Curators Professors appointed after January 1, 2005, are re-appointed by the Chancellor. At UMSL, the Chancellor in consultation with UM System and Academic Affairs has developed a process where the Professors are reviewed and recommendations are submitted to the Provost who then makes a recommendation to the Chancellor on re-appointment of the Curators Professor.  Ideally, the review coincides with the Five-Year Program Review of the unit(s) where the professor holds an academic appointment. If this is not possible, an alternative schedule for the review will be decided in consultation with the Chancellor and Provost. The guidelines for the UMSL review process follow.

The Curator professor prepares and submits to the Office of Academic Affairs one electronic copy of a three-part document that includes:

  1. The original position description that defined the professorship, letter of agreement or contract with the University;
  2. A current curriculum vita; and
  3. A five-page (maximum) document responding to the relevant items under points I-VI below.

The materials prepared and submitted by the professor for the review should reflect the unique nature of the professorship.

I.  Identify the activities you have participated in since your appointment or last five-years. Include, as appropriate, activities which support the UM-St. Louis mission such as:

  1. Research, external funding, and scholarship,
  2. Teaching and mentoring students,
  3. Community service, and
  4. Campus service

Include assessment tools and their results used to assess these activities.

II.  Describe your plans for the next five years. Explain how the plans meet the goals of the campus strategic plan and mission of the University of Missouri – St. Louis, and of the University of Missouri System.

III.  What recommendations do you have for the professorship?  In what ways, if any, should the position be rethought or redefined to reflect changes. For example, has the knowledge base of your field changed?

IV.  Include a review letter where possible from up to three colleagues who have knowledge and understanding of your work and will submit a written review about your work.

 V.  Take the opportunity to address in this document other relevant issues that should be considered during the review process.

Review Process

The review process includes both a peer review and an administrative review. Following submission to Academic Affairs of the Documents for the Review of the Curators’ Professor, the materials will be distributed to the following persons:

 

The peer review will be completed by two professors appointed by the Provost. These professors will review the submitted documents and meet with the colleague under review to discuss the degree to which the goals of the professorship are being met. This meeting will coincide, when possible, with the Five-Year Program Review of the unit, so that the external reviewer may participate in the review. The results of the meeting will be summarized in a letter signed by both colleagues (individual letters may be submitted) and submitted to the Provost. The letter(s) will address:

The administrative review will be completed by those to whom the curators’ professor reports and will culminate in a meeting that includes the endowed professor, the appropriate chair(s) and Center director(s), dean(s), the Vice Provost for Research (when appropriate), and the Provost. In preparation for the meeting each dean will submit a letter evaluating the record of the endowed professor by:

Copies of the letters from the peer reviewers and the dean(s) will be sent to the curators’ professor who is being reviewed.  The Provost will convene the meeting to discuss the review and its recommendations with the professor. The conclusions of this meeting will be conveyed in a letter from the Provost to the professor in which the Provost affirms the continuing appointment of the curators’ professorship or initiates action to modify the terms of the appointment. The process to this point will be completed before the official end of the spring semester. However, the professor may submit a letter in response to the recommendations or a letter requesting an appeal of the recommendations.

 

 

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 to apply to Curators’ Professors.