VI. Appendix: The Robins School of Business Personnel Policies and Procedures
This Appendix in its entirety must be consistent with University principles stipulated under "Evaluation for Personnel Decisions" (Chapter III, Section C). Revisions to a school's section of this Appendix may be proposed by a majority vote of the particular school's faculty, and transmitted by the Dean for separate majority vote by the University Faculty. The Provost and President then transmit the proposed revisions for vote by the Board of Trustees.
______________________________________________________________________
A. Introduction
B. Standards for Tenure, Promotion, and Performance Reviews
C. Tenure and Promotion Process and Procedures
_____________________________________________________________
A. Introduction
The mission of the Robins School of Business is "to develop an active learning community in which teaching, scholarship, and service are integrated to stimulate intellectual inquiry as the foundation for responsible leadership in the global business environment." Faculty standards are guidelines that give meaning to the teaching, scholarship, and service parts of the mission statement. These standards are for the faculty as a whole and for individuals subject to tenure, promotion, and periodic performance reviews. These standards help frame accurate expectations about the quality and quantity of faculty contributions necessary for the Robins School of Business to meet its mission.
B. Standards for Tenure, Promotion, and Performance Reviews
The tenure and promotion process in the School of Business supports faculty development in two ways. First, it seeks to encourage the individual faculty member to improve skills and grow professionally. Second, it attempts to guarantee that faculty members are of high quality and demonstrably dedicated to teaching, scholarship, and service. The overall standard for the Robins School of Business is excellence in teaching, intellectual contributions, and service. Structured guidelines are provided in this section to help define what is meant by "excellence" for each of these component parts of the School's mission.
1. Standards for Excellence
Faculty members are expected to show that their performance as teachers, scholars, and citizens of the University has reached a level of excellence. The standards of excellence described below are derived from the mission of the Robins School of Business.
a. Teaching
Excellence in teaching is characterized by a consistent pattern of challenging course standards, a high degree of rigor, activities requiring critical thinking, extensive classroom preparation, enthusiasm, and a high degree of student interaction. These characteristics of excellent teaching are expected to be shown consistently from course to course and over a sustained period.
b. Scholarship
Excellence in scholarship is characterized by a strong and ongoing commitment to scholarly activities leading to high-quality publications. Faculty members are expected to engage in meaningful research that leads to the creation of new knowledge and that enhances the scholarly reputation of the School and the University.
c. Service
Excellence in service involves participation in and meaningful contribution to the life of the University, School and profession. Such service is meant to improve the academic experience for students, advance the profession, and guide the future direction of the school.
2. Evidence of Excellence
a. Teaching
All faculty are expected to offer students a challenging educational experience. Because teaching has many dimensions, different individuals may be effective teachers for different reasons. As such, it is not possible to define a single, universal measure of teaching excellence. Nevertheless, individual faculty members subject to tenure and promotion reviews are responsible for offering evidence that they have achieved teaching excellence consistent with the faculty member's career stage and objectives of the department, the Robins School, and the University of Richmond.
Teaching evaluation measures may be derived from three separate sources: faculty peers, students, and department or committee reviews of one's teaching materials. The philosophy of the Robins School of Business is to use student evaluations in all classes, but to recognize the limitations of student responses. Student perceptions of a teacher offer valuable information about the teacher's availability, enthusiasm, clarity, and quality of instruction, level of interest, impact on learning, and ability to motivate students' critical and analytical thinking. Faculty peers offer valuable information on technical rigor, grading standards, course workload, teacher knowledge, pedagogical fit, currency of materials, course design, and departmental expectations of the teacher and the course.
Excellent teaching implies more than effective classroom presentation and high student evaluations. Important aspects of excellent teaching are outlined below. Individual faculty members are responsible for providing evidence that they have achieved a high level of performance in each of the following activities.
(1) Functions Supporting Teaching
An excellent teaching institution must have a coordinated curriculum of study
and course offerings orchestrated to be current, rigorous, and stimulating.
Excellent teaching implies that faculty members work through their
departments and the Robins School of Business to structure an appropriate
curriculum of study and constantly improve course offerings. This dimension
of excellent teaching is measured by colleagues and Department Chairs.
Evidence of excellence in activities supporting teaching may be provided by
effectively teaching a variety of courses, developing new courses, authorship
of published materials on teaching, development of original course materials,
active participation in the department's curriculum development, active
participation in teaching conferences, and specific written support by
departmental peers.
(2) Course Specific Standards and Rigor
In a course assigned to a specific faculty member, excellent teaching is
represented by the teacher's appropriate degree of rigor, design of graded
assignments, and currency of teaching materials. A faculty member's
syllabus, writing exercises, problem sets, grading standards, and other
relevant material are the sources of information that may be used to judge
the quality of teaching in a specific course.
Departmental evaluations of a faculty member's teaching effectiveness are
structured around course objectives and the role of the course in the
curriculum. For example, some courses may have more of a textbook
orientation with lecture formats. For such courses, defined in terms of
topical coverage, the major considerations may be clarity, organization,
preparation, rigor, structured exercises, and measurable evidence of
student learning. Other courses, such as a case analysis course, may
place a higher priority on a learning process as the objective. Excellence
in teaching must be evaluated against the course objective in the context
of the department and School curriculum.
(3) Student Evaluations of Teaching Performance
Standardized teaching evaluations are administered in every course. A
major use of the evaluations is self improvement; faculty members are
responsible for interpreting evaluations and adjusting their courses if
necessary. Department Chairs and mentors of untenured faculty
members actively work with newer faculty to interpret the evaluations
and to consider adjustments to classroom activities. Student opinions
are solicited and respected, but the information provided by students is
judged in the context of departmental and the Robins School of Business
standards and expectations. Nevertheless, consistently weak student
evaluations will jeopardize a candidate's case for tenure or promotion
unless a very strong case of teaching excellence is made from other
evidence on teaching ability.
(4) Teaching Materials
An individual may support claims of teaching excellence through
publication of teaching articles in peer-reviewed outlets, class exercises,
textbooks, or cases. These publications may demonstrate competence
and concentrated efforts in teaching beyond in-class performance.
b. Scholarship
Scholarship is necessary for the fulfillment of the University of Richmond's goal of
advancing knowledge. Scholarship supplements and strengthens the University's
commitment to the highest possible quality of teaching. Scholarship of high
quality advances the body of knowledge in the various business disciplines,
signifies faculty quality in the disciplines, enhances the University's academic
prestige, and provides direction for intellectual activity.
The University recognizes that evidence of excellence in scholarship can take a
variety of forms. It also recognizes that any form of scholarship, to reach its fullest
potential, must be shared and tested publicly. Typically, the primary form of such
evidence is in publications that are open to scrutiny by professional peers. In
addition, excellence in scholarship is also judged by its focus and whether it
represents a sustained level of intellectual inquiry.
(1) Scholarly Publications
The quality of a candidate's publications is the primary focus of the
scholarship review. Evidence of quality may be found in the acceptance
rates, impact ratings and rank of the journals in which publications appear,
the frequency of citations (in other journal articles and textbooks) to the
specific articles authored by the candidate and to the journal in which the
articles appear, and the reputation or visibility of the journal, which can be
gleaned in part by the size of its readership. Also, a faculty member's
department and external reviewers may be used to document research
quality.
(2) Research Focus
A faculty member's intellectual activity and academic reputation is
strengthened by a well defined research focus. Generally, faculty members
are expected to pursue intellectual activity in the areas where they teach
and for which they were hired. This dimension of quality scholarship is
especially important for untenured faculty members early in their careers,
when evidence of contributions to the discipline is sought. Evidence of
research focus is provided by the theme and subject matter of a
candidate's research, the type of journals in which publications appear,
and the nature of conferences in which presentations are made.
(3) Sustained Intellectual Inquiry
Sustained research activity is also an important consideration in any
evaluation of a faculty member's scholarship excellence. A faculty
member should demonstrate on-going intellectual activities by regular
publication in quality peer-reviewed journals, presentations at academic
conferences, and support for colleagues in their research efforts.
Sustained research activity signifies a long-term commitment to
scholarship and lifelong learning.
(4) Exceptional Cases
The University recognizes that there may be rare cases where a
publication of high quality appears in a professional journal that does
not follow a peer review process. In such cases, the faculty member
is obliged to present other evidence that the research is of high quality.
Examples of such evidence would be the extent to which the research
has been referenced in other works or the impact the research product
has made in theory or practice. Papers appearing in highly recognized
trade journals may also qualify as quality scholarship. In all cases the
quality of the journal and the publication will be taken into account
when assessing excellence in scholarship. Also, as noted above,
candidates for tenure and promotion are expected to pursue a research
agenda within a particular area of focus. Occasionally, a candidate may
collaborate with colleagues in other disciplines on a research project.
Interdisciplinary work is encouraged to the extent that the faculty
member applies specific discipline skills to a broader question.
c. Service
The University of Richmond and the Robins School rely on active and
regular involvement of faculty. Hence, service duties, such as advising,
committee work, and extracurricular activities supporting the school's
mission, are an essential responsibility of the faculty. Every candidate for
tenure and promotion is expected to demonstrate that he or she has
played an effective part in the affairs of his or her department, the Robins
School and/or the University.
Excellence in service implies a high level of collegiality where faculty work
together to accomplish the service mission. Evaluations of service and
teamwork may be solicited from Department Chairs, Committee Chairs,
and colleagues as part of any tenure or promotion review. Service
excellence is achieved through regular, effective, and active participation in
the affairs of the University, School, and department. A faculty member's
service to the business discipline and the external community is also
evidence of service contributions.
3. Standards for Tenure and Promotion to Associate Professor
The standard for tenure in the Robins School of Business is excellence in total contributions with an emphasis on teaching and scholarship. Service contributions are not given as much emphasis for the tenure decision as for the decision to promote to Full Professor. There may be cases where truly exceptional performance in either teaching or intellectual contributions may be weighed against performance in other areas. Nevertheless, truly exceptional contributions in any one area will not make up for performance that does not meet the standards of excellence in either teaching or scholarship. Overall, a successful candidate for tenure must demonstrate a level of performance consistent with the Robins School of Business mission statement.
Normally, promotion to the rank of Associate Professor is concurrent with a favorable tenure decision. In rare cases where there is considerable prior experience, but the faculty member was hired as an Assistant Professor, the faculty member may come up for promotion prior to the tenure decision. In such cases, the candidate must demonstrate excellent performance in both teaching and scholarship. A favorable decision for promotion prior to tenure does not guarantee a favorable tenure decision at a later date. As a necessary, but not sufficient condition for tenure, the faculty member must continue to demonstrate excellence in teaching and intellectual contributions after promotion and demonstrate long-term plans to continue to perform at these levels.
In some cases an experienced faculty member may be hired with the rank of Associate Professor without tenure. The judgment of the relevant department, with the approval of the administration, is used to determine the necessary time period before the tenure decision and whether the rank of Associate Professor is appropriate.
4. Standards for Promotion to Full Professor
Promotion to Full Professor requires significant and sustained contributions to the mission of the Robins School of Business and the University. Excellence in teaching and intellectual contributions must be maintained while the faculty member is an Associate Professor to be eligible for promotion to Full Professor. Full Professors are role models and are expected to help shape and contribute to the professional development of colleagues. In addition to individual achievements, a candidate for Full Professor must demonstrate significant contributions to the development of the department, the Robins School of Business, and/or the University of Richmond.
C. Tenure and Promotion Process and Procedures
This section describes the process and procedures for three decisions within a tenure-line faculty member's career: mid-term review, tenure and promotion to Associate Professor, and promotion to Full Professor. Decisions at all three stages are based on the candidate's performance in the areas of teaching, scholarship, and service. Within the Robins School of Business, the tenured members of an untenured faculty member's department and the Dean participate in the mid-term review. The Dean, the Tenure and Promotion Review Committee, and the candidate's department are responsible for making recommendations for tenure and promotion to Associate Professor based on the candidate's performance in the areas of teaching, scholarship, and service. The Dean and the Full Professor Committee (a committee made up of all Full Professors in the Robins School of Business) are responsible for making recommendations for promotion to Full Professor. Positive recommendations at these stages do not mean that the Board of Trustees will grant tenure and/or promotion, or that individuals at higher levels who are involved in the process will necessarily support those recommendations. Specifically, the Provost makes a recommendation to the President and the President decides whether to nominate a candidate to the Board. The Board of Trustees is the only university body that awards tenure and/or promotion to a member of the faculty.
The timetable for the various stages in the mid-term review, tenure, and/or promotion processes is established annually by the Dean. The Dean provides a memorandum of instruction detailing the timetable and the preparation of the portfolio to the candidate and the Department Chair in the spring semester prior to the review year. It is the responsibility of the candidate to include in his or her portfolio all required information and any additional information the candidate believes pertinent to the review process. The candidate delivers the mid-term review, tenure, or promotion portfolio to the Dean's Office to meet the deadline set in the Dean's memorandum, which is generally early in the fall semester.
1. Mid-Term Review
Tenure candidates will have a mid-term review, which normally begins in the fall semester of the candidate's third year and is completed early in the spring semester of the same academic year. (Faculty could not seek nor be subject to a mid-term review at any other time unless explicitly noted in their contract.) While developmental in nature, an additional goal of the review is to determine if the candidate is on track toward a favorable tenure decision. The review is designed to provide early warning signals to the candidate if there are significant problems in the candidate's teaching, research, or service contributions. It is possible for the review to result in a recommendation that the candidate be given a terminal contract for the following year if, following the process described below, the Dean concludes that there is a low likelihood that the candidate's present and future efforts will be sufficient to meet the standards for tenure and promotion.
In the fall semester of a tenure candidate's third year, the Dean sets a timetable for completion of the candidate's mid-term review package. At the beginning of the spring semester of the candidate's third year, the candidate must submit a package of materials for review. This package contains relevant information about the candidate's teaching, research, and service activities. The candidate's package is an early draft form of what the candidate presents at the tenure review. Tenured members of the candidate's department review the candidate's materials and meet to discuss the candidate's performance.
The department forwards a letter to the Dean and the candidate providing an in-depth analysis of the candidate's strengths and weaknesses, a discussion of how the candidate's position is related to the current and future needs of the department, and the reasoning supporting the analysis of the candidate's work. Tenured members of the department who participated in the discussions sign the letter. The report is forwarded to the Dean following the Dean's timetable, which must allow at least 15 business days from the due date of the candidate's materials.
The Dean reviews all relevant material in the candidate's package and all reports from the candidate's department. The Dean then meets with the candidate and the candidate's Department Chair to discuss results of the mid-term review process. In an instance where the candidate is to be given a terminal contract for the following year, the Dean will meet with the candidate's Department Chair to discuss the case before making a final decision. The Dean informs the candidate and the candidate's Chair of the results of the review in a letter. The letter is sent normally within five business days of the meeting with the candidate and the candidate's Chair or with the candidate's Department Chair in the case of a negative decision. The Dean's letter is also forwarded to the Provost along with the annual performance and merit review for the candidate.
2. Tenure and Promotion to Associate Professor
a. Composition and Election of the Tenure and Promotion Review Committee
The Tenure and Promotion Review Committee is composed of five persons with one member from each department (Accounting, Economics, Finance, Management, and Marketing). Although a member of all school committees, the Dean normally does not participate in the Tenure and Promotion Review Committee's deliberations concerning specific tenure candidates. Members of Academic Council are not eligible to serve on the Tenure and Promotion Review Committee. Committee members are elected by their respective departments for three-year terms, staggered so that one or two members' terms expire each year. Members of the Tenure and Promotion Review Committee are not permitted to vote or participate in any tenure deliberations held by their respective departments. The committee elects its Chair at its final meeting in the spring semester. Early in the fall semester, the Committee Chair notifies the members of the Tenure and Promotion Review Committee of the availability of tenure and promotion portfolios and the expected completion date for the committee's work.
The tenured faculty members of each department elect one of their members to the Tenure and Promotion Review Committee. Each department gives consideration to sabbatical, professional, and personal conflicts in deciding on its member. Near the end of each academic year, any department that needs to replace a member of the Tenure and Promotion Review Committee, either because a term has ended or because a member cannot serve for some other reason, holds an election.
b. Tenure and Promotion: External Letters
In tenure cases, the faculty member's Department Chair provides the Tenure and Promotion Review Committee Chair with a list of six names of individuals who might submit external review letters. The candidate proposes three names, and the tenured members of the faculty from the candidate's department also propose three names. The Department Chair must contact the reviewers in advance to make sure they are willing to provide a timely review. Outside reviewers should be selected carefully to make sure reviewers are respected members of the candidate's discipline who have an arm's-length relationship with the candidate and can objectively evaluate the candidate's intellectual contributions.
After the Tenure and Promotion Review Committee receives these names, the Chair sends a standard cover letter to each of the reviewers soliciting a written review of the quality of the candidate's scholarship. The cover letter requests external reviewers to summarize their relationship with the candidate as well as evaluate a sample of the candidate's scholarship and the candidate's overall contributions in scholarship based on the candidate's vita. Materials sent out for review include the candidate's vita, scholarship products selected by the candidate, and a copy of the "Standards, Procedures, and Process for Tenure, Promotion, and Ongoing Faculty Performance Reviews in the Robins School of Business." The cover letter also requests that each reviewer attach his or her vita to the review. External reviews received by the Tenure and Promotion Review Committee become part of the candidate's materials. All external reviews and vitae are treated as confidential and are removed before the materials are returned to the candidate.
c. Tenure and Promotion: Department's Role
In the case of tenure, which normally includes promotion to Associate Professor, the tenured members of the candidate's department (excluding that department's member of the Tenure and Promotion Review Committee) meet to evaluate the candidate's performance. The department discusses the portfolio submitted by the candidate, the external review letters, and the candidate's performance in relation to the standards of excellence. Based on this meeting, the Chair of the department forwards a written recommendation to the Tenure and Promotion Review Committee and the Dean following the Dean's timetable, which must allow no less than 15 business days from the due date of the tenure portfolio. This recommendation should be a summary of the committee's discussion and include a critical analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the candidate, a discussion of how the candidate's position relates to the current and future needs of the department, and the reasoning and evidence that supports the majority and any dissenting opinion. The written recommendation is signed by each tenured member of the department and includes the departmental vote. Tenured members of the department with dissenting votes may also forward a written analysis to the Tenure and Promotion Review Committee and the Dean. The Department Chair notifies the candidate of the department's vote count in writing, normally within five business days of the departmental meeting. In the event of a negative recommendation, the written notification will include summary of the rationale behind the recommendation.
d. Tenure and Promotion: Tenure and Promotion Review Committee's Role
The Tenure and Promotion Review Committee then evaluates the credentials of each tenure candidate through the examination of the tenure portfolio, the departmental recommendation and external review letters. As part of its deliberations, the Tenure and Promotion Review Committee will ask the candidate to submit an up-to-date curriculum vitae. The committee may request additional information about the candidate relevant to the Business School's current mission and standards from sources it deems appropriate.
After thorough deliberations, the committee decides by majority vote to recommend that the candidate be granted or denied tenure. The committee prepares a written report that includes a critical analysis of the information reviewed by the committee, as well as the reasoning and evidence that supports the majority and any dissenting opinion. The report indicates the committee vote count and is signed by all committee members. In the case of one or more committee members abstaining from the vote, it is possible to have a tie vote. In such a case, the report should indicate whether abstentions reflect true ambivalence or some other technical reason.
The Tenure and Promotion Review Committee's report is completed according to the Dean's timetable, which must allow no less than 60 days from the due date of the department's recommendation. The Chair of the Tenure and Promotion Review Committee forwards the committee's written report and recommendation, including the vote count, to the Dean. The Tenure and Promotion Review Committee Chair orally informs the Department Chair and the candidate of the recommendation and vote count normally within two business days after the report is forwarded to the Dean. The Chair of the committee also informs the candidate and the tenured members of the faculty by confidential memo of its recommendation and the vote count, normally within two business days after forwarding the report. In the event of a negative recommendation, the candidate will receive a written notification that includes a summary of the rationale behind the recommendation.
e. Tenure and Promotion: Dean's Role
The Dean evaluates the full set of materials and prepares a written report that presents the rationale for his or her recommendation. The Dean's recommendation and report is normally completed within 20 days after the due date of the Tenure and Promotion Review Committee's report. During this time, the Dean may ask the Tenure and Promotion Review Committee (through its Chair) for clarification and/or an interpretation of the evidence collected to date, assuming that the Committee's report has not fully covered the issue presented by the Dean. Should the need arise for additional information, only the Tenure and Promotion Review Committee has the authority to seek such information. The Dean forwards the full set of materials, including all written recommendations, to the Provost. The Dean informs the candidate, the Chair of the Tenure and Promotion Review Committee, and the Chair of the candidate's department in writing of his or her recommendation, normally within two business days after submitting the recommendation. In the event of a negative recommendation, the Dean's written notification to the candidate will include a summary of the rationale behind the recommendation.
f. Promotion to Associate Professor when Tenure and Promotion are not Linked
In the case of promotion to Associate Professor when tenure and promotion to Associate Professor are not jointly considered, the process will follow the same procedures used in the tenure process.
3. Promotion to Full Professor and the Full Professor Committee
a. Promotion to Full Professor: External Letters
The candidate and the candidate's department provide the Full Professor Committee Chair with a list of at least six names for external review letters. Three reviewers are selected by the candidate, and three reviewers are selected by the Department Chair, with the advice of tenured members of the department. The Department Chair must contact the reviewers to make sure they are willing to provide a timely review. Outside reviewers should be selected carefully to make sure reviewers are respected members of the candidate's discipline who have an arm's-length relationship with the candidate and can objectively evaluate the candidate's intellectual contributions.
As soon as reviewer names are forwarded to the Chair of the Full Professor Committee, a standard cover letter is sent by the Full Professor Committee Chair to each of the reviewers soliciting a written review of the candidate's scholarship. The cover letter requests external reviewers to summarize their relationship with the candidate as well as evaluate a sample of the candidate's scholarship and the candidate's impact on the literature in a specific area of specialization. Materials sent out for review include the candidate's vita, scholarship products selected by the candidate, and a copy of the "Standards, Procedures, and Process for Tenure, Promotion, and Ongoing Faculty Performance Reviews in the Robins School of Business." The cover letter also requests that each reviewer attach his or her vita to the review. External letters received by the Full Professor Committee become part of the candidate's materials to be reviewed at higher levels. All external letters and vitae are confidential and are removed before the materials are returned to the candidate.
b. Promotion to Full Professor: Department's Role
In the case of promotion to Full Professor, the Full Professor Committee will act to review and evaluate a candidate. There will be no formal departmental review and evaluation in this process. Instead, the Full Professor Committee may request, through its Chair, additional information from the Chair of the candidate's department if such information is likely to be helpful to the review process.
c. Promotion to Full Professor: Full Professor Committee's Role
The Full Professor Committee, is charged with the responsibility of reviewing all candidates for Full Professor. Normally, subcommittees are chosen from this group to conduct an in-depth analysis of a candidate's teaching, research, and service and report back to the committee as a whole with their findings. Normally, each subcommittee has no more than one member from the candidate's department. Each subcommittee selects a Chair, who presents its findings to the Full Professor
Committee. The subcommittees follow the same general procedures used by the Tenure and Promotion Review Committee to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the candidate for Full Professor.
Each subcommittee presents its analysis of the candidate's materials to the committee of the whole for discussion and a vote. The vote count of all Full Professors is included in a letter written by the Full Professor Committee Chair with a summary of the key arguments presented for discussion by the committee of the whole. The committee's work should be completed according to the Dean's timetable, which must allow no less than 60 days from the due date of the candidate's materials.
The Chair of the Full Professor Committee forwards the committee's letter to the Dean and orally informs the Department Chair of the recommendation and vote count. The Chair of the Full Professor Committee also informs the candidate in writing of the vote count and committee recommendation. Both the Department Chair and the candidate are informed (orally or in writing) normally within two business days after the committee report is sent to the Dean. In the event of a negative recommendation, the written notification to the candidate will include a summary of the rationale behind the recommendation.
d. Promotion to Full Professor: Dean's Role
The Dean evaluates the full set of materials and prepares a written report presenting the rationale for his or her recommendation. The Dean's recommendation and report is normally completed within 20 days after the due date of the Full Professor Committee's report. The Dean forwards the full set of materials, including all written recommendations, to the Provost. The Dean informs the candidate, the Chair of the Full Professor Committee, and the Chair of the candidate's department in writing of his or her recommendation, normally within two business days after submitting the recommendation. In the event of a negative recommendation, the Dean's written notification to the candidate will include a summary of the rationale behind the recommendation.
4. Tenure and Promotion for Outside Candidates as Part of the Hiring Process
In cases where rank and tenure are part of the hiring process, faculty involvement in the process occurs in the search committee and in the department where the candidate's appointment occurs. Candidates for these positions are informed in a timely manner that evidence of effective teaching, scholarly activity and service is required when they apply for the position.
The Tenure and Promotion Review Committee is then asked to review the candidate. Reviews by the Tenure and Promotion Review Committee are conducted in a short time frame without data comparable to the reviews conducted for internal candidates. Though this review may be perfunctory, the Tenure and Promotion Review Committee reserves the right to evaluate all candidates for tenure and rank and make the recommendation it deems to be appropriate to the Dean.
This version approved by Robins School of Business Faculty on March 26, 2007
Approved by the Board of Trustees on May 11, 2007
contingent on approval by University Faculty
Approved by University Faculty on May 14, 2007