Assessment of Endowed and Curators' Professors

Renewal of Curators’ Professors and Curators' Teaching Professors 

Curators’ Professors and Curators’ Teaching Professors are a special category of academic appointment bestowed only on outstanding scholars or teachers with established reputations. According to the UM System Collected Rules (CRR 320.070) Curators’ Professors or Curators' Teaching Professors appointed after January 1, 2005, are appointed for five-year terms that can be renewed at the discretion of the Chancellor. At UMSL, the Chancellor, in consultation with UM System and Academic Affairs, has developed a process through which the performance of Curators’ Professors is reviewed. Recommendations are submitted to the Provost who then makes a recommendation to the Chancellor on re-appointment of Curators’ and Curators’ Teaching Professors.

 

Review of Endowed/Named Professors

In 1999, the UMSL Council of Deans recommended a five-year review of endowed professors to discover whether and how the person holding the appointment is meeting the goals of the endowed professorship and whether the endowed appointment should be continued. At UMSL, recommendations are submitted to the Provost who then makes recommendations to the Chancellor on re-appointment of endowed professors. 

 

If a faculty member simultaneously holds both Curators’ and endowed professorships, an effort is made to coordinate the review schedules so that one review can serve to assess the faculty member’s performance in both roles. 

 

The review process for Curators’ and endowed professors complements but is distinct from the post-tenure review mandated by UM System Collected Rules (CRR 310.015) for all tenured faculty who are not in primarily administrative or department chair roles. The Curators’ or endowed professor review focuses on whether the professor is meeting the goals and responsibilities of their specific professorship. That is, Curators’ Professors are evaluated on whether they are maintaining the record of outstanding scholarship or teaching that defines the position, whereas endowed professors are evaluated on whether they are meeting the terms and goals of the endowment. It is possible for a tenured faculty member to retain their regular, tenured appointment even if a Curators’ or endowed professorship is not continued. Although both kinds of reviews occur at five-year intervals, the timeline for the post-tenure reviews begins when a faculty member is tenured, promoted, or concludes an administrative appointment, whereas the timeline for Curators’ and endowed professor reviews begins with the appointment to the professorship. Therefore, the year of a professor’s post-tenure review and of a Curators’ or endowed professor review may not fall in the same year. Curators’ and endowed professors who hold administrative or department chair roles who are not eligible for standard, post-tenure reviews still undergo Curators’ or endowed professor reviews. 

 

Review Process for Curators’ and Endowed Professors

A Curators’ and endowed professor review each include both a peer review and an administrative review. 

Materials to be prepared by the professor:

The professor prepares and submits to the Office of Academic Affairs via the Associate Provost for Faculty Affairs an electronic copy of a self-study that includes:

  1. The original position description that defined the professorship, letter of agreement or contract with the University (in the case of endowed professors) or the original letter of appointment (in the case of Curators’ Professors). If an endowed professorship has been amended or restructured since the original appointment, include documentation about how the responsibilities and duties have changed.
  2. An up-to-date curriculum vita;
  3. A five-page (maximum, not including appendices) self-study narrative document responding to the relevant items under points I-V.
  4. Where possible, review letters from up to three colleagues who have knowledge and understanding of the faculty member’s work. In cases of endowed professorships where community engagement is part of the appointment (e.g., Des Lee Professorships), most of these letters should be from colleagues who are community partners.

The materials prepared and submitted by the professor for the five-year review should reflect the unique nature of their professorship. That is, materials should speak to the specific responsibilities and duties of the position.   

The 5-page self-study document should include the following:

I. Identify how the goals of the professorship have been met in the past five years. If this is the second or later five-year review, address progress towards goals mentioned in the previous review. Include, as appropriate, activities that support the UMSL 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 and professional service

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

II. (For endowed professors) What annual resources benefit the endowment (funds, space, equipment, scholarships, etc.)? Describe how these resources have been used in the last five years to meet the goals of the endowed position. Please assess the expenditures made and how they improved or increased the value of your work. Append a financial report indicating how endowment funds are spent and used to carry out the mission of the professorship and the wishes of the donor.

III. Describe your plans for the next five Explain how the plans meet the mission of your unit and the campus and, for endowed professors, of the professorship.

IV. (For endowed professors) 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?

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

Peer Review:

Following submission of the self-study to the Associate Provost for Faculty Affairs, the materials will be distributed to two colleagues who are full professors and/or who hold endowed professorships in the professor’s field at other UM System Universities or at other universities of similar or greater stature as UMSL. These peer reviewers are appointed by the Provost and stipends/honoraria for completing the review are supported by the Office of Academic Affairs.

Peer reviewers are asked to review the submitted documents. If they choose, peer reviewers may meet with the Professor who is being reviewed to learn more and to discuss the degree to which the goals of the professorship are being met. The results of the review and the meeting will be summarized in a letter and submitted to the Provost and the Associate Provost for Faculty Affairs. As noted below, the letters are shared with the Professor, who is given the opportunity to respond. They are not confidential.  

The peer review letters should 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

 

Administrative Review:

The administrative review will be completed by those to whom the professor reports and will culminate in a meeting that includes the professor, the appropriate department chair(s), Dean(s), the Associate Provost for Faculty Affairs, and the Provost. In the case of endowed professors, it can also include the director or coordinator that helps manage the endowment. 

The materials prepared by the Professor and the peer review letters are submitted to the professor’s dean(s), department chair(s), and any other campus administrator who oversees the professor’s work. In preparation for the meeting each dean will submit a letter evaluating the record of the professor to the Associate Provost for Faculty Affairs by:
  • Reviewing the self-study materials submitted by the professor;
  • Consulting with the department chair(s) of the professor and any other campus administrator who oversees the professor’s work.
  • Reviewing the annual activity reports and the annual performance reviews submitted to date by the professor

Next, copies of the letters from the peer reviewers and the dean(s) are sent to the professor who is being reviewed. The professor can submit a response that would be shared with the Provost along with the other materials. 

The Provost will convene a 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 reaffirms the endowed professorship, appoints a Curators’ Professor to another term, or initiates action to modify the terms of the appointment. The professor’s chair and dean are copied onto the letter. If the terms of appointment are modified, the dean and chair work with the Unit’s business and office staff to communicate the changes to HR.

Timeline* 

  • Self-Study Packet due to Provost's Office from Professor: end of the 5th week of the semester
  • Peer Reviews Conducted: 6th to 7th week of the semester 
  • Peer Review Letters due: End of 7th week of the semester 
  • Dean's Assessment Letter due: End of the 9th week of the semester
  • Professor's Response letter due: End of the 13th week of the semester 
  • Closing meeting with Provost, Dean of appropriate dept., Dept. Chair, and Associate Provost for Faculty Affairs: TBD 

* 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

Revised September 2025 and Reviewed by the Council of Deans