Department of Computer Science
at the University of
Vermont
RPT Guidelines for
Tenure-Track and
Tenured Faculty
Last modified:
.
Table of Contents
- Introduction
- Department Considerations
- RPT Evaluations in Computer Science
1. Introduction
In accordance with the Agreement
Between the University of Vermont and United Academics (AAUP/AFT)
(referred to as the Union Contract hereafter), this document is
developed to provide RPT (reappointment, promotion and tenure)
guidelines for tenure-track and tenured faculty in the Department of
Computer Science.
2. Department Considerations
The Department of Computer Science is a research-oriented
department. The Department upholds and strengthens the mission of the
University of Vermont towards the provision of innovation in research
and scholarship, excellence in instruction, and public service to the
citizens of the state, nation and world. The Department aspires to be
a center of excellence in teaching computer science at all levels,
emphasizing both long-term academic preparation and shorter-term
economic importance; and as a center for excellence in research and
graduate education by developing strengths in a small number of
focused research areas and by exploiting Computer Science's unique
opportunities for collaborations with other strong research areas in
the University.
Each tenured and tenure-track faculty member is expected to be an
effective teacher and an active researcher in his/her research areas.
The quality criteria for effective teaching and active research can be
found from the Union Contract (Article 15).
3. RPT Evaluations in Computer Science
For reappointment, promotion and tenure (RPT) evaluations, the
Department applies the Evaluation of Faculty and Reappointment,
Promotion and Tenure Criteria and Procedures in the Union Contract
(Article 15), and has the following additional specific descriptions.
3.1 Student Selection for Teaching and Advising Evaluations
-
The candidate will nominate 4-6 students for teaching evaluations and
4-6 students for advising evaluations (with possible overlaps), and
6-8 each for tenure and promotion to Associate Professor or for
promotion to Professor.
- An ad-hoc committee will provide up to 6 students for teaching
and up to 6 students for advising (and up to 8 each for tenure and
promotion to Associate Professor or for promotion to Professor):
- The ad-hoc committee will be formed each academic
year for all RPT candidates.
- The ad-hoc committee will consist of at least two members.
- The Department Office will provide (i) the candidate's student
lists with grades since the candidate's last greensheet review, (ii)
the candidate's current advisee list, and (iii) the lists from the
candidate (step 1 above).
The candidate will be allowed to cross out students from
each list with reasons.
- The Chair will contact all students from each of the lists in (1)
and (2), and will provide a memo in the candidate's greensheets
detailing the selection process. All students will be contacted by
both e-mail and registered mail.
In the event that the same student is selected to evaluate both
teaching and advising, s/he may write a single letter that addresses
both teaching and advising.
-
If the response yield is inadequate, the candidate and the Chair may
consult and make additional solicitations. Solicitations and
deadlines for responses should be made early in the review process to
achieve sufficient yield.
In extraordinary cases, exceptions to these guidelines may be
worked out by the Chair with the candidate, and the Chair will
document the reason for all adjustments.
3.2 Peer Teaching Evaluations
For each greensheet review, the Chair will invite 2-3 faculty members
to provide peer teaching evaluations. The candidate may confidentially
identify faculty members who should not be invited for this purpose.
Reasons must be provided beyond two exclusions.
All peer teaching evaluations will be done by qualified faculty. The
Chair, in consultation with the candidate, may invite appropriate
faculty members from other departments to provide peer teaching
evaluations.
The peer evaluators are advised to look over the candidate's course
materials as well as attend at least one of the candidate's
lectures.
3.3 Advising
Candidates preparing greensheets are advised to have a separate
section on advising. In addition to student numbers, it is useful to
include other information with regard to both undergraduate and
graduate advising, such as
- attempts to establish student contact,
- frequency of meetings and other interactions with
advisees,
- inservice training for advising, and
- efforts to support the Department in advising.
3.4 Research
According to the Union Contract, "each faculty member is expected to
engage continuously and effectively in creative professional
activities of high quality and significance." All tenure-track and
tenured faculty members must provide evidence in this regard for their
RPT reviews. All tenured and tenure-track faculty members of the
Department are expected to actively engage in high-quality research,
and their research activities are expected to be consistent with the
Mission of the Department. Computer Science is an evolving discipline
and is ever expanding in its reach and scope, and part of the Mission
of the Department is to maintain a strong presence internationally at
the research frontier in Computer Science, and to promote
interdisciplinary (as well as multidisciplinary and
cross-disciplinary) research.
Publication of refereed articles in both journals and conferences is
very important; in many areas of computer science, publication in
top-tier conferences is considered as prestigious as publication in
top journals. Acquisition of competitive grant and contract support
is considered an indication of recognized research competence and
productivity. Similarly, invited lectures or publications, journal
editorship, or service as a major officer in a professional society,
may be considered as recognition of scholarly achievement. Patents,
software products, monographs, book chapters, unpublished conference
presentations, and other products of scholarly activity may also be
considered. However, the Department does not simply count the
publications and the grant money, nor does it take a restrictive,
static view of what constitutes Computer Science research. The
emphasis is on research quality.
For peer-reviewed journal publications, the candidate is advised to
provide information regarding the standards of the journal and its
standing in the discipline. For conference proceedings, the candidate
is asked to distinguish the level of peer-review (fully-refereed,
abstract-refereed, non-refereed) and to provide information about the
conference acceptance rates, if possible. For monographs and book
chapters, the candidate is advised to provide information regarding
the review process of the press, and whether or not the work was
invited. Candidates are encouraged to outline the significant
contributions of each major publication.
Collaborative, interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary, and
cross-disciplinary research is strongly encouraged. For joint
publications, the candidate should describe their role in the joint
effort. For all greensheet reviews but the first tenure-track
reappointment, the candidate will be asked to provide contact
information for co-authors with whom the candidate has created or
published joint work since the last greensheet review. These
co-authors will then be invited by the Chair to comment on their
perception of the role of the candidate in their joint work. For
interdisciplinary or cross-disciplinary work, the candidate is advised
to describe the nature of the publication venue and the relationship
of the research to Computer Science.
For the following tenure-track/tenured faculty greensheet reviews,
"arm's-length" evaluators will be solicited to provide external
reports:
- tenure and promotion to Associate Professor, and
- promotion to the rank of Professor.
Arm's-length evaluators are individuals who do not have a significant
personal relationship with the candidate. Former students, thesis
advisors, colleagues, co-authors, or collaborators, for example,
generally do not constitute arm's-length evaluators.
Also, arm's-length evaluators should
- Be "acknowledged scholars and practitioners in the discipline of
the candidate at other institutions. These scholars and practitioners
should ... be capable of providing an objective, informed assessment
of the candidate's work." [The Union Contract, Article 15, Clause 4,
Page 30.]
- Be tenured at their home universities (and for promotion to the
rank of Professor, have the same or an equivalent rank), if they come
from academia.
- Have expertise in at least one of the candidate's research areas.
The Chair will inform the arm's-length reviewers of all pertinent
facts regarding the candidate, with the candidate's representative
publications and other creative work, and will ask them for comments
on
- the quality of the candidate's research,
- the candidate's research contributions to his/her research field,
- the candidate's productivity relative to other
academics at a similar stage in their career,
- the candidate's potential as a research leader, and
- the publication and review standards of the journals and
conference proceedings in which the candidate has published, and their
standings in the discipline.
The Selection Process:
- The candidate is asked to provide 10 nominations.
- The Chair compiles 10 other names from other sources.
- The Chair shows the 10 other names to the candidate and asks the
candidate to identify (1) any names that are not at arm's-length, and
(2) any names that the candidate deems inappropriate as evaluators
(reasons must be provided beyond two exclusions). The Chair may repeat
steps 2-3 in order to have a sufficient number of names.
- The Chair selects and contacts 10 names from the combined list,
with at least half from the candidate's list.
In extraordinary cases, exceptions to these guidelines may be
worked out by the Chair with the candidate, and the Chair will
document the reason for all adjustments.
In the greensheets for all faculty to review, the Chair will list
the final 10 names (step 4) and mention who were nominated by the
candidate and who were solicited by the Chair independently. In all
cases, the Chair should provide a clear explanation of the
professional qualifications of the evaluators and the process by which
they were selected.
3.6 Faculty Input and Eligible Voters for RPT Reviews
3.6.1 Faculty Input and Schedule for RPT Reviews
The Chair should set an appropriate schedule for each greensheet
review, so that the complete greensheets will be ready for faculty
review at least 2 weeks before the submission deadline to the
Dean's Office.
Once the greensheets are ready for faculty review, all faculty
members, tenured and untenured (including tenure-track/tenured
faculty, research faculty, Lecturers, and Senior Lecturers) will be
invited to review the greensheets and share their advice concerning
the candidate with the Chair within a week. The feedback will be
documented in the Chair's Evaluation.
At the beginning of the second week after the greensheets are
complete, the Chair will convene (i) a meeting of all faculty members
to discuss the greensheets, and (ii) a closed session for all eligible
voters (as defined in Section 3.6.2) to vote on whether or not to
recommend the candidate's application. This vote will be recorded in
the Chair's Evaluation.
After the above faculty feedback and eligible voters' vote, the Chair
will decide whether or not to recommend the candidate's application,
and will inform the candidate with a detailed Chair's Evaluation.
3.6.2 Eligible Voters for RPT Reviews
When a candidate applies for promotion to a particular rank, only
those faculty members who are already at this rank or above are
eligible voters. When a candidate applies for reappointment at a
particular rank, only those faculty members who have successfully
passed their reappointment at this rank, are eligible voters.
- For a first tenure-track reappointment review, only tenured
faculty members and those faculty who have successfully passed their
first reappointment review are eligible voters.
- For a second reappointment review, only tenured faculty members
and those faculty who have successfully passed their second
reappointment review are eligible voters.
- For a tenure application, only tenured faculty members are
eligible voters.
- For a promotion application to Associate Professor, only Associate
Professors and Professors are eligible voters.
- For a promotion application to Professor, only Professors are
eligible voters.
The Chair is not an eligible voter.
3.7 Tenure and Promotion to Associate Professor
3.7.1 Mandatory vs. Non-Mandatory P&T Reviews
- After 5 years' of service in a tenure-track position, a candidate
for tenure and promotion will be notified by the Chair in the
appropriate June that the review process must begin in the following
academic year, and that the candidate is asked to nominate 10
arm's-length evaluators with a given deadline.
- A faculty member may become a candidate at an earlier date. In
such an non-mandatory tenure case, the faculty member should let the
Chair know by the appropriate May. The Chair may provide some informal
advice after possible consultation with tenured members in the
Department, but the decision for non-mandatory tenure application is
with the candidate.
- The evaluation procedure is the same for both mandatory and
non-mandatory tenure reviews. A candidate for tenure and promotion in
either case is expected to be an established researcher in his/her
research field, in addition to the university criteria given in the
Union Contract.
3.7.2 Withdrawal of Non-Mandatory Tenure Applications
After the Chair's Evaluation in Section
3.6.1, a non-mandatory tenure candidate may choose to withdraw
the current tenure and promotion application.
3.8 Promotion to the Rank of Professor
An Associate Professor who wishes to be considered for promotion to
the rank of Professor should notify the Chair by the appropriate May
so that arm's-length evaluators can be organized in the following
summer.
Promotion to the rank of Professor requires a sustained record of
excellence in teaching, research, and service, and the candidate
should enjoy a recognized national or international reputation in
his/her research field.
After the Chair's Evaluation in Section
3.6.1, a candidate for promotion to Professor may choose to
withdraw the current application.
This page has been accessed 
times since February 24, 2004.