The information provided here serves as a resource to guide the reappointment, promotion and tenure (RPT) processes in Cornell Human Ecology.  

Timeline and guidelines

ActionDue to CHE dean's officeDean's material due for university reviewTrustee meeting datesEarliest date action effective
TenureJune 1August 14, 2025October 23-25, 2025November 1, 2025
Promotion to Professor*July 1August 26, 2025 November 1, 2025
Election to Endowed ChairJuly 1September 9, 2025October 23-25, 2025November 1, 2025
Promotion to Professor*August 1October 16, 2025 February 1, 2026
TenureSeptember 1October 21, 2025Jan 29-31, 2026January 1, 2026
Election to Endowed ChairSeptember 1November 6, 2025Jan 29-31, 2026February 1, 2026
TenureSeptember 1November 13, 2025March 19-20, 2026April 1, 2026
Election to Endowed ChairDecember 1January 15, 2026March 19-20, 2026April 1, 2026
Promotion to Professor*December 1January 22, 2026 April 1, 2026
TenureDecember 1February 19, 2026May 21-23, 2026July 1, 2026
Election to Endowed ChairFebruary 1March 12, 2026May 21-23, 2026July 1, 2026
Promotion to Professor*March 1April 23, 2026 July 1, 2026

*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.

Guidelines for promotion to professor

The purpose of these guidelines is to help the candidate and department prepare the strongest possible dossier for promotion to professor.1 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. University guidelines (faculty handbook, section 4.2) state the criteria for promotion to professor, https://deanoffaculty.cornell.edu/policies-procedures/faculty-handbook/4-tenure-track-promotions-2/ , and also state that associate professors with tenure are normally considered for review for promotion to full professor in the sixth year of such an appointment. It is recommended that the process is begun by the chair/director polling the full professors to "decide whether a formal review for promotion should be initiated" [page 49]. See https://cpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/blogs.cornell.edu/dist/3/6798/files/2016/07/Chapter-2-1gssgnl.pdf for further guidance. Promotion can be decided in the 6th year after the award of tenure (with an effective date 6 years after the tenure effective date). Thus, review may begin during the start of the 6th year, but it should begin no earlier than the end of the 5th year.

Beginning in January 2026, we will be using the Interfolio platform for tenure and promotion processes. Faculty who are to be considered for promotion will receive an email message inviting them to Interfolio. Dossiers submitted to the Dean's office prior to January 2026, may be created as a PDF and sent via Secure File Transfer (SFT).

1The College of Agriculture and Life Sciences has similar guidelines, which served as a key resource in the development of the current document. The CALS guidelines can be found here: CALS appointment procedures.

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.

A. Timeline Overview

Dossiers for promotion to full professor must be delivered by the department via Interfolio by the following dates:
• July 1 for an effective promotion date of November 1
• September 1 for an effective promotion date of January 1
• December 1 for an effective promotion date of April 1
• March 1 for an effective promotion date of July 1

Once the dossier is delivered via Interfolio, it is reviewed to be sure all relevant sections have been submitted. Formation of an ad hoc committee (that included 2 faculty within CHE and 1 faculty outside of CHE) is at the discretion of the Dean; or, in the case of negative decision2 from the Department, at the request of the candidate. The role of the ad hoc committee is to review the dossier and make a recommendation to the Dean. Six to eight weeks is a normal timeframe 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, if applicable; 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 letter from the President to the candidate.

2Procedures following a negative decision at the departmental level can be found here in the Faculty Handbook.

B. Documentation Required

1. Candidate: Materials Provided by the Candidate:

The dossier materials should be submitted via Interfolio. Within Interfolio, the candidate may save work and return to add or edit materials.

a. Suggested External Reviewers: One of the candidate's first tasks is to suggest at least six possible external reviewers including their name, institution, title, and email. Please note that ALL solicitations for letters must be done by the department and not by the candidate. Three of the six suggested reviewers may be within 'arm's length' (i.e., collaborators on publications or grants, etc.).

b. Candidate CV: The candidate should provide a complete and comprehensive CV.

c. Candidate Statements

  • Teaching Statement. [limit: 5 pages] The candidate should provide a statement describing teaching goals and accomplishments. It is appropriate to provide a thoughtful self-analysis of your performance, successes, concerns, and expectations of teaching effort, including a statement of your efforts to improve instruction.  This may include current teaching efforts and improvements made over time in such areas as instructional delivery, course content, instructional design, evaluation of student learning, and effective feedback. This statement should be no longer than 5 pages.
  • Advising and Mentorship Statement. [limit: 3 pages] Please describe your experience advising and mentoring undergraduate and graduate students, as well as postdoctoral fellow, if relevant. Reflection on the culture of your lab is welcome. Include efforts to improve your mentorship skills, such as trainings and workshops. This statement should be no longer than 3 pages.
  • Research Statement. [limit: 5 pages] Provide a statement describing goals and objectives for your research program, including 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 their discipline in discovering new knowledge through creative analysis and synthesis. Include a link to your Google Scholar Profile and report H-index and i10 index. Publications and grants are listed on the CV and do not need to be repeated here except to illustrate how certain products relate to you research themes. This statement should be no longer than 5 pages.
  • Community Engagement/ Outreach Statement. (optional) [limit: 5 pages] The candidate may provide a statement describing work that is community-engaged. Community-engaged scholarship addresses real-world, community issues, involves the co-creation of knowledge, shared authority between academics and community experts, is bidirectional and requires long-term investment in relationship building. The products of community-engaged scholarship may include the implementation of a new policy or program; the community partner's application of findings from the collaboration; or the creation of a durable and public-facing product. The candidate may also choose to share other aspects of the impact of their work such as on policy, practice, and design. This statement should be no longer than 5 pages.
  • Service Statement. [limit: 3 pages] Provide a statement describing evidence of service to the community, your field, the department, the college, and the university. This statement should be no longer than 3 pages.

d. Publications

  • Publication List. The candidate must submit a list of five recent, representative publications. For each publication, provide a brief description (not the abstract) indicating the importance of the work and your role in the publication. Not to exceed 1 page.
  • Publications. Provide a PDF of each of the five listed publications. These publications should match the five publications sin your list with brief descriptions.

e. Course Syllabi. The most recent syllabus for each course taught since tenure was awarded.

f. Suggested Students for Teaching Letters. Letters from students who have completed your course(s) are solicited by the chair/director. You may suggest up to 10 students for the chair/director to solicit.

g. External Funding. The candidate should provide a summary of external funding sought to support research, teaching, and extension functions. The candidate should include Cornell funding in the summary. The summary should include grants both sought and received, grants sought but not received, and pending proposals - separated into three lists:

  • Successful proposals and total dollar support received: On successful grants, indicate the project title, funding agency, and total support received. With multiple principal investigators, include the candidate's role in the proposal preparation and conduct of project, as well as the percentage of the grant allotted to candidate's program.
  • Grants applied for but not received: On unsuccessful proposals, note the proposed title, funding agency, support requested, collaborators, and date submitted.
  • Pending Proposals: Include the project title, funding agency, amount requested, collaborators (if any), and submission date.
 Checklist for Candidate Materials:
  1. Suggested External Reviewers
  2. Candidate's CV
  3. Candidate Statements
    1. Teaching Statement
    2. Advising /Mentorship Statement
    3. Research Statement (include Google Scholar metrics)
    4. Community Engagement/ Outreach Statement [optional]
    5. Service Statement
  4. Publications
    1. Publications List (limit of five)
    2. Publications
  5. Course Syllabi for each course taught
  6. Suggested Students for Teaching Letters [optional]
  7. External Funding

2. Department: Materials Provided by the Department or Unit

a. External Reviews/ Peer Evaluators

ALL solicitations for letters must be done by the department and not the candidate. A copy of the solicitation letter must be included in the dossier. The role of external evaluators is to assess the candidate’s accomplishments, stature in the field and future promise. The reviewers should be at the rank of full professor or equivalent.

  • Evaluators Selected the Department. Letters of evaluation from at least five, but no more than seven, recognized leaders in the field outside Cornell who have neither been closely associated with, nor selected by, the candidate.
  • Evaluators Suggested by the Candidate. The department should also provide letters from evaluators suggested by the candidate. Three to five such letters should be submitted. If the evaluator is a co-author or collaborator of the candidate, the letter should address the candidate's contribution to the work.

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

  • Chosen content should be discussed with the chair but must include the CV.
  • Statements regarding research, teaching, service and community engagement/outreach (if relevant) should be included.
  • 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 documents that are not (yet) intended for free public viewing.
  • External Evaluators 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.

The Charge to Evaluators: The role of external evaluators is to assess the candidate's accomplishments, stature in the field and future promise. The letters should request evaluation, not support. 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.2 External evaluators should be given a charge that is specific as possible. Instructions to external evaluators must include the following bullet points to guide them in their assessment reports:

  • Describe any contact, relationship or collaboration with the candidate.
  • What contributions has the candidate made to the knowledge base in their field?
  • Describe the candidate's impact on the field. Have their contributions earned a national or international reputation?
  • Please assess both the quantity and quality of the candidate's work.
  • What is your assessment of the candidate as a teacher or mentor?
  • What is your assessment of the candidate's community engagement/outreach work [if relevant]?
  • How do you view the candidate's trajectory and future promise?
  • What is your assessment of the candidate's service to the profession at the local, national or international level?
  • Please provide your opinion of the candidate as to whether this person should be awarded tenure and promoted to Professor in our unit at Cornell.

2HR Guidelines for Tenure Track Promotion

Note: Letters solicited from peer Evaluators 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 Evaluators.

  1. Table of External Reviewers: The file must 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. In addition, the overlap between the two lists should be documented. Each of these tables must include the following information: names and institutions of all reviewers invited to serve as evaluators 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).
  2. Brief CV/ biosketches (3 page limit) for all External Reviewers selected by the department and suggested by the candidate.
Checklist: External reviews:
  1. Table of External Reviewers; must include all reviewers invited to review the candidate.
    1. External Reviewers selected by the department. (minimum of 5 and not more than 7)
    2. External Reviewers suggested by the candidate. (minimum of 3 and not more than 5)
    3. Indication of "overlap" — evaluators suggested by both department and candidate.
    4. Solicitation letters for each type of evaluator.
  2. Letters from External Reviewers Selected by Department
  3. Letters from External Reviewers Suggested by the Candidate
  4. Solicitation letter sent to External Reviewers
  5. Bio sketch (3 pages or less) of each external reviewer to indicate the credentials, current institution, and specialties.

b. Teaching Materials

  1. Courses Taught. Prepare a table of courses taught by the candidate each year since tenure was awarded, including enrollments in each course.
  2. Student Course Evaluations. These should be summarized in a table and not prepared by the candidate.
  3. Student Letters
  • Table of Responses
  • Copy of Solicitation Letter
  • Teaching letters: Include 5-10 letters from students who have completed the candidate's Cornell course(s). These letters should be solicited by the unit and not by the candidate. Candidates may suggest students for the chair/director to solicit, but no more than 50% of letters in this section may come from students suggested by the candidate.
  • Student Advising letters. Include 5-10 letters from representative student advisees selected and solicited by the unit. The letters should represent a sampling of undergraduate academic advisees, undergraduate research advisees, and graduate students.
  1. 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*.
Checklist: Teaching Materials
  1. Courses Taught in table format.
  2. Student Course Evaluations are summarized in a table
  3. A copy of the solicitation letter
  4. Student letters
    1. Table of Responses
    2. Copy of Solicitation Letter
    3. Teaching Letters (minimum of 5 and not more than 10)
    4. Advising Letters (minimum of 5 and not more than 10)
  5. Faculty Course Assessment

*University Faculty Handbook

c. 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. Faculty letters should be listed by faculty name. when part of departmental guidelines, the dossier should include a departmental review committee report.

Checklist: Faculty Assessments
  1. Individual faculty assessments from tenured full professors.
  2. Departmental review committee report, if the department does such a review.

d. Position Description and Appointment Letter. 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 that altered expectations of the position (again with any salary information redacted). Any written response by the candidate to the above should also be included. Include a copy of the letter approving promotion to associate professor with tenure. 

Checklist: Position Description and Appointment Letter.
  1. Position Description and Appointment Letter
    1. Original position description
    2. Original appointment letter
    3. If applicable, subsequent letters that altered expectations of the position.
    4. Copy of the letter approving promotion to associate professor with tenure.

e. 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 the Chair's Letter or include a statement of explanation here. These should be sorted by year with most recent first.

Checklist: Annual Reviews
  1. Annual Reviews-most recent first

f. 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 Assessments" above)

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 Assessments" (above), not here.

Checklist: Department Recommendation
  1. Department Head Recommendation

Guidelines for promotion to Associate Professor with Tenure

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, please consult with the Senior Associate Dean.

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. The basic criteria for promotion and tenure or for the award of tenure only are found in the faculty handbook, section 4.12, "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. CALS guidelines

**University Criteria 

A. Timeline Overview

Electronic PDF dossiers containing information for promotion to associate professor with tenure should be submitted by the department via interfolio by the following dates:

  • 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 dossier is delivered via interfolio, 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 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 department level can be found here: Faculty Handbook for appealing decisions for tenure.

B. Documentation Required

1. Candidate: Materials Provided by the Candidate:

The dossier should be submitted via interfolio.  Within interfolio, the candidate may save work and return to add or edit materials.

a. Suggested External Reviewers:

One of the candidate's first tasks is to suggest at least six possible external reviewers including their name, institution, title, and email. Please note that ALL solicitations for letters must be done by the department and not by the candidate. Three of the six suggested reviewers may be within 'arm's length' (i.e., collaborators on publications or grants, etc.).

b. Candidate CV: 

The candidate should provide a completed and comprehensive CV.

c. Candidates Statements:
  • Teaching Statement. [limit: 5 pages] The candidate should provide a statement describing teaching goals and accomplishments. It is appropriate to provide a thoughtful self-analysis of your performance, successes, concerns, and expectations of teaching effort, including a statement of your efforts to improve instruction. This may include current teaching  efforts and improvements made over time in such areas as instructional delivery, course content, instructional design, evaluation of student learning, and effective feedback. This statement should be no longer than 5 pages.
  • Advising and Mentorship Statement. [limit: 3 pages] Please describe your experience advising and mentoring undergraduate and graduate students, as well as postdoctoral fellows, if relevant. Reflection on the culture of your lab is welcome. Include efforts to improve your mentorship skills, such as training and workshops. This statement should be no longer than 3 pages.
  • Research Statement. [limit: 5 pages] Provide a statement describing goals and objectives for your research program, including substantive research accomplishments, activities, or discoveries. The overall intent is to make a compelling case for the candidate's ability to provide leadership for their discipline in discovering new knowledge through creative analysis and synthesis. Include a link to your Google Scholar Profile and report H-index and i10 index. Publications and grants are listed on the CV and do not need to be repeated here except to illustrate how certain products relate to your research themes. This statement should be no longer than 5 pages.
  • Community Engagement/Outreach Statement. (optional) [limit: 5 pages] The candidate may provide a statement describing work what is community-engaged. Community-engaged scholarship addresses real-world community issues, involves the co-creation of knowledge, shared authority between academics and community experts, is bidirectional, and requires long-term investment in relationship building. The products of community-engaged scholarship may include the implementation of a new policy or program, the community partner's application of findings from the collaboration, or the creation of a durable and public-facing product. The candidate may also choose to share other aspects of the impact of their work, such as on policy, practice, and design. Thei statement should be no longer than 5 pages.
  • Service Statement. [limit: 3 pages] Provide a statement describing evidence of service to the community, your field, the department, the college, and the university. This statement should be no longer than 3 pages.
d. Publications
  • Publication List. The candidate must submit a list of five recent, representative publications. For each publication, provide a brief description (not the abstract) indicating the importance of the work and your role in the publication. Not to exceed 1 page.
  • Publications. Provide a PDF of each of the five listed publications. These publications should match the five publications in your list, with brief descriptions.
e. Course Syllabi

The most recent syllabus for each course taught.

f. Suggested Students for Teaching Letters

Letters from students who have completed your course(s) are solicited by the chair/director. You may suggest up to 10 students for the chair/director to solicit.

g. External funding. 

The candidate should provide a summary of external funding sought to support research, teaching, and extension functions. The candidate should include Cornell funding int eh summary. The summary should include grants both sought and received, grants sought but not received, and pending proposals - separated into three lists:

  • Successful proposals and total dollar support received: On successful grants, indicate the project title, funding agency, and total support received. For projects with multiple principal investigators, include the candidate's role in proposal preparation and project execution, as well as the percentage of the grant allotted to the candidate's program.
  • Grants applied for but not received: On unsuccessful proposals, note the proposed title, funding agency, support requested, collaborators, and date submitted.
  • Pending Proposals: Include the project title, funding agency, amount requested, collaborators (if any), and submission date.
Checklist: Candidate Materials
  1. Suggested External Reviewers
  2. Candidate's CV
  3. Candidate Statements:
    1. Teaching Statement
    2. Advising/Mentorship Statement
    3. Research Statement (include Google Scholar metrics)
    4. Community Engagement/Outreach Statement (optional)
    5. Service Statement
  4. Publications
    1. Publications List (limit of five)
    2. Publications
  5. Course Syllabi for each course taught
  6. Suggested Students for Teaching Letters (optional)
  7. External Funding

2. Department: Materials Provided by the Department or Unit

a. External Reviews / Peer Evaluators

ALL solicitations for letters must be done by the department and not by the candidate. A copy of the solicitation letter must be included in the dossier. The role of the external evaluators is to assess the candidate's accomplishments, stature in the field, and future promise. The reviewers should be at the rank of tenure professor or equivalent.

  • Evaluators Selected 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.
  • Evaluators Suggested by the Candidate. The department should also provide letters from evaluators suggested by the candidate. Three to five such letters should be submitted. If the evaluator is a co-author or collaborator of the candidate, the letter should address the candidate's contribution to the work. 

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

  • Chosen content should be discussed with the chair, but must include the CV.
  • Statements regarding research, teaching, service and community engagement/outreach (if relevant) should be included.
  • 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 documents that are not (yet) intended for free public viewing.
  • External Evaluators are not in the position to interpret course evaluations so data should never be included for external review. On the other hand, course syllabi, assignments, and examples of student work should be included.

Please review https://theuniversityfaculty.cornell.edu/news/the-tenure-track-project/e-external-reviewer-selection/

The Charge to Evaluators: The role of external evaluators is to assess the candidate's accomplishments, stature in the field, and future promise. 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.*** External evaluators should be given a charge that is as specific as possible. Instructions to external reviewers must include the following bullet points to guide them in their assessment reports: 

  • Describe any contact, relationship or collaboration with the candidate
  • What contributions has the candidate made to the knowledge base in their field?
  • Describe the candidate's impact on the field. Have their contributions earned a national or international reputation?
  • Please assess both the quantity and quality of the candidate's work.
  • What is your assessment of the candidate as a teacher or mentor?
  • What is your assessment of the candidate's community engagement/outreach work [if relevant]?
  • How do you view the candidate's trajectory and future promise?
  • What is your assessment of the candidate's service to the profession at the local, national or international level?
  • Please provide your candidate's opinion of whether this person should be awarded tenure and promoted to Associate Professor in our unit at Cornell.

Note: Letters solicited from peer evaluators 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 Evaluators. 

***HR Guidelines for Tenure Track Promotions

  • Table of External Reviewers: The file must 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. In addition, the overlap between the two list must be documented. Each of these tables must include the following information: names and institutions of al reviewers invited to serve as evaluators 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 (noting that this was the case).
  • Brief CV / biosketches (3 page limit) for all External Reviewers selected by the department and suggested by the candidate.

 

Checklist: External Reviews
  1. Table of all Evaluators solicited in table format. The table should include:
    1. Evaluators suggested by the department. (minimum of 5 and not more than 7)
    2. Evaluators suggested by the candidate. (minimum of 3 and not more than 5(
    3. Indication of "overlap" - evaluators suggested by both the department and the candidate.
  2. Letters from External Reviewers selected by the Department.
  3. Letters from External Reviewers suggested by the Candidate.
  4. Solicitation letter sent to External Reviewers
  5. Bio sketch (3 pages or less) of each external reviewer to indicate the credentials, current institution, and specialties. 
b. Teaching Materials
  1. 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.
  2. Student Course Evaluations. These should be summarized in a table and not prepared by the candidate.
  3. Student Letters.
    1. Table of responses
    2. Copy of the solicitation letters.
    3. Teaching letters: Include 5-10 letters from students who have completed the candidate's Cornell course(s). These letters should be solicited by the unit and not by the candidate. Candidates may suggest students for the chair/director to solicit, but no more than 50% of letters in this section may come from students suggested by the candidate. This section must contain a copy of the request letter, a list of students contacted, the method of student selection, and the rate of response.
    4. Student advising letters. Include 5-10 letters from representative student advisees selected and solicited by the unit. The letters should represent a sampling of undergraduate academic advisees, undergraduate research advisee, and graduate students.
  4. 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: Teaching Materials
  1. Courses Taught in table format.
  2. Student Course Evaluations are summarized in a table.
  3. Student Letters
    1. Table of Responses
    2. Copy of Solicitation Letter
    3. Teaching Letters (minimum of 5 and not more than 10)
    4. Advising Letters (minimum of 5 and not more than 10)
  4. Faculty Course Assessment
c. Faculty  Assessment

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 msut 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 Assessments
  1. Individual faculty assessments from each tenured faculty member int eh home unit.
  2. Departmental review committee report, if the department does such a review.
d. Position Description and Appointment Letter.

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.

Checklist: Position Description and Appointment Letter

  1. Position Description and Appointment Letter
  2. Original position description
  3. Original appointment letter
  4. If applicable, subsequent letters that altered expectations of the position
e. Annual Review

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 an annual review, the Chair must address reasons in the Chair's Letter or include a statement of explanation here. These should be sorted by year with the most recent first.

Checklist: Annual Review
  1. Annual Reviews-most recent first
f. Department Head Recommendation

Letter from the Department Chair to the Dean with the recommendation regarding promotion and tenure. The letter should include the date of the 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".)

The letter should include the Chair's Evaluation of the performance of the candidate in each function for which he or she carries responsibility. Theis 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 venue where the candidate's work has appeared. The letter should also address the candidate's teaching and may address community engagement/outreach. 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 the "Faculty Letters", not here.

Checklist
  1. Unit Head recommendation letter

Reappointment Procedures for Assistant Professors

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 reappointment to another three-year term. University guidelines on reappointments can be found here:

University reappointment process

Timeline for Reappointments:

Electronic PDF dossiers containing information for reappointment to assistant professors should be delivered by the department via Secure Filt Transfer (SFT) (https://sft.cornell.edu/login/) to the Dean's assistant using the following deadlines:

  • By May 1 for an effective date of July 1
  • By October 1 for an effective date of January 1

The following are the 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 dossier, as outlined below, to the Senior Associate Dean.
  3. The Academic 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, copying the College Human Resources Director.
  5. In the event of a negative recommendation, University guidelines are followed.
Checklist: Reappointment dossiers include:
  1. A letter from the chair/director making a recommendation for or against reappointment and reporting the vote of the tenured faculty.
  2. Current CV
  3. Candidate Statements: statement of accomplishments and goals, including relevance to the mission of the department/unit and the College. (Maximum 3 pages per statement).
    1. Research Statement
    2. Teaching Statement
    3. Community Engagement (optional)

Teaching:

  1. Letters of evaluation on teaching. At least one classroom observation and report from the prior 18 months completed by a tenured faculty member.
  2. Evaluation letters: from faculty members
  3. Syllabi, teaching assignments, sample student work, exams, etc. (most recent only)
  4. Feedback from mentees:
    1. Letters from TA's and graduate student advisees regarding the candidate's teaching, advising, and mentoring.

Guidelines for Tenure for External Hires to Associate or Full Professor

The purpose of these guidelines is to help the candidate and department prepare the strongest possible dossier for the awarding of tenure to newly hired associate or full professors.1 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. 

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. The basic criteria for promotion and tenure or for the award of tenure only are found in the Faculty Handbook, section 4.12,  “excellence in carrying out the responsibilities of the position, and unusual promise for continued achievement.”2

Unit Name:

Candidate’s Name:    

  1. Associate Professor with Tenure
  2. Full Professor with Tenure
  3. Streamlined Process
  4. Start Date

Special Consideration: Streamlined Review Process. The Provost's office (as of April 2023) allows a streamlined review process in cases of lateral hires of Associate Professors and Full Professors. 

  1. Consult with the Senior Associate Dean as to the appropriateness of a streamlined review.  The Dean’s office will then inform the provost’s office.
  2. Provide the department’s tenured faculty 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, beyond the required 3, can be solicited if the department so chooses but are not required.
  3. A departmental faculty meeting of tenured faculty (associate and full professors) is held to discuss and vote on tenure, following departmental protocol.
    1. Both Associate and full professors vote on tenure;
    2. Only Full professors vote on appointment to full professor.
    3. Faculty votes are accompanied by letters from each faculty member explaining votes.
  4. Department Chair submits dossier including the candidate’s CV, 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. The timeline for streamlined review is an expedited one.  Please communicate with the Senior Associate Dean to clarify the timeline for your particular case. 

1The College of Agriculture and Life Sciences has similar guidelines, which served as a key resource in the development of the current document.
2Faculty Handbook section 4.1.2 University Criteria

Non-Streamlined Review Process

A. Timeline

Electronic PDF dossiers containing information for promotion to associate professor with tenure should be submitted by the department via Interfolio by the following dates: 

  • 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 dossier is delivered via Interfolio, 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 makes 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 to the Provost from the Dean and Senior Associate Dean

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: Appealing a negative decision

B. Documentation Required 

1. Candidate: Materials Provided by the Candidate:

The dossier materials should be submitted via Interfolio. Within Interfolio, the candidate may save work and return to add or edit materials.

a. Suggested External Reviewers: One of the candidate's first tasks is to suggest at least six possible external reviewers including their name, institution, title, and email. Please note that ALL solicitations for letters must be done by the department and not by the candidate. Three of the six suggested reviewers may be within 'arm's length' (i.e., collaborators on publications or grants, etc.).

b. Candidate CV: The candidate should provide a complete and comprehensive CV.

c. Candidate Statements

  • Teaching Statement. [limit: 5 pages] The candidate should provide a statement describing teaching goals and accomplishments. It is appropriate to provide a thoughtful self-analysis of your performance, successes, concerns, and expectations of teaching effort, including a statement of your efforts to improve instruction. This may include current teaching efforts and improvements made over time in such areas as instructional delivery, course content, instructional design, evaluation of student learning, and effective feedback. This statement should be no longer than 5 pages.
  • Advising and Mentorship Statement. [limit: 3 pages] Please describe your experience advising and mentoring undergraduate and graduate students, as well as postdoctoral fellows, if relevant. Reflection on the culture of your lab is welcome. Include efforts to improve your mentorship skills, such as training and workshops. This statement should be no longer than 3 pages.
  • Research Statement. [limit: 5 pages] Provide a statement describing goals and objectives for your research program, including substantive research accomplishments, activities, or discoveries. The overall intent is to make a compelling case for the candidate's ability to provide leadership for their discipline in discovering new knowledge through creative analysis and synthesis. Include a link to your Google Scholar Profile and report H-index and i10 index. Publications and grants are listed on the CV and do not need to be repeated here except to illustrate how certain products related to your research themes. This statement should be no longer than 5 pages.
  • Community Engagement/ Outreach Statement. (optional) [limit: 5 pages] The candidate may provide a statement describing work that is community-engaged. Community-engaged scholarship addresses real-world, community issues, involves the co-creation of knowledge, shared authority between academics and community experts, is bidirectional and requires long-term investment in relationship building. The products of community-engaged scholarship may include the implementation of a new policy or program, the community partner’s application of findings from the collaboration, or the creation of a durable and public-facing product. The candidate may also choose to share other aspects of the impact of their work, such as on policy, practice and design. This statement should be no longer than 5 pages.
  • Service Statement. [limit: 3 pages] Provide a statement describing evidence of service to the community, your field, the department, the college, and the university. This statement should be no longer than 3 pages.

d. Publications

  • Publication List. The candidate must submit a list of five recent, representative publications. For each publication, provide a brief description (not the abstract) indicating the importance of the work and your role in the publication. Not to exceed 1 page.
  • Publications. Provide a PDF of each of the five listed publications. These publications should match the five publications in your list, with brief descriptions.

e. Course Syllabi. The most recent syllabus for each course taught.

f. Assignments and examples of student work should be included.

g. External funding. The candidate should provide a summary of external funding sought to support research, teaching, and extension functions. The candidate should include Cornell funding in the summary. The summary should include grants both sought and received, grants sought but not received, and pending proposals - separated into three lists:

  • Successful proposals and total dollar support received: On successful grants, indicate the project title, funding agency, and total support received. For projects with multiple principal investigators, include the candidate's role in proposal preparation and project execution, as well as the percentage of the grant allotted to the candidate's program.
  • Grants applied for but not received: On unsuccessful proposals, note the proposed title, funding agency, support requested, collaborators, and date submitted.
  • Pending proposals: Include the project title, funding agency, amount requested, collaborators (if any), and submission date.
Checklist
  1. Suggested External Reviewers
  2. Candidate's CV
  3. Candidates Statement
    1. Teaching Statement
    2. Advising/Mentorship Statement
    3. Research Statement (including Google Scholar metrics)
    4. Community Engagement/ Outreach Statement [optional]
    5. Service Statement
  4. Publications
    1. Publications List (limit of five)
    2. Publications
  5. Course Syllabi for each course taught
  6. External Funding
2. Department: Materials Provided by the Department or Unit 

a. External Reviews/ Peer Evaluators

ALL solicitations for letters must be done by the department and not by the candidate.  A copy of the solicitation letter must be included in the dossier. The role of the external evaluators is to assess the candidate's accomplishments, stature in the field, and future promise. The reviewers should be at the rank of tenure professor or equivalent. 

  • 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.
  • Evaluators Suggested by the Candidate. The department should also provide letters from evaluators suggested by the candidate. Three to five such letters should be submitted. If the evaluator is a co-author or collaborator of the candidate, the letter should address the candidate's contribution to the work.

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

  • Chosen content should be discussed with the chair, but must include the CV.
  • Statements regarding research, teaching, service, and community engagement/ outreach (if relevant) should be included.
  • 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 documents that are not (yet) intended for free public viewing.
  • External Evaluators are not in the position to interpret course evaluations so data should never be included for external review. On the other hand, course syllabi, assignments, and examples of student work should be included.

Please review the Faculty Handbook

 The Charge to Evaluators: The role of external evaluators is to assess the candidate’s accomplishments, stature in the field and future promise. 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 External evaluators should be given a charge that is as specific as possible. Instructions to external Evaluators must include the following bullet points to guide them in their assessment reports: 

  • Describe any contact, relationship or collaboration with the candidate.
  • What contributions has the candidate made to the knowledge base in their field?
  • Describe the candidate’s impact on the field. Have their contributions earned a national or international reputation?
  • Please assess both the quantity and quality of the candidate’s work.
  • What is your assessment of the candidate as a teacher or mentor?
  • What is your assessment of the candidate’s community engagement/ outreach work [if relevant]?
  • How do you view the candidate’s trajectory and future promise?
  • What is your assessment of the candidate’s service to the profession at the local, national or international level?
  • Please provide your candidate's opinion of whether this person should be awarded tenure and promoted to Associate Professor in our unit at Cornell.

Note: Letters solicited from peer Evaluators 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 Evaluators.

Table of External Reviewers: The file must 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. In addition, the overlap between the two lists must be documented. Each of these tables must include the following information: names and institutions of all reviewers invited to serve as evaluators 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 (noting that this was the case).

Brief CV/ biosketches (3 page limit) for all External Reviewers selected by the department and suggested by the candidate.

Checklist: External Reviews
  1. Table of all Evaluators solicited in table format. The table should include:
    1. Evaluators suggested by the department. (minimum of 5 and not more than 7)
    2. Evaluators suggested by the candidate. (minimum of 3 and not more than 5)
    3. Indication of "overlap" - evaluators suggested by both the department and the candidate.
  2. Letters from External Reviewers Selected by the Department
  3. Letters from External Reviewers Suggested by the Candidate
  4. Solicitation letter sent to External Reviewers
  5. Bio sketch (three pages or less) of each external reviewer to indicate the credentials, current institution, and specialties.

3HR Guidelines for Tenure Track Promotions

b. Teaching Materials

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 where 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. 

Checklist: Teaching Materials
  1. Courses taught in table format.
  2. Student course Evaluations are summarized in a table.

c. 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 Assessments
  1. Individual faculty assessments from each tenured faculty member in the home unit.
  2. Departmental review committee report, if the department does such a review.

d. Position Description and Appointment Letter. 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.

Checklist: Position Description and Appointment Letter.
  1. Position description and Appointment letter.
  2. Original position description
  3. Original appointment letter
  4. If applicable, subsequent letters that altered expectations of the position.

e. Department Head Recommendation. Letter from the Department Chair to the Dean with the recommendation regarding promotion and tenure. The letter should include the date of the 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 and may address community engagement/ outreach. 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: Department recommendation.
  1. Unit head recommendation letter (Internal Review Committee letters are included in section 2 below.)
Jump To: