*Already tenured at Cornell University

The tenure due date for the deans’ offices is the guaranteed date for timely consideration. Dossiers submitted after the due date risk not being considered in time for the indicated Board of Trustees meeting.

For candidates who have held tenure previously, at another institution or at Cornell:
Provost’s authority determines whether to seek the advice of the University Faculty FACTA tenure committee. A dean’s special request to waive FACTA review is not necessary; all eligible dossiers are routed for waiver consideration.

Because the provost could seek FACTA advice, dossier submission should adhere to the issued schedule.

Late submission of a FACTA-optional tenure dossier still must anticipate time for the provost’s decision and for providing items to the trustees, which must occur weeks before the trustees meet.

New Assistant Professors are typically appointed in a probationary tenure status for three years. At the end of this period, the individual is evaluated for promotion to another three-year term. University guidelines on reappointments for university processes.

College-level procedures for reappointment of Assistant Professors

1. Following department/unit procedures (considering research, teaching and service), the tenured faculty of the department/unit hold a confidential vote on the reappointment. 
2. After the vote, the chair sends the recommendation letter along with the faculty CV (packaged into one pdf document) to the Senior Associate Dean. The letter describes the result of the faculty vote and makes a recommendation for or against reappointment.
3. The Senior Associate Deans and the Dean review these materials and vote on reappointment.
4. The Senior Associate Dean communicates the result of this vote to the chair as well as the College Human Resources Director.
5. In the event of a negative recommendation, University guidelines are followed. 

Guidelines for department chairs in preparing dossiers recommending promotion to Associate Professor with Tenure*, July 2023

The purpose of these guidelines is to help the candidate and department prepare the strongest possible dossier for promotion to associate professor with tenure. These guidelines should fit the majority of, but perhaps not all, situations. If you feel your candidate’s accomplishments and activities need a slightly different approach, you are welcome to make changes in consultation with the Senior Associate Dean. Departments are also welcome to include additional material beyond what is listed here when useful.

Candidates for tenure at Cornell University are expected to present an exceptional record, to rank very highly compared to colleagues in the same field at similar stages in their careers at peer institutions, and to demonstrate leadership or potential leadership in their field. University considerations in the decision to award tenure for those who will be at the Associate Professor level after the dossier review include “excellence in carrying out the responsibilities of the position, and unusual promise for continued achievement.”**

Special Considerations for Joint Appointments. In the case of a joint appointment, notification must be sent to dual/joint or funding department(s)/college(s)/unit(s) to allow for participation and/or financial planning. It is essential that the secondary department’s tenured faculty be involved in deliberations using the same information as the tenure-home department as per any agreements in place regarding the tenure process for the specific Assistant Professor.

*The College of Agriculture and Life Sciences has similar guidelines, which served as a key resource in the development of the current document. 

**University criteria

A. Timeline

Electronic PDF dossiers containing information for promotion to associate professor with tenure should be delivered by the department via Secure File Transfer (SFT) to the
Dean’s assistant (Cindy Thompson) using the following deadlines:

• June 1 for an effective tenure date of November 1

• August 1 for an effective tenure date of February 1

• September 1 for an effective tenure date of April 1

• December 1 for an effective tenure date of July 1

Once the electronic PDF dossier is delivered via SFT, it is reviewed to be sure all relevant sections have been submitted. An ad hoc committee (made up of 2 faculty within CHE and 1 outside of CHE) is selected to review the dossier and make a recommendation to the Dean. Six to eight weeks is a normal time for review by the ad hoc committee. After review at the College level, the following documents are added to the dossier:

• the ad hoc committee report,

• any additional materials requested by the ad hoc committee or by the Senior Associate Dean 

• a letter of recommendation from the Dean to the Provost  

FACTA (the Faculty Advisory Committee on Tenure Appointments) will advise the provost. Following FACTA review, the Provost conveys the dossier to the Cornell University Board of Trustees. Approval of the award of tenure, or promotion and tenure will be made by the Board of Trustees and conveyed by a letter from the President to the candidate.  

Procedures following a negative tenure decision at the departmental level can be found here: Faculty Handbook for appealing decisions for tenure. 

B. Documentation Required  

ALL solicitations for letters must be done by the department and not the candidate. Do not include any letter in more than one area: peer letter, student letter.  The dossier should be submitted in PDF format using the bookmarks outlined below (i.e., numbered bold headings are bookmarks; lettered subheadings are sub-bookmarks) Materials should be addressed to the Dean but delivered to the Senior Associate Dean. All materials assembled supporting the evaluation and recommendation are regarded as confidential to be shared only with those involved in the decision process.  

Unit name:

Candidate's name:

Promotion to Associate Professor with Tenure

1. Department Head Recommendation  

Letter from Department Chair to the Dean with the recommendation regarding promotion and tenure. The letter should include the date of meeting and vote of tenured faculty and reasons for any objections, reservations, or abstentions. The vote should be taken after the tenured faculty have reviewed the full documentation, and there has been opportunity for discussion.  (Letters from the faculty with their evaluation and the reasons for their vote are to be included in the documentation, see "Faculty Letters" below.)

The letter should include the Chair’s Evaluation of the performance of the candidate in each function for which he or she carries responsibility. This should be a thoughtful analysis of the relationship of the candidate to the present and developing mission of the department and College. The Chair should comment on the quality of journals, presses, and other venues where the candidate’s work has appeared. The letter should also address the candidate’s teaching or extension/outreach work. The letter should address any disagreements and matters of serious concern in the file, as well as any abstentions.

If the department uses a departmental review committee, its report should be included in “Faculty Letters” (below), not here.  

Checklist:

• Unit head recommendation letter (Internal Review Committee letters are included in section 2 below.) 

• Secondary program’s letter (if appropriate)

2. Individual Faculty Assessments

Please include letters from each tenured faculty member providing an evaluation of the candidate in reference to the considerations above and the individual's vote. In addition to the letter, each professor’s vote must be documented. This may be included in each professor’s letter, or ballots used in the decision can be included in the dossier. If the department uses a departmental review committee, its report should be included in this section.

Checklist: 

• Faculty Letters from each tenured faculty member in the home unit. 

• When relevant, a departmental review committee report.

3. External Reviews  

ALL solicitations for letters must be done by the department and not by the candidate. A copy of the letter requesting the evaluation must be included in the dossier. We recommend contacting external reviewers to determine their availability prior to sending them material. Note: Letters solicited from peer reviewers can be subpoenaed as part of a legal process but are treated by the university as confidential documents. Letters solicited from students, Cornell colleagues and others are similarly confidential and should not be shared with outside peer reviewers. 

How much of the dossier is made available to the external reviewers: The candidate has the right to determine the exact subset of their scholarly work that is accessible to the external reviewer.  Recommendations to the candidate: 

• Chosen content should be discussed with the chair but must include the CV. 

• Chosen content should be easy to navigate with important items highlighted. A pdf dossier with bookmarks is recommended. 

• The research, teaching, and/or extension statements should be considered. 

• If the visibility of a publication requires payment of a fee or the purchase of a book, then steps must be taken to provide access. 

• Do not share those documents that are not (yet) intended for free public viewing. 

• External reviewers are not in the position to interpret course evaluations so that data should never be included for external review. On the other hand, course syllabi should be included. 

• Please review University guidelines on external reviewer selection

3a. Table of Evaluators

The role of external evaluators is to assess the candidate’s accomplishments, stature in the field, and future promise. External evaluators should be given a charge that is as specific as possible and should be provided with as much material relating to the candidate’s performance as is conveniently possible. In your request to external reviewers, please include a request to the reviewer to please provide the full details of the contact he/she has had with the candidate through his/her career.

The file should include two tables with information regarding reviewers. One table includes external reviewers selected by the department; the other includes external reviewers suggested by the candidate. Each of these tables must include the following information: names and institutions of all reviewers invited to serve as reviewers and whether the reviewer declined or agreed to the review.  Include in the tables individuals who were invited but failed to respond to the invitation and noting that this was the case. 

3 i. Evaluators Selected by the Department

• Letters of evaluation from at least five, but not more than seven, recognized leaders in the field outside Cornell who have neither been closely associated with, nor selected by, the candidate. The letters should request evaluation, not support. The request letter should state the criteria listed above which the faculty will use in judging a candidate for the awarding of tenure. The letters should provide an evaluation of the quality of the candidate’s work and its impact on the scholarship of the field. In selecting external evaluators and when possible, departments are encouraged to select at least one well-established leader in the larger discipline who is not working in the same sub-discipline as the candidate. The purpose of these evaluations is to understand the breadth of impact and promise of the candidate's work.*

• 3 ii. Evaluators Suggested by the Candidate
  • The department should also solicit letters from evaluators suggested by the candidate. Two of the evaluators can be within arm’s length and should not include Cornell faculty. These letters should request evaluation, not support. Four to six letters should be submitted. The request letter should state the criteria listed above which the faculty will use in judging a candidate’s qualifications for tenure. The letters should provide an evaluation of the quality of the candidate’s work and its impact on the scholarship of the field. If the evaluator is a co-author or collaborator of the candidate, the letter should address the contribution of the candidate to the collaborative work.

*HR Guidelines for Tenure Track Promotion

d. CVs of Evaluators selected by the department

e. CVs of Evaluators suggested by candidate

Checklist: 

• List of all reviewers solicited in table format. The list should be separated into 2 categories: 

  • Evaluators suggested by the department. (minimum of 5 and not more than 7) 

  • Evaluators suggested by the candidate. (minimum of 4 and not more than 6) 

  • Solicitation letter s for each type of evaluator 

• CV’s of evaluators selected by the department. 

• CV’s of evaluators suggested by the candidate. 

4. Candidate CV

The candidate should provide a complete and comprehensive CV.

Checklist:

• CV of the candidate

5. Candidate Statements  

a. Teaching Statement

The candidate should provide a statement describing teaching goals and accomplishments. 

b. Research Statement

The candidate should provide a statement describing goals and objectives for the faculty's research program and a statement of substantive research accomplishments, activities, or discoveries. The overall intent is to make a compelling case for the ability of the candidate to provide leadership for his/her discipline in discovering new knowledge through creative analysis and synthesis. When relevant this includes information on external funding (a separate section on external funding can also be included if preferred. Include Google Scholar metrics. Candidates for promotion should create a Google Scholar Profile and include the link so outside reviewers as well as relevant college faculty can easily access the candidate’s publications and indicators of impact.   

c. Extension Statement

An extension statement is required only of faculty who have a formal extension appointment.  The candidate should provide a description of the goals and accomplishments of extension programming, and a description of the approach used to meet the goals of the extension program.  This should include evidence that the extension program addresses audience needs in a timely manner, is relevant and of high quality, is based on a foundation of research, and has made an impact on participants (stakeholders).  Stakeholder Evaluation. Include a minimum of 5 and not more than 7 stakeholder letters in the extension program independent of other external letters, serving an equivalent role as letters from students to evaluate teaching or letters from advisees and include CVs for the stakeholders. 

d. Service Statement

Evidence of service to the community, the department, the college, and the university. (Review process for tenure)

Checklist:

• Teaching Statement 

• Research Statement

• When relevant, include information on external funding.

• Report Google Scholar metrics 

• Extension Statement 

• Stakeholder evaluations (minimum of 5 to and not more than 7 letters) 

• CVs for all stakeholders

• Service Statement

6. Teaching Materials  

a. Courses Taught

The dossier should include a listing of courses taught each year and enrollments in each. A course syllabus should also be submitted for these courses. For team-taught courses, include a statement of specific involvement by the candidate. Note: Indicate whether the courses were taught at Cornell or elsewhere, as in the case of recently-hired faculty. 

b. Student Course Evaluation Summaries

These should be summarized in a table and not prepared by the candidate.

c. Student Letters

Letters from students who have completed the candidate’s course(s) should be solicited by the department chair. There should be three to five advising letters and five to ten teaching letters submitted in the dossier.  For the advising letters no more than 50% should come from student s identified by the faculty member. For the teaching letters, a random sample of students who completed the course may be contacted. Students are sometimes reluctant to write a letter due to fear of reprisals. The Department may choose to redact student names from letters in this case but must keep letters with signatures on file for verification upon request in the case of an appeal. A copy of the letter requesting the evaluation must be included.  

d. Faculty Course Assessment

When part of departmental guidelines, the dossier should include a statement from a departmental colleague(s) assessing the candidate’s teaching and course materials. (Faculty Handbook)

Checklist:

• List of courses taught

• Course syllabus for each course

• Student course evaluation summaries in table format 

• A letter requesting evaluation

• Student letters 

• Advising letters (minimum of 3 and not more than 5) 

• Teaching letters (minimum of 5 and not more than 10) 

• Faculty Course Assessment of teaching and course materials

C. APPENDIX 

• Publications. The candidate must submit representative publications showcasing his or her highest quality work. 

• Position Description. Please include a copy of the original letter of appointment with salary information redacted, a copy of the original position description, and any subsequent letters, which altered expectations of the position and again with any salary information redacted.  Any written response by the candidate to the above should be included as well. 

• Annual Reviews.  Include copies of the letter sent to the candidate following each annual review. Include candidate comments submitted in response to reviews, if any. If missing annual reviews, the Chair must address reasons in Chair’s Letter or include a statement of explanation here. 

Streamlined Process

This process is for pre-hire tenure when the new hire had tenure at their previous institution. Faculty votes for (a) hire and (b) tenure should be done at the same meeting. Dossier not required.

1. Consult with college/school leadership as to appropriateness for initiating a streamlined review, and inform the provost’s office. 
2. The Department’s tenured faculty are provided with the candidate’s CV and external letters that evaluate the candidate for a tenured position at the offered rank at Cornell. To streamline the process, the department has the option of using the letters provided during the hiring process (minimum 3). It is recommended that letter writers are asked to comment on suitability for tenure at the appropriate title. Integrating this request into the department’s review of the candidate for hiring will make this simpler. Additional letters can be solicited if the department so chooses, but are not required. If internal Cornell letters are normally a part of the dossier, they can be waived. If teaching evaluations are not available, the department can decide to vote without these, with an explanation from the chair in the file as to teaching potential. Note: Per BAhner and EAngert: CALS requires two external letters in addition to the 3 reference letters. 
3. A departmental faculty meeting of tenured faculty (associate and full professors) is held to discuss and vote on tenure. 
   1. Associate and full professors vote on tenure
   2. Full professors only vote on appointment to full professor
   3. Faculty votes are accompanied by letters explaining votes
4. Department Chair submits dossier including faculty vote and letters, along with the chair’s letter to the college outlining the department’s recommendation on the appointment of a tenured associate or full professor appointment in the department, including the conditions around which the candidate was offered a position in the department.
5. Dean submits a letter to the Provost outlining the college’s recommendation on the appointment of a tenured associate tenured full professor appointment in the department, skipping the ad hoc process. 

Guidelines for department chairs in preparing dossiers recommending promotion to professor*, July 2023 

The purpose of these guidelines is to help the candidate and department prepare the strongest possible dossier for promotion to professor. These guidelines should fit the majority of, but perhaps not all, situations. If you feel your candidate’s accomplishments and activities need a slightly different approach, you are welcome to make changes in consultation with the Senior Associate Dean. Departments are also welcome to include additional material beyond what is listed here when useful.

Promotion to professor is earned and awarded in recognition of distinguished research and educational accomplishment and awarded in recognition of fulfillment of the expectations that come with tenure.  Different people meet these promotion criteria at different rates, so the time in rank as an associate professor before an individual is considered for promotion to professor is somewhat diverse.  However, the normal time for review to promotions to professor is in the sixth year after promotion to associate professor.   

Special Considerations

Joint Appointments: In the case of a joint appointment, notification must be sent to dual/joint or funding department(s)/college(s)/unit(s) to allow for participation and/or financial planning. It is essential that the secondary department’s full professors be involved in deliberations using the same information as the tenure-home department as per any agreements in place regarding the tenure process for the specific Associate Professor.  

*The College of Agriculture and Life Sciences has similar guidelines, which served as a key resource in the development of the current document. 

A. Timeline 

Electronic PDF dossiers containing information for promotion to full professor should be delivered by the department via Secure file transfer (SFT) to the Dean’s assistant, Cindy Thompson, clm37, by:  

• July 1st for an effective promotion date of November 1  
• September 1st for an effective promotion date of January 1  
• December 1st for an effective promotion date of April 1  
• March 1st for an effective promotion date of July 1 

Once the electronic PDF dossier is delivered via SFT, it is reviewed to be sure all relevant sections have been submitted. An ad hoc committee is selected that includes 2 faculty within CHE and 1 faculty outside of CHE to undertake a review of the dossier and make a recommendation to the Dean. Six to eight weeks is a normal time for review by the ad hoc committee. After review at the College level, the following documents are included in the dossier: the ad hoc committee report, any additional materials requested by the ad hoc committee or by the Senior Associate Dean, and a letter of recommendation from the Dean to the Provost.

Approval of the promotion will be made by the Provost and conveyed by a letter from the President to the candidate.

Procedures following a negative decision at the departmental level can be found here in the Faculty Handbook.

B. Documentation Required  

The dossier should be submitted in PDF format using the bookmarks outlined below (i.e., numbered bold headings are bookmarks; lettered subheadings are sub-bookmarks). Materials should be addressed to the Dean but delivered to the Senior Associate Dean.  All materials assembled supporting the evaluation and recommendation are regarded as confidential to be shared only with those involved in the decision process.  

Unit Name:

Candidate’s Name:

1. Department Head Recommendation  

Letter from Department Chair to the Dean with the recommendation regarding promotion. The letter should include the date of meeting and vote of tenured full professor faculty, giving reasons for any objections, reservations, or abstentions. The vote should be taken after the tenured full professors on the faculty have reviewed the full documentation, and there has been opportunity for discussion.  (Letters from the faculty with their evaluation and the reasons for their vote are to be included in the documentation, see "Faculty Letters" below)

The letter should include the Chair’s Evaluation of the performance of the candidate in each function for which he or she carries responsibility. This should be a thoughtful analysis of the relationship of the candidate to the present and developing mission of the department and College. The Chair should comment on the quality of journals, presses, and other venues where the candidate’s work has appeared. The letter should also address the candidate’s teaching or extension/outreach work. The letter should address any disagreements and matters of serious concern in the file, as well as any abstentions.

If the department uses a departmental review committee, its report should be included in “Faculty Letters” (below), not here.

Checklist:

• Chair'/Director's letter 

2. Individual Faculty Assessments 

Please include letters from each tenured full professor providing an evaluation of the candidate in reference to the considerations above. In addition to the letter, each professor’s vote must be documented. This may be included in each professor’s letter, or ballots used in the decision can be included in the dossier. If the department uses a departmental review committee, its report should be included in this section.  Faculty letters should be listed by faculty name. 

Checklist: 

• Letters of evaluation from tenured full professors. 
• The faculty's vote is included in the letter or include the ballot. 

3. External Reviews  

ALL solicitations for letters must be done by the department and not the candidate. A copy of the solicitation letter must be included.  The role of external evaluators is to assess the candidate’s accomplishments, stature in the field, and future promise. External evaluators should be given a charge that is as specific as possible and should be provided with as much material relating to the candidate’s performance as is conveniently possible. In your request to external reviewers, please include a request to the reviewer to please provide the full details of the contact he/she has had with the candidate through his/her career. 

Table of Evaluators

The file should include two tables with information regarding reviewers. One table includes external reviewers selected by the department; the other includes external reviewers suggested by the candidate. Each of these tables must include the following information: names and institutions of all reviewers invited serve as reviewers and whether the reviewer declined or agreed to the review.  Include in the tables individuals who were invited but failed to respond to invitation (noting that this was the case). 

1. Evaluators Selected by the Department. Letters of evaluation from at least five, but not more than seven, recognized leaders in the field outside Cornell who have neither been closely associated with, nor selected by, the candidate. The letters should request evaluation, not support. The request letter should state the criteria listed above which the faculty will use in judging a candidate for the awarding of tenure. The letters should provide an evaluation of the quality of the candidate’s work and its impact on the scholarship of the field. In selecting external evaluators and when possible, departments should select at least one well-established leader in the larger discipline who is not working in the same sub-discipline as the candidate. The purpose of these evaluations is to understand the breadth of impact and promise of the candidate's work. (Dossier schedule)  
2. Evaluators Suggested by the Candidate. The department should also solicit letters from at least four, but not more than six. These letters should request evaluation, not support. The request letter should state the criteria listed above which the faculty will use in judging a candidate for the awarding of tenure. The letters should provide an evaluation of the quality of the candidate’s work and its impact on the scholarship of the field. If the evaluator is a co-author or collaborator of the candidate, the letter should address the contribution of the candidate to the work. 

Note: Letters solicited from peer reviewers can be subpoenaed as part of a legal process but are treated by the university as confidential documents. Letters solicited from students, Cornell colleagues and others are similarly confidential and should not be shared with outside peer reviewers.  

CV of Evaluators selected by the department

CV of Evaluators suggested by candidate

Checklist:

• Evaluators listed in table format; must include all reviewers invited to review the candidate
• Evaluators selected by the department. (minimum of 5 and not more than 7) 
• Evaluators suggested by the candidate. (minimum of 4 and not more than 6) 
• CV's for evaluators selected by the department
• CV's for evaluators suggested by the candidate 

5. Candidate CV 

The candidate should provide a complete and comprehensive CV.  

Checklist:

• CV 

6. Candidate Statements  

• Teaching Statement. The candidate should provide a statement describing teaching goals and accomplishments.   
• Research Statement. The candidate should provide a statement describing goals and objectives for   his/her research program and a statement of substantive research accomplishments, activities or discoveries. The overall intent is to make a compelling case for the ability of the candidate to provide leadership for his/her discipline in discovering new knowledge through creative analysis and synthesis. When relevant this includes information on external funding (a separate section on external funding can also be included if preferred).  Candidates for promotion should create a Google Scholar Profile and include the link so outside reviewers as well as relevant college faculty can easily access the candidate’s publications and indicators of impact. 
• Extension Statement. An extension statement is required only of faculty who have a formal extension appointment.  The candidate should provide a description of the goals and accomplishments of extension programming, and a description of the approach used to meet the goals of the extension program.  This should include evidence that the extension program addresses audience needs in a timely manner, is relevant and of high quality, is based on a foundation of research, and has made an impact on participants (stakeholders).  Include administrative and leadership responsibilities and roles the candidate has assumed.  Stakeholder Evaluation include 5-7 stakeholder letters in the extension program independent of other external letters, serving an equivalent role as letters from students to evaluate teaching or letters from advisees. Stakeholders' CV must be included. 
• Service Statement.  Evidence of service to the community, the department, the college, and the university. (Review process)

Checklist: 

• Teaching 
• Research 
  • When relevant, include external funding. 
  • Include Google Scholar 
• Extension 
  • Stakeholders’ evaluations (minimum of 5 and not more than 7) 
  • Stakeholders' CVs 
• Service 

7.  Teaching Materials 

• Courses Taught. The dossier should include a listing of courses taught each year since tenure was awarded and enrollments in each. A course syllabus should also be submitted for these courses. For team-taught courses, include a statement of specific involvement by the candidate. Note: Indicate whether the courses were taught at Cornell or elsewhere (as in the case of recently-hired faculty).  
• Student Course Evaluations. These should be summarized in a table and not prepared by the candidate. 
• Student Letters.Letters from students who have completed the candidate’s course(s) should be solicited by the department chair. There should be three to five advising letters and five to ten teaching letters submitted in the dossier.  For the advising letters no more than 50% should come from student s identified by the faculty member. For the teaching letters, a random sample of students who completed the course may be contacted. Students are sometimes reluctant to write a letter due to fear of reprisals. The Department may choose to redact student names from letters in this case but must keep letters with signatures on file for verification upon request in the case of an appeal. A copy of the letter requesting the evaluation must be included. 
• Faculty Course Assessment. When part of departmental guidelines, the dossier should include a statement from a departmental colleague(s) assessing the candidate’s teaching and course materials.  (University Faculty Handbook)

Checklist:

• Courses taught in table format
  • Include a syllabus for each course taught
• Student course evaluations summarized in a table
• A copy of the solicitation letter
• Student letters 
  • Advising (minimum of 3 and not more than 5) 
  • Teaching (minimum of 5 and not more than 10) 
• Faculty course assessment

C. APPENDIX

• Publications. The candidate must submit representative publications, in electronic form, showcasing his or her highest quality work. Each sub-bookmark will be the name of the publication. 
• Position Description. Please include a copy of the original letter of appointment with salary information redacted only, no addendums needed (ie: start-up information), a copy of the original position description, and any subsequent letters, which altered expectations of the position (again with any salary information redacted).  Any written response by the candidate to the above should be included as well.  Include a copy of the letter approving promotion to associate professor with tenure. 
• Annual Reviews. Include copies of the letter sent to the candidate following each annual review since promotion to Associate Professor. Include candidate comments submitted in response to reviews, if any. If missing annual reviews, Chairs’ must address reasons in Chair’s Letter (Section 1) or include a statement of explanation here. These should be sorted by year with most recent first. 

Non-tenure Track Academic Positions include Research Professor, Senior Research Associate, Senior Lecturer, Senior Extension Associate, Professor of the Practice, Clinical Professor.   

Unit Name:
Candidate’s Name:
Appointment to:
Reappointment to:
Promotion to:
Term Length:

I.  Appointment

The process to establish a search or to make an appointment for the titles listed above is the same as those used for tenure-track professorial positions, including receiving approval from the Dean, and conducting a formal search.  Appointments are generally for three to five years.  See guidelines below: 

• University Faculty Handbook 
• Policy for Academic Appointments 
• 3.1 Description of Titles 

All affirmative action policies of the university apply to these appointments. 

II. Reappointment 

All appointments in the positions listed above are term appointments. Term lengths vary depending upon the program, the funding source, and budget constraints. Appointments are generally for three to five years. For reappointment, a review by the academic unit is required. If for funding reasons the unit is appointing on an annual or shorter timeframe, this reappointment review only needs to occur every three to five years.  The time between reviews is based on the results of the previous review or the definition of the original appointment. The department/unit prepares a dossier, including all components outlined below.  

The dossier, including a recommendation by the chair/director; and the vote of the department/unit faculty, tenure and promotion committee, or executive committee as appropriate to the unit must be sent to the Senior Associate Dean and the Dean’s Executive Assistant six weeks prior to the individual’s termination date. The reappointment dossier is reviewed by the college academic deans. The senior associate dean then communicates the findings to the department chair/director endorsing or rejecting the reappointment, copying the college’s Assistant Dean of Human Resources and HR assistant who works with the unit’s administrative manager to complete the reappointment process.

Checklist: 

• A letter from the chair/ director making recommendation regarding reappointment and reporting the vote of the faculty, tenure and promotion committee, or executive committee as appropriate to the unit. 
• The length of the reappointment  
• Personal statement of accomplishments and future plans, including their relevance to the mission of the department/division/unit and the College. 
• Current CV 
• Copies of annual performance reviews from the last (re)appointment review. (including summative evaluation statement in each annual review) 
• For Senior Lecturer, Professor of the Practice, Assistant/Associate/Full Clinical Professor, a table of results of student course evaluations must be included, if available advising evaluations should be included. 

III. Promotion 

Promotion to or within the titles listed above usually occurs after a minimum of six years (full-time equivalent) of satisfactory and relevant employment experience in the college or elsewhere. Criteria for consideration includes meritorious performance; leadership; and expanded administrative and/or supervisory responsibilities. For promotion to Senior Research Associate and Senior Extension Associate, a Ph.D. or equivalent doctoral-level degree (e.g., EdD, DSW) is required.

Steps:  

1. In discussion with the chair, the individual may initiate the request for promotion based on the quality of performance and increased responsibilities. A formal letter is then submitted to the chair requesting promotion.  
2. The chair discusses the request with tenured faculty and others in the unit as relevant. The chair consults with the senior associate dean regarding the merits of the case.  
3. Once agreed upon by the dean’s office: At the department/unit level, a promotion dossier is prepared for review by the appropriate group in that unit, e.g. tenure and promotion committee, or tenured faculty plus those holding the “senior” title being considered in this promotion.  
4. For all titles except senior lecturers, the dossier will include three external reviews from reviewers outside Cornell as well as one from within Cornell but outside the unit. The external reviews should be from leaders in the field who have a professorial rank or who hold academic assignments/titles similar to the RTE title. Internal Cornell reviewers should have academic titles similar to the candidate or a professorial title in analogous areas.  At least half of the external reviewers must be suggested by the department/unit. Solicitation letters should request evaluation and not support/endorsement. 
5. For senior lecturers, the dossier will contain reviews from three reviewers internal to Cornell University but from outside of the department/unit. The reviewers must hold either professorial titles or senior lecturer titles.
6. When the file is complete, the documentation is presented to the unit’s tenured faculty and, if consistent with unit procedures, those academics with same senior title for discussion and vote.
7. If the vote is positive and/or the chair/director is positive, the chair/director sends a letter with the decision and supporting documentation to the Senior Associate Dean and the Dean’s Executive Assistant eight weeks prior to their term date.
8. The senior associate dean forms an ad hoc committee to review the dossier and advise the deans.
   1. After receiving this report, the senior associate dean shares the findings with the academic deans.
   2. Once approved, then communicates to the department chair/director endorsing or rejecting the promotion request and copying the college’s Assistant Dean of Human Resources who works with the unit’s administrative manager to complete the reappointment process. 

Checklist:  

• Curriculum vitae 
• Personal statements as relevant (e.g., research; extension; teaching) describing accomplishments and future goals and plans. 
• Letters of evaluation from faculty with whom the candidate has worked. 
• Letters of evaluation from external and/or internal reviewers (as defined above).  
• Evaluations: from teaching assistants with whom the lecturer has worked or whom the lecturer has supervised if appropriate, or from research colleagues with whom the person has worked, or extension educators and specialists with whom the extension associate has worked.
  • For those whose positions include teaching, dossiers include:  
    • Syllabi, teaching assignments, sample student work, etc. 
    • Student course and advising evaluations. (for the prior five - six years or since last appointment) 
• Letters from students/program clientele, for promotion to senior lecturer, senior extension associate, or Associate/Full Clinical Professor, 
• For Senior Research Associates and Senior Extension Associates, program evaluation results or research reports, relevant program materials, and journal articles. 
• Copies of annual performance reviews since the last (re)appointment. 
• For a promotion review involving administrative responsibilities, the department must describe in detail the administrative duties and show how the individual intends to perform those duties. 

The Faculty Handbook Section 5.1 offers a checklist of considerations for retiring professors and associate professors. Candidates should review these considerations as some will be relevant. With these “talking points” in hand, initiate a conversation with your chair or supervisor. 

Tenured Faculty 

When a tenured professor is planning retirement, they make a request to their department chair/division director to be considered.  (Reference Policy 5.2 in the Faculty Handbook) 

Department Process 

The faculty member provides the following to the chair / director: 

• CV 
• A cover letter indicating: (1) rationale for the request; (2) retirement date; (3) title preference (emerita or emeritus) 

The chair validates the eligibility for emeritus/a status and facilitates the departmental faculty vote. If the retiring faculty member is a full professor, then full professors and emeritus faculty vote. If the retiring faculty member is an associate professor, then tenured professors and emeritus faculty vote. 

Criteria

A university professor, full professor, or associate professor who has been a tenured member of the University Faculty for ten or more years may be considered for emeritus/a status. Consideration shall be based upon the career contributions of the candidate through a combination of teaching, research, advising, administration, extension, and outreach. An overall record of meritorious service to the university is expected. 

• Retired with ten or more years in an emeritus-eligible position. 
• Meritorious service to the university (title dependent). 

College Process

Following the departmental process, the chair/director makes the decision to recommend emeritus/a status or not. If recommending, they provide the recommendation packet to the dean’s executive assistant which includes the chair's letter and the CV (packaged into one pdf document). The chair’s letter should include the vote, the rationale, the retirement date and include the faculty’s title preference (emerita or emeritus). 

The dean reviews the materials and if approving, the dean’s letter of recommendation is added to the packet and sent to the academic human resources office for Provost approval. 

If choosing not to recommend, the chair/director should contact the Senior Associate Dean for Research and the Assistant Dean of Human Resources to discuss next steps. 

RTE Faculty

(Approved by the Faculty Senate and the Provost, March 2021)  

Upon retirement, a senior lecturer, senior research associate, senior extension associate, professor of the practice, associate professor of the practice, research professor, associate research professor, clinical professor, associate clinical professor, senior scientist, senior scholar, research scientist, principal research scientist, librarian, associate librarian, archivist, or senior archivist who has served in that capacity for ten or more years may be considered for emeritus/a status. (Reference Policy 5.5 in the Faculty Handbook) 

The new policy takes effect immediately for all RTE faculty who have retired after June 30, 2020. 

Process 

When a RTE faculty member is planning retirement, they make a request to their department chair/division director to be considered. Advice for Potential Candidates is in the Faculty Handbook Section 5.1.

1. Candidate sends CV and cover letter to Chair (or equivalent). 
2. The Department/Unit votes. University Voting Rights 
3. Chair/Director sends three items (packaged together as one pdf document) to the Dean's Executive Assistant. 
   1.  A letter indicating the vote tally and making a recommendation. 
   2. CV  
   3. Candidate’s cover letter  
4. The Dean makes the final decision which is communicated to the Dean of Faculty (deanoffaculty@cornell.edu). 
5. The dean’s office will prepare the congratulatory letter and distribute. 

Note: Advice for Potential Candidates is in the Faculty Handbook Section 5.1.