Go to m.barnard.edu for the Mobile Barnard web app or download it from the App Store or Google Play.

Appendix H

Schedule and Procedures for Recommending Internal Promotions to the ATP to the Ranks of Professor, Associate or Full Professor of Professional Practice,  and Senior Lecturer or Senior Associate

(formally Appendix F)

This memo concerns internal promotions only, i.e. those from Associate Professor to Professor, from Assistant or Associate Professor of Professional Practice to Associate or Full Professor of Professional Practice, and from Associate or Lecturer to Senior Associate or Senior Lecturer.

Generally, the ATP schedule in fall semesters concentrates on tenure cases that must go to Columbia for the spring standing committee. Most internal promotion cases, therefore, are dealt with in the spring. To ensure that we can handle and schedule the load, the ATP has now established an annual deadline of March 1st by which time a completed internal promotion dossier must be submitted to the Provost's office in order to guarantee full consideration by the ATP and President before the end of the academic year. Any received thereafter may have to wait for the following year, with the attendant delay in effective date (and salary adjustment).

Chairs must inform the Provost by November 15th whether the department is considering any internal promotions so a sufficient number of meetings may be planned for the spring term.         

Below are links to the standard language for letters to external referees:    

Appendix H-1. College's Standard Letter to Solicit Review by Referees for Promotion to Full Professor

Appendix H-2. College's Standard Letter to Solicit Review by Referees for Promotion to Associate or Full Professor of Professional Practice

Appendix H-3  College’s Standard Letter to Solicit Review by Referees for Promotion to Senior Lecturer or Senior Associate

I. Expectations and Criteria for Promotion to Full Professor 

Tenured associate professors have the responsibility to indicate to their Department Chair when they wish to be considered for promotion to Professor, usually not until they have been in rank for at least five years.  The tenured full professors of the department will make an initial assessment of the individual’s record while in rank, and may confer with the Provost should there be questions about the criteria for proceeding with the promotion review.  Should the tenured full professors make a positive initial assessment, a promotion dossier will be assembled as indicated below.  If there are fewer than two tenured full professors in the department to conduct this review, the Provost should be consulted about appointing a committee to oversee the promotion process.

Promotion to the rank of Professor is not automatic; rather, achievement in the areas of scholarship and professional accomplishment, teaching, and service is expected.  While it is understood that candidates will present records which vary in the balance of achievements in the three major domains of evaluation, there must be convincing evidence of excellence to make the case for promotion.  Clear distinction of achievement must be demonstrated in at least two areas of the three areas, with sound performance (or better) in the third.

Guidelines for Promotion to Full Professor:

Some of the primary types of documentation the ATP evaluates when considering dossiers for promotion to Professor are listed below.  Those marked with an asterisk (*) are generally considered essential elements for a successful decision.

  1.  Scholarship and Professional Accomplishment

*Evidence of substantial progress on research projects since tenure, generally shown by publication in peer-reviewed journals or presses.

*Evidence of the quality and impact of the candidate’s work which may include citations by other noted scholars, reviews of the candidate’s work, invitations for lectures, contributions to edited volumes, or awards for research from external agencies.

      2.  Teaching   

*Evidence of continued excellence in classroom teaching, advising and mentoring.

Evidence of curriculum development through, for example, new courses or pedagogical approaches; participation at the level of the department, interdisciplinary program or College in curriculum revision; and presentations and/or publication on, or awards for, innovative pedagogy.

  1.   Service

*Evidence of substantial commitment to College service beyond the level of the department, e.g. service on major College elected, appointed or ad hoc committees; service as Department Chair or Program Director; contribution to other College-wide activities.

Evidence of leadership roles in departmental committees, including the Columbia department as appropriate.

Evidence of service to extra-departmental entities at Columbia University.

Evidence of activity in professional organizations such as association officer, conference organizer or panel moderator.

The quality and extent of such service work will factor into the decision on promotion.

Internal Promotion Dossier Instructions – Promotion to Full Professor

1) A complete cv in the general format as recommended by the ATP (Appendix G); it should be marked to indicate what has been published since the last promotion or appointment.

2) A statement by the candidate on elements of teaching, research and service and focusing on information since the last promotion or appointment.

3) A statement by the Chair on behalf of the tenured full professors of the department or the faculty committee appointed to consider the promotion focusing on and evaluating the assembled information about teaching, research and service since the last promotion or appointment.

4) Copies of all scholarly or creative work published by the candidate since the last promotion or appointment.  Grant applications and reviews of published work should also be included.

5) Representative syllabi of courses taught since tenure or appointment; other course material as appropriate.

6) Required as evidence of teaching ability since last promotion or appointment:

     a) summaries of student course evaluation data, including unredacted answers to open-ended questions; the department is expected to supply appropriate comparative data on student course evaluations;

     b) letters from recent alumnae who have been taught and/or advised by the candidate for promotion.

Should the department chair find high variability among the evaluations provided by students on the standard course evaluations or serious discordance between and among the course evaluations and letters from upper level students/alumnae, the chair is expected to schedule at least one class observation to be performed by the chair or the chair’s designee.  The chair will then be able to incorporate the results of the class observation(s) into the Chair’s Statement, and address the nature and import of the variability of student responses.

For ideas on other optional material that can supplement a candidate’s promotion dossier with respect to teaching quality, Appendix F may be consulted; this document describes forms of evidence approved by the ATP for consideration of candidates standing for tenure.

7) Copies of letters from external reviewers obtained through the following process:

     a) at least three and up to five outside letters are required; some may be from people who wrote for the previous tenure/promotion decision;

     b) a letter from a person in the candidate's field from the Columbia department is desirable and may count for one of minimum three external letters;

     c) the Chair may ask for suggestions of referees from the candidate, but should use the suggestions as a source for other names;

     d) the dossier must include a notation from the Chair as to how the referees were selected;

     e) the Chair is encouraged to email or call potential referees in advance of mailing the dossier to determine their willingness to review;

     f) the letter soliciting review by the referees should follow the general format of the College's standard letter H-1; if the Chair feels that substantial changes in wording are necessary for a particular case, s/he should consult with the Provost.

     g) the dossier sent to reviewers should include:

  • the candidate’s cv and statement;
  • copies of all scholarly or creative work published by the candidate since the last promotion or appointment;
  • grant applications and reviews of published work as appropriate;
  • representative syllabi of courses taught since tenure or appointment; other course material as appropriate.

II. Expectations and Criteria for Promotion in the Professor of Professional Practice Series

The timeline for promotion to Associate or Full Professor of Professional Practice may be found in the Code of Academic Freedom and Tenure. Those full-time faculty of the department holding higher rank will make an initial assessment of the individual’s record since appointment or last promotion, and may confer with the Provost should there be questions about the criteria for proceeding with the promotion review.  Should the voting members make a positive initial assessment, a promotion dossier will be assembled as indicated below.  If there are fewer than two voting members in the department to conduct this review, the Provost should be consulted about appointing a committee to oversee the promotion process.

Promotion to higher ranks in the Professor of Professional Practice series is not automatic; rather, achievement in the areas of creative activity and professional accomplishment, teaching, and service is expected.  While it is understood that candidates will present records which vary in the balance of achievements in the three major domains of evaluation, there must be convincing evidence of excellence to make the case for promotion.  Clear distinction of achievement must be demonstrated in at least two areas of the three areas, with sound performance (or better) in the third.

Guidelines for Promotion in the Professor of Professional Practice (POPP) Series:

            Some of the primary types of  documentation the ATP  evaluates when considering dossiers for promotion in the POPP series are listed below.  Those marked with an asterisk (*) are generally considered essential elements for a successful decision.

1. Creative Activity and Professional Accomplishment

*Evidence of substantial creative activity and professional accomplishment since the initial appointment or last promotion in the specific area of the creative or performing arts associated with the candidate under review.

*Evidence of the quality and impact of the candidate’s work which may include reviews and citations by critics or scholars, invitations for lectures and other professional activity related to the art form(s), or awards for creative excellence from external agencies or sources.

2. Teaching

*Evidence of continued excellence in classroom/studio teaching, advising and mentoring.

Evidence of curriculum development through, for example, new courses or pedagogical approaches; participation at the level of the department, interdisciplinary program or College in curriculum revision; and  presentations and/or publication on, or awards for, innovative pedagogy.

3. Service

*Evidence of  commitment to College service beyond the level of the department; for promotion to Full Professor of Professional Practice, the record should include service on major College elected, appointed or ad hoc committees, or service as Department Chair or Program Director; contribution to other College-wide activities.

Evidence of leadership roles in departmental committees, including the Columbia department as appropriate.

Evidence of service to extra-departmental entities at Columbia University.

Evidence of activity in professional organizations such as association officer, conference organizer or panel moderator.

The quality and extent of such service work will factor into the decision on promotion.

Internal Promotion Dossier Instructions – Promotion in the Professor of Professional Practice Series

1) A complete cv in the general format as recommended by the ATP (Appendix G), annotated to indicate new accomplishments since the last promotion or appointment.

2) A statement by the candidate on elements of teaching, creative activity and professional accomplishment, and service, focusing on information since the last promotion or appointment.

3) A statement by the Chair on behalf of the faculty of higher rank in the department or the faculty committee appointed to consider the promotion focusing on information about teaching, creative activity and professional accomplishment, and service since the last promotion or appointment.

4) Documentation of the creative activity and professional accomplishment by the candidate since the last promotion or appointment.

5) Representative syllabi of courses taught since the last promotion or appointment; other course material as appropriate.

6) Required as evidence of teaching ability since last promotion or appointment:

     a) summaries of student course evaluation data, including unredacted answers to open-ended questions; the department is expected to supply appropriate comparative data on student course evaluations;

     b) letters from recent alumnae who have been taught and/or advised by the candidate for promotion.

Should the department chair find high variability among the evaluations provided by students on the standard course evaluations or serious discordance between and among the course evaluations and letters from upper level students/alumnae, the chair is expected to schedule at least one class observation to be performed by the chair or the chair’s designee.  The chair will then be able to incorporate the results of the class observation(s) into the Chair’s Statement, and address the nature and import of the variability of student responses.

For ideas on other optional material that can supplement a candidate’s promotion dossier with respect to teaching quality, Appendix F may be consulted; this document describes forms of evidence approved by the ATP for consideration of candidates standing for tenure.

7) Copies of letters from external reviewers obtained through the following process:

     a) at least three and up to five outside letters are required; some may be from people who wrote for the previous appointment/promotion decision;

     b) a letter from a person in the candidate's field from the Columbia department is desirable and may count for one of minimum three external letters;

     c) the Chair may ask for suggestions of referees from the candidate, but should use the suggestions as a source for other names;

     d) the dossier must include a notation from the Chair as to how the referees were selected;

     e) the Chair is encouraged to email or call potential referees in advance of mailing the dossier to determine their willingness to review;

     f) the letter soliciting review by the referees should follow the general format of the College's standard letter H-2; if the Chair feels that substantial changes in wording are necessary for a particular case, s/he should consult with the Provost.

     g) the dossier sent to reviewers should include:

  • the candidate’s cv and statement;
  • copies of all scholarly or creative work published by the candidate since the last promotion or appointment;
  • grant applications and reviews of published work as appropriate;
  • representative syllabi of courses taught since last promotion or appointment; other course material as appropriate.

III. Expectations and Criteria for Promotion to Senior Lecturer or Senior Associate

The timeline for promotion to Senior Associate or Senior Lecturer may be found in the Code of Academic Freedom and Tenure. The full-time faculty of the department holding higher rank will make an initial assessment of the individual’s record while in rank, and may confer with the Provost should there be questions about the criteria for proceeding with the promotion review.  Should the voting faculty make a positive initial assessment, a promotion dossier will be assembled as indicated below.  If there are fewer than two voting faculty in the department to conduct this review, the Provost should be consulted about appointing a committee to oversee the promotion process.

Promotion to the rank of Senior Lecturer or Senior Associate is not automatic; rather, achievement in the areas of  teaching, and service is expected.  While it is understood that candidates will present records which vary in the balance of achievements in the two major domains of evaluation, there must be convincing evidence of excellence in both to make the case for promotion. 

Guidelines for Promotion to Senior Lecturer or Senior Associate:

Some of the primary types of documentation the ATP evaluates when considering dossiers for promotion to Senior Lecturer or Senior Associate are listed below.  Those marked with an asterisk (*) are generally considered essential elements for a successful decision.

1. Teaching   

*Evidence of continued excellence in classroom teaching, advising and mentoring.

*Evidence of curriculum development through, for example, new courses or pedagogical approaches; participation at the level of the department, interdisciplinary program or College in curriculum revision; and  presentations and/or publication on, or awards for, innovative pedagogy.

2. Service

Evidence of leadership roles in departmental committees, including the Columbia department as appropriate.

Evidence of commitment to College service beyond the level of the department, e.g. service on major College elected, appointed or ad hoc committees; service as Assistant Chair or Program Director; contribution to other College-wide activities.

Evidence of activity in professional organizations such as association officer, conference organizer or panel moderator.

The quality and extent of such service work will factor into the decision on promotion.

Internal Promotion Dossier Instructions – Promotion to Senior Lecturer or Senior Associate

1) A complete cv in the general format as recommended by the ATP (Appendix G), annotated to indicate accomplishments since the initial appointment.

2) A statement by the candidate on elements of teaching and service.

3) A statement by the Chair on behalf of voting members of the department or the faculty committee appointed to consider the promotion focusing on information about teaching and service since the initial appointment.

4) Representative syllabi of courses taught since appointment; other course material as appropriate.

5) Required as evidence of teaching ability since last promotion or appointment:

     a) summaries of student course evaluation data, including unredacted answers to open-ended questions; the department is expected to supply appropriate comparative data on student course evaluations;

     b) letters from recent alumnae who have been taught and/or advised by the candidate for promotion.

Should the department chair find high variability among the evaluations provided by students on the standard course evaluations or serious discordance between and among the course evaluations and letters from upper level students/alumnae, the chair is expected to schedule at least one class observation to be performed by the chair or the chair’s designee.  The chair will then be able to incorporate the results of the class observation(s) into the Chair’s Statement, and address the nature and import of the variability of student responses.

For ideas on other optional material that can supplement a candidate’s promotion dossier with respect to teaching quality, Appendix F may be consulted; this document describes forms of evidence approved by the ATP for consideration of candidates standing for tenure.

6) Copies of letters from external reviewers obtained through the following process:

     a) two to three outside letters are required and should be from persons who hold similar positions at other educational institutions or organizations; some may be from people who wrote for the initial appointment;

     b) a letter from a person in the candidate's field from the Columbia department may count for one of external letters when appropriate;

     c) the Chair may ask for suggestions of referees from the candidate, but should use the suggestions as a source of names;

     d) the dossier must include a notation from the Chair as to how the referees were selected;

     e) the Chair is encouraged to email or call potential referees in advance of mailing the dossier to determine their willingness to review;

     f) the letter soliciting review by the referees should follow the general format of the College's standard letter H-3; if the Chair feels that substantial changes in wording are necessary for a particular case, s/he should consult with the Provost.

     g) the dossier sent to reviewers should include:

  • the candidate’s cv and statement;
  • representative syllabi of courses taught since appointment;
  • other course material as appropriate;
  • evidence of curriculum development activity;
  • copies of any scholarly or creative work related to pedagogy published by the candidate;
  • grant applications and reviews of published work as appropriate; and
  • OPTIONAL – evidence of other related professional work.

Appendix H-1.  College’s Standard Letter to Solicit Review by Referees for Promotion to Full Professor

Dear X,

Thank you for agreeing to evaluate Associate Professor Y who is being considered for promotion to Professor in the Department of Z at Barnard College. This evaluation is focused on the period since his/her last promotion with tenure in YEAR. Enclosed please find a copy of Professor Y's curriculum vitae; his/her personal statement regarding his/her professional activities since promotion to tenure in the areas of scholarship, teaching and service; and examples of his/her scholarly and professional works completed in the post-tenure period.

Every nomination to the rank of Professor at Barnard is subject to thorough review, first by the senior faculty in his/her own department, then by the Faculty Advisory Committee on Appointments, Tenure and Promotion, chaired by the Provost and Dean of the Faculty. The Committee's recommendation is then presented to Barnard's President for her approval.

In assessing Professor Y's candidacy for promotion to the rank of Professor, we are interested in all aspects of his/her professional contributions to teaching, research and service. We solicit in particular your evaluation of his/her post-tenure scholarly and creative activities, and, to the extent that you are able, your comments upon his/her teaching abilities and service to the College, the University and the profession.

It would be helpful if your evaluation of his/her post-tenure scholarly and creative activities addressed the following questions:

  • What is your general assessment of Professor Y's post-tenure scholarship? How important has his/her work been to the development of his/her field?
  • How would you assess the originality of Professor Y's work? To what extent does this work represent a significant scholarly contribution? To what extent does the work to date predict a successful trajectory for the future?
  • How does his/her work compare to that of other scholars at or near his/her seniority in the field? What is your assessment of the potential for his/her future standing among senior scholars in his/her subdiscipline? In the field more broadly construed?
  • With regard to the teaching materials included (the teaching statement and syllabi in particular), how would you assess Professor Y’s approach to teaching?  How do these syllabi compare with those of faculty teaching in roughly the same area and at roughly the same level at your institution?

Any other comments on the matter of this promotion to Professor Y are welcome. We extend our collective thanks for your participation in this important evaluation process.

Sincerely,

Department Chair

Appendix H-2.  College’s Standard Letter to Solicit Review by Referees for Promotion in the Professor of Professional Practice Series

Dear X,

Thank you for agreeing to evaluate Assistant/Associate Professor of Professional Practice Y who is being considered for promotion to Associate Professor/Professor of Professional Practice in the Department of Z at Barnard College. This evaluation is focused on the period since his/her appointment/promotion in YEAR.  Enclosed please find a copy of Professor Y's curriculum vitae; his/her personal statement regarding his/her record of creative activity and professional accomplishment, teaching and service; and documentation of the creative activity and professional accomplishment completed during this review period.

Every nomination for promotion in rank at Barnard is subject to thorough review, first by the senior faculty in his/her own department, then by the Faculty Advisory Committee on Appointments, Tenure and Promotion, chaired by the Provost and Dean of the Faculty. The Committee's recommendation is then presented to Barnard's President for her approval.

In assessing Professor Y's candidacy for promotion in rank, we are interested in all aspects of his/her contributions to teaching, professional accomplishment and service. It may be helpful to you to understand that the Professor of Professional Practice series at Barnard represent lines that are promotable and renewable, and are designed for officers of instruction who possess substantial professional experience and expertise to meet the specialized instructional needs in the creative and performing arts, e.g. architecture, dance, music, theatre, visual arts and writing. The criteria for promotion may be found in Appendix H of the College’s Department Chair’s Manual.

It would be helpful if your evaluation addressed the following questions:

  • What is your general assessment of Professor Y's creative activity and professional accomplishment since his/her original appointment or last promotion? How important has his/her work been to the development of his/her field?
  • How would you assess the originality of Professor Y's work? To what extent does this work represent a significant contribution to the designated field? To what extent does the work to date predict a successful trajectory for the future?
  • How does his/her work compare to that of other practicioners/scholars at or near his/her seniority in the field? What is your assessment of the potential for his/her future standing among senior practicioners/scholars in his/her subdiscipline? In the field more broadly construed?
  • With regard to the teaching materials included (the teaching statement and syllabi in particular), how would you assess Professor Y’s approach to teaching?  How do these syllabi compare with those of faculty teaching in roughly the same area and at roughly the same level at your institution?

Any other comments on the matter of this promotion to Professor Y are welcome. We extend our collective thanks for your participation in this important evaluation process.

Sincerely,

Department Chair

Appendix H-3.  College’s Standard Letter to Solicit Review by Referees for Promotion to Senior Lecturer or Senior Associate

Dear X,

Thank you for agreeing to evaluate NAME who is being considered for promotion from Lecturer/Associate to Senior Lecturer/Associate in the Department of Z at Barnard College. This evaluation is focused on the period since his/her appointment in YEAR.  

Every nomination for promotion in rank at Barnard is subject to thorough review, first by the senior faculty in his/her own department, then by the Faculty Advisory Committee on Appointments, Tenure and Promotion, chaired by the Provost and Dean of the Faculty. The Committee's recommendation is then presented to Barnard's President for her approval.

Positions in the Lecturer/Senior Lecturer series (or Associate/Senior Associate series) at Barnard represent lines that are promotable and renewable, and are designed for officers of instruction whose performance is judged on 1) the quality of teaching, including evidence of continued professional growth as a teacher, and 2) service to the College, the University and the profession. The criteria for promotion may be found in Appendix H of the College’s Department Chair’s Manual.

             It would be helpful if your evaluation addressed the following questions:

  • How would you assess Dr./Ms./Mr.Y’s teaching record, based on the materials included (the curriculum vitae, teaching statement and syllabi in particular)?  How do these syllabi compare with those of faculty teaching in roughly the same area and at roughly the same level at your institution?
  • If there are publications related to pedagogy, to what extent do they represent a significant contribution to the designated field?  (Note: publications are not required.)
  • How does the totality of his/her work in service compare to that of other lecturers/associates at or near his/her seniority in the field?

Any other comments on the matter of this promotion are welcome. We extend our collective thanks for your participation in this important evaluation process.

Sincerely,

Department Chair