any unsolicited student (or postdoc) letters will not be included in the dossier.

9

The Committee on Appointments and Promotions reviews the dossier

The Committee on Appointments and Promotions (CAP) reviews the dossier and advises the Dean on whether the case warrants reappointment. The Dean then decides whether or not to approve the reappointment and forwards the case to the Provost for final review.

10

The Provost reviews the case

The Office for Faculty Affairs forwards the case to the Provost, who makes the final decision on whether or not to approve the reappointment.

11

If reappointment is authorized, the divisional dean issues a final letter to the candidate

  • The divisional dean drafts the reappointment letter in consultation with the Office for Faculty Development. 
  • The reappointment is processed in the Aurora system by the Office for Faculty Affairs.