Academic Affairs

Five-Year Review Guidelines: Endowed and Curators' Professorships

 

Five-Year Review Guidelines for Endowed and Curators' Professorships (PDF)

Following the 1999 Council of Deans recommendation to adopt a five-year review of endowed professors, the Provost added Curators Professors to the review schedule beginning in AY 2006-2007.* The intent of the review is to learn whether and how the professor is meeting the goals of the appointment. Ideally, the review coincides with the Five Year Program Review of the unit(s) where the professor holds appointments. If this is not possible, the professor may request an alternative schedule for the review in consultation with the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs.

To initiate the review, each professor submits electronically to the Office of Academic Affairs a three-part document that includes:

The Materials should reflect the unique nature of each professorship. Submit all materials as Word or PDF files to Vicki Lock by April 1.

* Approved December 4, 2003 by the Council of Deans. Revised January 2005 to reflect changes in the administrative organization in the Office of Academic Affairs. Revised May 2005 by the Council of Deans. Adapted March 2007 and February 2008 to apply to Curators Professors

The Review Process

The review process includes both a peer review and an administrative review as follows:

  1. The Provost selects two peer reviewers after consultation with the professor, his/her dean(s), and director(s).
  2. When the peer reviewers confirm their availability to participate, the Provosts Office sends them the documents submitted by the professor in preparation for the peer review meeting.
  3. The professor under review arranges a meeting date, time, and location for the peer review. This is a 60 90 minute meeting with the professor to discuss the degree to which the goals of the professorship are being met. The meeting coincides, when possible, with the Academic Program Review of the unit, so that the external reviewer may participate in the review. Peer reviewers may confer with one another following this meeting.
  4. Peer reviewers summarize the results of the review in a letter signed by both colleagues (writing individual letters is an option) and submitted to the Provost (426 Woods Hall) within one week of the meeting. In addition, the letter is sent electronically in a Word or PDF file to to Vicki Lock.
    The letter(s) address(es):
    • Whether and how the goals of the professorship are being met;
    • How the plan proposed for the next five years is consistent with the campus and System mission;
    • Recommendations and suggestions about the future direction of the professorship;
    • Recommendations and suggestions about the review process.

Administrative Review

The administrative review is completed by those to whom the professor reports and culminates in a meeting with relevant academic officers.

  1. The Dean, Director, or Vice-Provost for Research submits a letter to the Provost evaluating the professors record by:
    • Reviewing the documents submitted by the professor;
    • Reviewing the letter(s) submitted by the peer reviewers;
    • Reviewing the professors annual reviews;
    • Consulting with the department chair(s) and/or other appropriate administrators;
    • Consulting with the professors community and/or campus colleagues as appropriate.
  2. Copies of the letters from the peer reviewers and the dean(s) are sent to the professor under review.
  3. The Provosts Office convenes a meeting to discuss the review and its recommendations with the professor. Others attending include the appropriate chair(s), Center director(s), and/or the Vice Provost for Research, the dean(s), and the Provost.
  4. Before the end of the spring semester, the conclusions of this meeting are conveyed in a letter from the Provost in which the Provost affirms the continuing appointment of the curators or endowed professorship or initiates action to modify the terms of the appointment.
  5. The professor may submit a letter in response to the recommendations to the Provost or a letter to the Chancellor requesting an appeal of the recommendations.