Review Timeline
The following is abbreviated from information contained in the Operational Guidelines for Faculty Reviews for Promotion and Reappointment. This timeline is for faculty being reviewed for:
post probationary reviews (PPR) for faculty on a tenure or EE track
promotion reviews for those on a tenure-track
promotion reviews for those on an Extended Employment track
reappointment reviews for faculty on Renewable Term Appointments (RTA)
rank reviews separate from reappointment reviews ('stand alone' rank review)
The faculty member, the college committees, the dean (and school dean, where applicable), the University Promotion Review Committee (UPRC) and University Term Review Committee (UTRC), the provost, the president, and the board of trustees all have specific roles to play to ensure a successful review and promotion process for faculty. The following timeline lists key tasks along with corresponding deadlines and time frames..
Review Timeline
October Prior to the Review Year
Deans' Offices and the Provost's Office confirm the names of all full-time faculty scheduled for review in the following academic year.
'Stand alone' rank review: Faculty discuss with their dean or designee the desire to be reviewed for promotion in rank, and, after that, submit an official request using the PO forms located on the academics tab of MyNewSchool. Faculty are encouraged to contact their dean or executive dean regarding the status of their rank review application at any time and the dean or executive dean will communicate decisions to the faculty member directly.
December Prior to Review Year
Candidates for promotion or reappointment review will be notified by their dean's offices and will be provided with guidelines for the review process. (Rank review candidates are notified in February.)
February Prior to Review Year
Faculty scheduled for promotion or reappointment review the following fall submit an updated CV to the dean's office or department chair, as applicable. Where external letters are required, faculty submit an annotated list of two-five potential external letter writers. Faculty may also submit a veto list of up to three names of people whom they do not want contacted to serve as external reviewers. When making the list, faculty are asked to refrain from recommending anyone who might benefit from their promotion, such as their dissertation advisor, a co-editor or co-author.
March-May Prior to Review Year
Peer review committees (both ad hoc and college-level committees) are formed for each candidate for review and approved by the Provost's Office.
July 1 of the academic review year OR LATER as specified by candidate's dean's office
Dossier due to candidate's dean's office.
July-September of the academic review year or earlier
Dossiers are made available to external letter writers, where required, and their evalautive letters are collected. Reviewers are given access by the dean's office to the PDF files of the dossier through Google drive or Dropbox, per dean's office guidelines.
September of the academic review year
Provost's Office provides an orientation for all chairs of faculty peer review committees, both ad hoc and college level, and NSSR department chairs or designees. Also invited are the chairs of the University Promotions Review Committee (UPRC) and University Term Review Committee (UTRC).
Throughout FALL semester of the review year
The review process has the following steps at the college level in the fall semester:
Review by ad hoc peer review committee, whose letter is added to the dossier for submission to the college-level committee and which includes assessment of course evaluations.
Review by college-level committee whose letter is added to the dossier for submission to the school dean/executive dean in accordance with college-specific practices.
Review by school dean (in Parsons, SPE, and CoPA)
Review by executive dean, whose letter reflecting their independent assessment of the case is added to the dossier for submission to the Provost.
Note: In each and every case, substantive points made in letters at every level of the review must be supported by arguments and evidence from the dossier, including external letters and all supplemental materials.
Throughout SPRING semester of the review year
The review process has the following steps at the level of the Provost's Office in the spring:
Once received from the colleges (and throughout the spring), the Provost's Office distributes full dossiers (including all additional materials) to the UPRC for tenure, and rank reviews of tenured and EE faculty, and to the UTRC for RTA reappointment reviews and rank review of RTA faculty.
PPR reviews (post-probationary review for tenure track and EE track faculty) go directly to the Provost from the college and are not reviewed by the UPRC.
In each and every case, the UPRC and UTRC submits a letter regarding procedures used for the review.
The Provost's Office reviews the recommendations of the UPRC and UTRC and in each case makes an independent assessment.
The Provost's Office forwards dockets for all successful cases to the President and the Board of Trustees for official consideration and approval.
The President and Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees review the dockets of the candidates forward by the Provost for consideration.
The Associate Provost informs the deans and faculty about promotion and reappointment actions taken by the Board of Trustees.
By June 30 of the review year
Estimated official notification to the faculty member of the review's outcome.
Fall following the review year
Post-review follow-up and feedback for the candidate with the executive dean or designee and/or school dean and/or associate dean and/or chair of the peer review committee and Executive Dean or Dean or their designee.
For complete details, review the Operational Guidelines for Faculty Reviews for Promotion and Reappointment.