Critical Review of Tenure-Track Faculty

General Principles of Reappointment

All non-tenured Tenure-Track Faculty who have been awarded academic rank (Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, Professor), are employed under written contract, and who served full-time for the entire previous year have the presumption of renewal for the next academic year unless notified in writing, by the President, of the Institute’s intent not to renew.

Critical/Full Reviews

During the third full year in the tenure track, a rigorous analysis and detailed feedback of the faculty member’s body of work in the areas of teaching, student success activities, research/scholarship, and service towards tenure. All previous annual evaluations must be part of the review. The overall evaluation must indicate whether the faculty member is making satisfactory progress toward tenure and promotion. This is a “critical” or “full” review. The information concerning critical/full reviews follows.

Process and Package Contents for Critical Review

See Section 3.3.3 of the Faculty Handbook for further details.

  1. Packages are prepared by the candidate and uploaded into the PROMOTE system containing the following: (about August/September of the 3rd year)
    1. Candidate’s Biographical Sketch (1 paragraph) – This is a summary of the candidate’s career at Georgia Tech. It should be a short paragraph, no more than 150 words in 12 point font or larger, written in the third person. The biosketch should explain the candidate’s research area briefly, including why it is important. It should list the candidate’s degrees; give a general description of his or her educational and scholarly activities; and name a few major awards if the candidate has received them. A sentence or two on impact can be included. This biosketch will be entered directly into the PROMOTE system.
    2. Candidate’s Personal Narrative – Candidates must write a brief summary of their major accomplishments at Georgia Tech with regard to teaching, research, and service with student success embedded within each criterion. This is the candidate’s “voice” in the file, the place that provides an opportunity to explain context and significance. Candidates should point out innovative elements of their scholarship and educational contributions, and the impact they are having. They can use the personal narrative to clarify their contributions in collaborative work and describe their advising styles and results. Outreach and activities to broaden participation and inclusion can be described, as they relate to scholarship, education, or service. The personal narrative should not merely summarize the examples of creative contributions but rather place them in the context of the school, college, Institute, and discipline. The narrative should be written in the third person, with a three-page minimum and five-page maximum limit with one inch margins, standard single-spaced, and 10-pt minimum font
    3. Candidate’s Vita In Standard Format – Refer here for format. The CV must include a table of contents and page numbers. The CV should not use a type font less than 11 points nor margins less than 3/4 of an inch.
    4. Candidate’s Summary of Instruction Opinion Survey (CIOS) – A summary of all courses taught by the candidate at Georgia Tech must be included in table format with normative data for the college and the subject. Refer to the CIOS template for instructions and format.
    5. Examples of Relevant Work– Candidates are required “to submit evidence of three to five examples of their relevant, creative capabilities.  These may include published papers, books, software, patents, art productions, or other relevant examples.” (GT Faculty Handbook, Section 3.3.8)  These are submitted for evaluation by the area committee.
  2. Area Committee’s Letter (provided by committee chair – about October)
    The area committee’s letter should provide an in-depth assessment of the candidate’s most scholarly accomplishments in their field.  This assessment is independent of the external letters of reference, and no vote is taken.  The outcome is forwarded to the school chair.
  3. School Committee’s Recommendation Letter (provided by committee chair – about November)
    The school committee’s letter should comment on all review criteria considered for reappointment – scholarship, teaching, and service.  The committee will carefully review the candidate’s package and recommend, by vote, the outcome to the school chair.  Split votes should be explained in the letter submitted.
  4. School Chair’s Recommendation Letter  (provided by school chair – December)
    The school chair will carefully assess each candidate’s performance, addressing (1) scholarship, (2) teaching, and (3) significant service contributions to their profession, and school, college or Institute.  The chair’s recommendation will be forwarded with the rest of the candidate’s packet to the dean’s office for review by the College RPT Committee.
  5. College Committee’s Recommendation Letter (provided by committee members – January)
    The college committee’s letter will review the candidate’s package, including the previous letters (area, school, and chair), vote, and contain a recommendation to the dean.  This letter should include a summary of the deliberations of the committee, explaining split votes, for each candidate.  This letter is then forwarded to the dean.
  6. The deans and school chairs meet to review the packages and advise the dean. (January)
  7. Dean’s letter of recommendation to the Provost.  (February)
    The Dean reviews all of the packages and makes his recommendations to the Office of the Provost. This letter completes the College of Engineering portion of the process.
  8. Provost’s Committee (Institute Promotion and Tenure Committee; meets in March/April)
    This is an advisory committee to the Provost.  They will review the packages of all candidates from the institute, record their votes, and forward their recommendations to the Provost.
  9. Office of the Provost
    The Provost considers all the information that has been compiled for each candidate and transmits his/her recommendation to the President. 
  10. Office of the President (April/May)
    The President reviews the documentation presented and forwards his/her recommendation.  The faculty member is then notified by letter from the President, through the dean’s office.  

Criteria for Critical Review

See Section 3.3.3 of the Faculty Handbook for further details.

In the third tenure-track year, faculty members undergo a complete review of credentials and intellectual contributions. These reviews are considered “critical” or “full” reviews.  Critical reviews are identical to the tenure and promotion review with the exception of the waiver and the external letters of reference, which are not needed. The purpose of a full review is to counsel and prepare the faculty member for the upcoming tenure review process and address issues that may need improvement.

A “full” review is necessary in those reappointment cases for which a faculty member:
is in his or her third year of tenure-track service, receives a negative recommendation from any administrative level, is in his or her terminal year and requests such a review, received a warning in a full review in the previous year, or requests such a review or his or her school chair requests such a review.

Eligibility for Critical Review

See Section 3.3.3 of the Faculty Handbook for further details.

Tenure-Track faculty members who are in their third tenure-track year are eligible for a critical review. These three years must be successive, full time, and uninterrupted. Eligibility in other cases is specified in the previous section “Criteria for Critical Review.”

Decisions for Critical Review

See Section 3.3.3 of the Faculty Handbook for further details.

Each recommendation will specify one of four outcomes: 

  • Reappointment: Positive review, faculty member will continue to fourth year.
  • Reappointment with counseling: The candidate’s academic performance, in most respects, is positive and appropriate, but some ‘mid-course corrections’ are needed prior to the tenure decision year.
  • Reappointment with warning: Some substantial adjustments must be made in the candidate’s academic performance if the outcome of the tenure decision is to be positive.
  • Non-reappointment: The candidate will not receive a contract beyond the following academic year.