Tenure / Promotion Process in Higher Education Survey Results
Annual Reviews
| Were you prepared for your annual reviews? | YES
52% NO 5% NO ANSWER 43% |
| Which resources were made available to you as you prepared for your annual reviews? | Faculty
handbook 52%
Preparatory meetings with Dept. Head or Dean 38% Mentor 19% Workshops 10% |
| Please rate your
satisfaction with the following: Overall Process
|
Very high
8% |
| Preparedness of
committee members:
|
Very high
0% High 11% Moderate 56% Slight 22% None 11% |
| Preparedness of
mentor:
|
Very high
0% High 25% Moderate 75% Slight 0% None 0% |
| Your ability to set
forward-looking goals:
|
Very high
27% High 45% Moderate 27% Slight 0% None 0% |
| Time limits for the
submission of materials:
|
Very high
10% High 50% Moderate 30% Slight 10% None 0% |
| Accuracy of critique:
|
Very high
9% High 36% Moderate 45% Slight 9% None 0% |
| Follow up with members
of the committee:
|
Very high
0% High 0% Moderate 50% Slight 50% None 0% |
| Follow up with the
Dean:
|
Very high
11% High 22% Moderate 22% Slight 44% None 0% |
| Which of the following were included in your reviews? | Portfolio
review 38% Interview with Promotion and Tenure committee 10% Class visitations 43% Other - Interview with the Dean Review with the Dean or Dept. Head Submission of personal statement and teaching philosophy |
| Do you believe that you were evaluated fairly? | YES
52% NO 10% NO ANSWER 38% |
| What aspects of the annual reviews were most positive? | Served as a
forum for open/honest discussion with the Dept. Head Offered an opportunity to review accomplishments Offered an opportunity to express needs and concerns Served as a reminder of accomplishments Notes taken during class observations were very positive Opportunity to discuss class observation with principal |
| What aspects of the annual review process do you feel need improvement? | The Dean
must follow the scheduled time table for paperwork Evaluation criteria must be universal in order to be useful and valid Candidate must be given specific information about what is expected during the review process The review was used as a threat against union activities |
| What would you change in the annual reviews? | Allow the
reviews to carry more weight than they currently hold Reviews should be based upon the specific job responsibilities, not just generic requirements that candidates "participate in research, service, teaching and [demonstrate] ethical behavior." |