All tenure-track faculty in the College of Natural Sciences must undergo a comprehensive review midway through their probationary period in order to assess if the faculty member is on a reasonable trajectory toward promotion and tenure. Reviews will address the faculty member's accomplishments in the areas of research and scholarly activity, teaching, mentoring, and service, as well as discuss areas for improvement. Mid-probationary review candidates are reviewed in the fall or spring semester of their third year in rank.
Required Materials
- Current CV
- Research and Scholarly Activity -
- FARs for the previous years in rank
- All publications since arriving at UT Austin
- Grant support at UT Austin
- Graduate student supervision
- Teaching -
- 1 external evaluation
- 1 peer assessment
- At least 1 reflective teaching observations
- Please refer to Teaching Assessments page for additional information.
- Service - Evidence of department, college, university, or professional service.
- Mentoring - A statement describing mentoring activities as well as training and professional development faculty undertake to become more effective mentors. Additional information can be found in the September 2023 email from the Associate Dean for Faculty Affairs on Mentoring as part of TT/T Faculty Reviews.
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
-
February 3, 2025
- Due date for candidates to submit their review materials.
-
February 3 - April 15, 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 15, 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.
-
May 16, 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.