Five-Year Review Guidelines: Curators' Professorships

Five-Year Review Guidelines: Curators’ Professorships

Click on title for a PDF version.

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 professor prepares and submits to the Office of Academic Affairs via the Associate Provost for Faculty Affairs an 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. An up-to-date curriculum vita;
3. A five-page (maximum) document responding to the relevant items under points I-V below.

All documents should be titled as follows:

FYR_Year of review_Curators__Last name of Professor_Name of document

For example, a CV for Mike Smith’s 2022 review would be labeled as:

FYR_2022_Curators_Smith_CV

The materials prepared and submitted by the professor for the five-year review should reflect the unique nature of each endowed professorship.

The self-study document should include the following:

Identify how the goals of the professorship have been met in the past five years. Include, as appropriate, activities which support the UM-St. Louis mission such as:

1. Research, external funding, and scholarship;
2. External funding including grants, gifts, and fee for service programs;
3. Teaching and mentoring students;
4. Community partnerships and service; and
5. Campus service

Please include assessment tools and their results used to assess these activities.

1. 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.

• 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?

1. 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.
2. Take the opportunity to address in this document other relevant issues that should be considered during the review process.

The Review Process

The review process includes both a peer review and an administrative review.

Following submission of the self-study to the Associate Provost, the materials will be distributed to the following persons:

• The chair of the unit(s) in which the professor holds an appointment(s),
• The academic leaders of the colleges and centers in which the professor holds appointments or regularly assumes responsibilities,
• The Provost/Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs,
• Two UM System colleagues who are full professors and/or who hold Curators’ or endowed professorships.

The peer review will be completed by the professors appointed by the Provost. These professors are asked to review the submitted documents and to meet with the colleague who is being reviewed to discuss the degree to which the goals of the professorship are being met. The results of the meeting will be summarized in a letter signed by both colleagues (individual letters may be submitted) and submitted electronically to the Provost and the Associate Provost for Faculty Affairs.

The letter(s) will address:

• 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 mission;
• Recommendations and suggestions about the future direction of the professorship;
• Recommendations and suggestions about the review process.

The administrative review will be completed by those to whom the endowed professor reports and will culminate in a meeting that includes the endowed professor, the appropriate department chair(s) and Center director(s), Dean(s), the Vice Provost for Research (when appropriate), Associate Provost for Faculty Affairs, and the Provost.

In preparation for the meeting each dean will submit a letter evaluating the record of the curators’ professor to the Associate Provost for Faculty Affairs by:

• Reviewing the documents submitted for the Review by the professor;
• Reviewing the annual reviews submitted to date by the professor;
• Consulting with the department chair(s) of the professor;
• Consulting with the professor’s colleagues.

Next, copies of the letters from the peer reviewers and the dean(s) will be sent to the professor who is being reviewed.  

The Provost will convene a meeting to discuss the review and its recommendations with the Curators’ 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.

TIMELINE

**This timeline can be adjusted as needed to accommodate peculiarities in professional calendars. Requests to adjust the review schedule should be sent to the Associate Provost for Faculty Affairs.             

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.

Revised April 2018 to reflect changes in the administrative organization in the Office of Academic Affairs.

Revised August 2022 to reflect changes in the administrative organization in the Office of Academic Affairs.