Tenure and promotion requirements are outlined Section IV (Faculty Policies) of the University of Rochester Faculty Handbook .
Additional details of the promotion and tenure process at Eastman below provide a typical schedule and general expectations.
Schedule for Promotion
Reviews for promotion take place on a specific timeline during the year before the candidate’s contract expires. Promotion to full professor is not on a “clock,” and some faculty may remain as tenured associate professors. Guidance on the timeline can be found in Figure 1 and in these Reappointment and Promotion instructions.
[INSERT: Figure 1. Eastman School of Music Promotion/Tenure Timeline.]
Although the overall design of the reviews is similar in all cases, there are slight differences in the final stages that are based on the level of the review.
- Reappointment: “Reappointment” as Assistant Professor is an Eastman-only internal review. All documentation except external letters of review must be gathered.
- Associate Professor without tenure: After the case file for promotion to Associate Professor without tenure has been reviewed at Eastman, the candidate is reviewed by a University Standing Committee. The department chair must be present at the meeting of this committee to answer questions the committee may have.
- Associate Professor with tenure: After the case file for promotion to Associate Professor with tenure has been reviewed at Eastman, cases are evaluated by a three-person ad hoc committee of ESM and River Campus faculty who are appointed by the Provost.
- Full Professor: For a Full Professor promotion, the Provost makes the final decision.
Preparing a Case for Promotion
The contents of a promotion case file include three general categories of documentation: (1) materials compiled by the candidate; (2) individual letters of review solicited by the department chair; and (3) letters from the administration. The department coordinator will prepare the official case files for submission to the administration.
The review process begins in the spring, after the candidate meets with the chair for their annual Faculty Activity Report meeting. The chair confers with the department’s appropriate faculty about the chances for promotion. The candidate provides a draft of the statement of future plans and a current curriculum vitae for this conversation. For tenure reviews, the chair polls the appropriate faculty to ascertain “whether the chances for promotion are good.” (Faculty Handbook, p. 28) If the appropriate faculty support that a review process move forward, a meeting is scheduled with the candidate, the department chair, the Associate Dean of Faculty, the Administrator of Academic Affairs, and the department coordinator to map out the timeline and process for the promotion review. Working in collaboration with the department chair, the candidate compiles the records of teaching, artistry/scholarship, and service. A representative sample of these materials (chosen by the candidate) is uploaded to a Box folder for review by the invited external and internal reviewers. These candidate items include:
- Current curriculum vitae
- Professional statement that includes future plans
- Professional materials chosen by the candidate for review
- Teaching materials including syllabi, studio handbooks, statement of teaching philosophy
Later in the process, there is a requirement for submitting evidence of teaching (student opinion surveys, information on student achievements) and any final additional professional materials.
Early in the summer months, the department chair solicits letters from external reviewers (outside of ESM/UR). The candidate identifies four names for this purpose, and the department adds another four names. The goal is to have eight external reviewers. A copy of the letter of solicitation is included in the case file, along with biographical information on all external reviewers. The chair notes which reviewers were recommended by the candidate, and which reviewers were selected by the department. The chair also notes which reviewers have no close personal association with the candidate.
Internal reviewers are identified in a similar process; these are faculty members at Eastman and the River Campus, but outside of the department. The candidate suggests up to three individuals, and the department adds a similar number; the chair indicates which names were recommended by the candidate, and which were selected by the department.
When all the external and internal letters of review have been received, the chair and the department coordinator assemble the case materials for review by the appropriate faculty in the department. (Appropriate faculty are those at or above the rank being sought in the promotion). Each appropriate faculty member is required to write a letter for the case. “All appropriate faculty members shall discuss and vote upon the promotion.” (Faculty Handbook p. 29) The appropriate faculty will have access to the entire case except each other’s letters. On completion of these appropriate faculty letters, the department chair prepares a cover letter, providing an overview and summary of the case file, which is submitted to the Office of Academic Affairs.
Two final letters are added by the administration, the first from the Associate Dean of Faculty Affairs, and the second from the Dean. The case is then sent to the Provost’s Office for the final review stage. Once the decision has been made, notification of the outcome of the case comes to the Dean or to the Office of Academic Affairs, who will then notify the candidate and the chair. Promotions must be voted on formally by the Board of Trustees (or the Executive Committee of the Board) before they become official. Changes in rank begin with the new academic year (July 1). Based on this timeline, if the case is not successful, the candidate will have a year to seek new employment.
Revised September 2023