Promotion to Associate Professor

Invert Page Color

Procedures and Policies Governing Nomination for Promotion to Associate Professor

SUPPLEMENT TO UGA GUIDELINES FOR APPOINTMENT, PROMOTION AND TENURE

Any Assistant Professor may meet with the Head and discuss his/her qualifications for consideration for nomination for promotion. If the faculty member then makes a decision to initiate the evaluation process, he/she should, write a letter to the Head stating his/her intentions and submit the documentation described in Sections II.2.-3.

CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION
Each candidate must satisfy the requirements set forth in the University of Georgia Guidelines for Appointment, Promotion and Tenure (henceforth referred to as the Guidelines). Research, teaching, service, and citizenship will be taken into account (consistent with budgeted duties) in judging whether the candidate has fulfilled these requirements. The interpretation of these requirements, as they apply specifically to the Department of Physics and Astronomy, are listed below. While it would be unrealistic to expect each candidate to rate excellent in each item below, substantial activity and achievement is expected overall.
1. Research and other Scholarly Activities
  The general requirement is that "...Candidates must show clear and convincing evidence of emerging stature as regional or national authorities...". Publication in national or international refereed journals constitute a necessary, but not sufficient proof of such qualities. Outside experts in the candidate's area of research will be contacted and will be asked to speak specifically to these points. A developing, vigorous research program is mandatory for promotion to the rank of Associate Professor. Additionally, outside grant support is normally expected for the candidate. See Section V.B. for a comprehensive outline of the factors that will be considered in the evaluation of the candidate's research accomplishments.
2. Teaching
  Each candidate for promotion to the rank of Associate Professor must demonstrate a record of effective teaching. It is expected that the candidate should demonstrate activities over and above merely adequate classroom instruction.
  For candidates with appointments that are predominantly or exclusively in instruction, evidence of an emerging national reputation for excellence in teaching is expected. With few exceptions, this should include the following: significant curriculum enhancements or innovations; publications and presentations related to teaching; grants related to instruction; involvement in professional organizations related to physics and/or astronomy education; local, regional or national awards. An emerging national reputation for excellence in teaching should also be apparent in letters from external assessors.
  See Section V.A. for an outline of the factors that will be considered in the evaluation of the candidate's teaching performance.
3. Service and Citizenship
  Although research and teaching are considered the most important activities of a faculty member in the Department of Physics and Astronomy, it is expected that each candidate will serve the Department, College, University, and Physics or Astronomy communities in a responsive manner when called upon. See Sections V.C. and V.D. for an outline of the factors which will be considered in the evaluation of the candidate's service and citizenship.
THE EVALUATION PROCESS
At any stage in this process the Head may meet individually with any member or members of the Tenured Faculty (henceforth referred to as the Promotion Committee) or the candidate to discuss the candidacy. The candidate is free to withdraw his/her name from consideration at any stage in the process and/or the Promotion Committee may vote to terminate the process. In the latter case, the Committee will provide the candidate with a statement outlining the reasons for this decision.
1. The Head will inform the Promotion Committee and will solicit written input from all faculty members of the Department. This written departmental input may be characterized and/or summarized as appropriate with respect to its relevancy to deliberations of the Promotion Committee, approved as reflecting such by a two-thirds majority of the Committee, and then if appropriate, included as part of the Promotion Dossier that goes forward to the Dean.
2. The candidate for promotion will be asked to provide the following documentation:
  1. A complete, up-to-date curriculum vitae (cv).
  2. The "Recommendation for Promotion--Summary Information" document, Appendix D, of the Guidelines.
  3. A thorough "Research Perspective" which provides an overview of the candidate's research history, areas of experience and expertise, and accomplishments.
  4. Since it is expected that the candidate will have established a national or international reputation in a specific area(s) of his or her research, the candidate should furnish a statement which includes the following:
    1. 1. identification of the specific area(s) upon which the request for promotion is based;
      2. a list of particularly noteworthy publications since the last promotion. (Generally, three or four such representative publications should suffice unless the candidate deems it necessary to select a larger body of his/her work.) The publications on this list will be reviewed by members of the Departmental Promotion Committee;
      3. supporting documentation explaining the significance of the publications on the list referenced in II.2.d.ii above. This documentation should include citation data, conference invitations, awards, or any other forms of recognition attributable to these publications which bespeak of the candidate’s national and/or international research reputation.
3. The candidate should be encouraged to furnish any other evidence for a national and/or international reputation beyond that which is evident from the documentation described in Section II.2.
4. The Promotion Committee meets and reviews available material and discusses the candidacy. If the Promotion Committee decides to continue the process, it selects the Research and Teaching Subcommittees. (See Section III.)
5. The Promotion Committee meets and evaluates the cv, student evaluation records, written Departmental input, the candidate's documentation (described in Sections II.2 and II.3), and the reports of the two subcommittees according to the appropriate criteria cited in Section I. of this document. Details of this evaluation process are outlined in Section III. of this document. The Promotion Committee then either recommends to the Head that he/she seek letters of reference from external peers, University colleagues, and former students or that the process be terminated.
6. The Head solicits letters from external peers according to the intent and procedures contained in the Guidelines. Letters from University colleagues and former students may also be sought.
7. The Promotion Committee meets and evaluates all materials according to the criteria cited in Section I. of this document. A final decision on the question of whether to recommend or not to recommend the candidate for promotion is reached. This is in the form of a written ballot as described in the Guidelines. At this stage of the process, the Head must meet with the candidate to inform him/her of the status of the procedure.
8. The Head prepares a cover letter in accordance with the specifications cited in Section I. of this document.
9. The Promotion Committee meets and makes an overall administrative review of the Promotion Dossier that will be sent forward to the Dean. If one or more members wish to file a minority report and have it included in the Promotion Dossier, they must notify the Head more than 24 hours before this meeting of their intent to do so.
10. If a minority report is presented to the Head within 72 hours after the meeting cited in Section II.9. above, the Promotion Committee meets and makes an overall administrative review of the Promotion Dossier, including the minority report, that will be sent forward to the Dean. At this stage of the process, the Head must meet with the candidate to inform him/her of the status of the procedure; in addition, the candidate should be given the opportunity, in accordance with University policy, to review the entire dossier, except for the external letters, before it is submitted.
11. After submission of a dossier, the Committee can be convened to take appropriate action on any additional information bearing on the candidate's qualifications for promotion.
FORMATION OF AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF RESEARCH AND TEACHING SUBCOMMITTEES
The Promotion Committee will select, in a manner appropriate to the individual case under consideration, two subcommittees to prepare reports to the committee on the research and teaching qualifications of the candidate. These subcommittees will perform the procedures outlined in this Section.
1. The Research Subcommittee will consist of three members of the Promotion Committee, at least one of whom should have research interests not closely associated with that of the candidate. This subcommittee should carry out the following procedures:
  1. Collect and assemble all available information relating to the research accomplishments of the candidate.
  2. Select several (or all) of the publications from the list of representative publications supplied by the candidate. These papers should be reviewed and citations should be checked to ascertain the importance and nature of the citation.
  3. Prepare an in-depth report of their findings. This report, along with the candidate's written statements, cv, and any written faculty input, should be made available to all members of the Promotion Committee several days prior to the meeting called to discuss the nomination for promotion.
  4. If the promotion procedure reaches the point of seeking letters from external peers, this Subcommittee should offer names of not more than six appropriate external peers for consideration by the Promotion Committee. (See Section IV.)
2. The Teaching Subcommittee will consist of two members of the Promotion Committee. This subcommittee should carry out the following procedures:
  1. Collect and assemble all available information relating to the teaching effectiveness of the candidate.
  2. Prepare an in-depth report of their findings. This report should be made available to all members of the Promotion Committee several days prior to the meeting called to discuss the nomination for promotion.
  3. If the promotion procedure reaches the point of seeking letters from external peers, this Subcommittee may offer names of not more than six former students and University of Georgia colleagues for consideration by the Promotion Committee. Included with this list should be the details of the interaction between each student and the candidate.
PROCESS FOR THE SOLICITATION OF LETTERS OF RECOMMENDATION
If the promotion process passes step II.5. above, the following procedures will be used to obtain the a list of names of external peers and a list of names of former students and University of Georgia colleagues:
1. External Peers in the Candidate's Research Area
  The Head should make clear to all contributors of possible names that the persons suggested should have expertise in the area(s) chosen by the candidate as the area(s) on which the promotion is to be based. It should also be made clear that University policy requires that all letters received must be included in the final Promotion Dossier. All names should include the following support information in writing: a professional biography including evidence of and extent of expertise in the area(s) for which the candidate is being considered for promotion, the extent of research collaboration with the candidate, and any other professional or personal ties to the candidate. The procedure for obtaining a list of possible external peers is:
  1. The candidate may submit not more than six names.
  2. Any member of the Promotion Committee may submit names.
  3. The Research Subcommittee, as indicated in Section III., will submit not more than six names.
  4. The candidate may stipulate up to three specific persons be excluded as peers; a brief justification should accompany such a request.
  From this list of names a final list is selected which is acceptable to both the Head and a 2/3 majority of the Promotion Committee. There must be at least four and at most seven letters solicited; of these, at least two of a total of four or five or three of a total of six or seven, must be from the candidate's list. Peer's who cannot or do not respond may be replaced maintaining the proper balance.
2. Former Students and University of Georgia Colleagues
  Letters soliciting input regarding teaching effectiveness may be sought. These may be either from former students or from internal or external peers. The procedure for obtaining such a list is:
  1. The candidate may submit not more than six names.
  2. Any member of the Promotion Committee may submit names.
  3. The Teaching Subcommittee, as indicated in Section III, may submit not more than six names.
  From this list of names a final list is selected which is acceptable to both the Head and a 2/3 majority of the Promotion Committee.
  
  The Head of the Department alone is responsible for soliciting all letters of reference.
FACTORS FOR EVALUATION FOR PROMOTION
1. Teaching:
  1. Teaching Experience
  2. Evaluation by Students
    1. Solicited letters from former students
      1. Thesis students
      2. Other students
    2. Student evaluation forms
  3. Evaluation by Peers
    1. Examinations and student achievement
    2. Class preparation
    3. Quality of teaching
  4. Student Advising and Supervision
    1. Masters Candidates
      1. Major Professor
      2. Advisory Committee
      3. Reading Committee
    2. Doctoral Candidates
      1. Major Professor
      2. Advisory Committee
      3. Reading Committee
  5. Examination Committees
    1. Masters Candidates
    2. Doctoral Candidates
      1. Preliminary Examination Committee
      2. Final Examination Committee
  6. Publications
    1. Journals such as the American Journal of Physics
    2. Textbooks
    3. Laboratory Manuals
    4. Lecture Notes
    5. Other
  7. Contributions to the Curriculum
    1. Revision
    2. Innovation
  8. Contributions to Lecture Demonstrations
    1. Design
    2. Implementation
  9. Contributions to Laboratory Experiments
    1. Design
    2. Implementation
  10. Participation in Seminars and Colloquia
  11. Grants Associated with Teaching
    1. Instructional for classroom lectures, etc.
    2. Instructional for equipment used in teaching, or for student self-help purposes (video, closed TV, etc.)
    3. Experimental methods, etc.
    4. Instructional grants for high school or undergraduate student science training programs, etc.
    5. Other
2. Research and other Scholarly Activities:
  1. Research Perspective
    1. Depth
    2. Breadth
    3. Coherence
    4. Accomplishments
  2. Publications (See Curriculum Vitae for detailed categorization)
  3. Peer Evaluation
    1. Solicited letters from external Peers
    2. Solicited letters from internal Peers when they exist
  4. External Recognition
    1. Invited lectures, seminars, colloquia, talks, session chairman, discussion leader, etc.)
    2. Honors, award (fellowships, prizes, etc.)
    3. Research support
3. Public Service:
  1. Committees
  2. Consulting
  3. Other
4. Citizenship:
  1. Department
    1. Committees
    2. Supervisory roles
    3. Student advising
    4. Recruiting and Visitation
      1. High School
      2. College
    5. Seminars
    6. Special assignments
  2. College
    1. Committees
    2. Special assignments
  3. University
    1. Committees
    2. Special assignments
  4. Public
    1. Committees
    2. Consultation
    3. Lectures
    4. Other

Physics and Astronomy At The University of Georgia

Promotion to Associate Professor

Procedures and Policies Governing Nomination for Promotion to Associate Professor

Places