Third-year reviews assess a professional-track faculty member's primary area of specialization (i.e., teaching, research, or service) as well as their additional contributions to the academic enterprise. The review also discusses areas for improvement. Third-year review candidates are reviewed in the fall or spring semester of their third year in rank.
CNS requires the following professional-track faculty titles to undergo a third year comprehensive review during their 5th, 6th or 7th semester in rank.
- Assistant Professor of Instruction
- Assistant Professor of Practice
- Clinical Assistant Professor
- Research Assistant Professor
Required Materials
- Current CV
- Primary Area of Specialization
- If teaching is primary, then required materials include:
- 1 external evaluation
- 1 peer assessment
- At least 1 reflective teaching observations
- Please refer to the Teaching Assessments page for more information.
- If research is primary, then required materials include:
- FARs for the previous years in rank
- All publications since arriving at UT
- Grant support at UT
- Graduate student supervision
- If service is primary, then required materials include:
- Evidence of department, college, university, or professional service.
- If teaching is primary, then required materials include:
- Statement on Contributions to the Academic Enterprise
- These additional contributions might be made at the intersection of one or more of the areas of specialization and cannot repeat accomplishments or performance already documented in the primary area of specialization. For example, if teaching is a faculty member's primary area or specialization, excellence in terms of contributions, performance and trajectory in organized teaching might be the focus for that primary area. The faculty member might then highlight their contributions and leadership in curriculum development and undergraduate student advising and mentoring as their additional contributions to the academic enterprise.
Timeline - Fall Semester Review
-
September 1 - October 1, 2024
- Candidates submit their review materials.
-
October 2 - November 30, 2024
- The Review Committee (composed of faculty who are higher in rank than the candidate) is responsible for writing an evaluation report documenting the faculty member's contributions to research, teaching, mentoring, and service during the evaluation period (preceding three years), and must assign an overall review rating of either exceeds, meets, does not meet, or unsatisfactory. Reports are typically no longer than two pages and must include a brief description of the process that was employed, including how the review committee was constituted, what materials were reviewed and the conclusions that were reached, including any recommendations in problem areas.
-
Dec. 1, 2024
- The Review Committee submits the evaluation report to the Department Chair for review and comments. The Department Chair is responsible for meeting with the candidate to discuss the evaluation results, and give them an opportunity to provide a written response, if needed.
-
Jan. 1, 2025
- The Department Chair submits the report and any written responses to CNS Faculty Affairs.
Timeline - Spring Semester Review
-
January 1 - February 1, 2025
- Candidates submit their review materials.
-
February 2 - March 31, 2025
- The Review Committee (composed of faculty who are higher in rank than the candidate) is responsible for writing an evaluation report documenting the faculty member's contributions to research, teaching, mentoring, and service during the evaluation period (preceding three years), and must assign an overall review rating of either exceeds, meets, does not meet, or unsatisfactory. Reports are typically no longer than two pages and must include a brief description of the process that was employed, including how the review committee was constituted, what materials were reviewed and the conclusions that were reached, including any recommendations in problem areas.
-
April 1, 2025
- The Review Committee submits the evaluation report to the Department Chair for review and comments. The Department Chair is responsible for meeting with the candidate to discuss the evaluation results, and give them an opportunity to provide a written response, if needed.
-
April 15, 2025
- The Department Chair submits the report and any written responses to CNS Faculty Affairs.
Performance Ratings
- Exceeds Expectations - a clear and significant level of accomplishment beyond what is normal for the institution, discipline, or unit.
- Meets Expectations - level of accomplishment normally expected.
- Does Not Meet Expectations - a failure beyond what can be considered the normal range of year-to-year variation in performance, but of a character that appears to be subject to correction.
- Unsatisfactory - failing to meet expectations in a way that reflects disregard of previous advice or other efforts to provide correction or assistance, or involves prima facie professional misconduct, dereliction of duty, or incompetence.