(Last Updated: June 2023)
Due to ongoing developments related to the novel COVID-19 outbreak, the Provost, in consultation with the Executive Committee of the NYU Board of Trustees, has approved new provisions for a one–year extension of the tenure clock for tenure-track faculty not currently under tenure review. For more information, read here.
Tenure and promotion are granted at NYU on the basis of high achievement and recognition in scholarship, teaching, and service. Successful candidates must provide a clear and objective demonstration that their accomplishments merit tenure and promotion.
The Dean of Arts and Science makes recommendations to the Provost of the University regarding promotions and the conferring of tenure. The recommendation of the Dean is expected to be informed by the faculty at large, the department, and experts in the candidate's field. In the Faculty of Arts and Science, tradition and faculty-approved policy hold that this occurs through a multilevel process involving detailed evaluation within the department, review by the Arts and Science Advisory Committee on Promotion and Tenure consisting of elected and appointed members from the three divisions of FAS, independent external evaluations at both the department and FAS Advisory Committee on Promotion and Tenure levels, and such other information as deemed appropriate by the Dean.
While there is often a remarkable degree of unanimity in the recommendations made at the various levels of review, it is not unusual for there to be divergent opinions.
Disagreement may occur because of differences in perspective, differences in the weighing of strengths and weaknesses in the case, additional information not evident in preceding stages of the evaluation, and so on. In case of seriously divergent recommendations, the Dean may choose to extend the process and seek additional information but has no obligation to do so.
The process of evaluating a candidate for tenure in the Faculty of Arts and Science is an inquiry: Is the candidate for tenure among the strongest in the candidate's field, in comparison with individuals at similar points in their careers at NYU, nationally, and, if relevant, abroad.
It is neither desirable nor possible to define an abstract and universal standard of measurement, and context may well become a criterion in judging the strength of a particular candidate. The current and future shape of programs in a department and beyond it, in FAS more generally, may be relevant considerations. Each case must be examined in some detail by making explicit comparisons, by delineating special strengths and acknowledging limits or weaknesses. These factors must be carefully and openly weighed.
The inquiry for such cases is essentially the same as for a tenure candidate: Is the candidate for promotion among the strongest in the candidate's field, in comparison with individuals at similar points in their careers at NYU, nationally, and internationally. In addition, we require that the candidate provide evidence of significant academic achievement beyond the work considered at the point of awarding tenure. The normal expectation will be the publication of a major book or a set of articles that mark significant new research and professional advancement since the conferring of tenure. The docket must clearly indicate which materials distinguish the candidate’s achievements since the last review for promotion.
Department Chairs must consult with the appropriate Divisional Dean before bringing a candidate up for promotion to full professor. When a Department Chair is a candidate for promotion, the Divisional Dean, after consultation with the chair, will designate a senior scholar in the department (or outside of the department if none is available within) to lead the review process.
In order to have a reasonable prospect of gaining tenure at NYU, candidates must have a record of outstanding scholarly achievement and recognition for it within their fields; they must be able to demonstrate that they are effective teachers; and they should have contributed, beyond their research and teaching, to the work of their departments and the life of the University. In the absence of such a record, tenure will not be awarded.
Proposals for early promotion and tenure must be considered extraordinary actions. Indeed, it is not normally in the best interest of a candidate or of the institution to propose candidates for promotion and/or tenure ahead of schedule unless the case is very well justified. The Divisional Dean should be consulted prior to the preparation of an early case. The best reason for proposing early consideration is a record of extraordinary accomplishment that can be readily distinguished from strong cases. It should be noted that external experts whose evaluation of the candidate are sought in these cases should be asked to comment specifically on the special grounds for an early decision. Chairs and departmental committees must also specifically address this issue in the Chair's recommendation and in the Report of the Departmental Committee respectively. However, even with these affirmative recommendations, the Dean will not recommend early tenure unless the case is extraordinary and compelling, particularly in relation to the already high expectations for candidates reviewed under the usual schedule.
1. The duty of the tenured faculty to give advice on tenure decisions is perhaps their highest responsibility. The process begins with the departmental review, and it is highly dependent upon the thoroughness, fairness, and rigor of the review. To give weak advice to the Departmental Advisory Committee on Promotion and Tenure, or the FAS Advisory Committee on Promotion and Tenure, or the Dean on the assumption that the difficult decisions will be made at a later stage subverts the principle of peer review and faculty governance and is an abnegation of departmental responsibility. Thus, a department report that is considered by the Dean or Promotion and Tenure Committee to fall into this category will be returned to the department with a request that the problem is corrected.
2. Reasonable doubt precludes a favorable recommendation. Common indicators of reasonable doubt include a highly split vote or a Departmental Promotion and Tenure Committee Report that fails to achieve consensus. If reasonable doubt exists, the department should indicate as much to the Dean and the FAS Advisory Committee on Promotion and Tenure.
3. The Dean has de jure authority to recommend tenure decisions contrary to faculty advice, although that power is usually used sparingly, and in a properly functioning tenure process it may never, be used.
4. A recommendation and docket must be submitted in all mandatory review cases, whether positive or negative. If, however, the candidate tenders a letter of resignation before August 31 of the year prior to the mandatory review, the department need not make a submission. The letter must state explicitly that the resignation was freely tendered without duress. In this instance, the Department Chair must forward the letter of resignation to the Dean on or before August 31 of the year prior to the mandatory review year. (For appointments that start the mid-academic year, the deadline date is one year prior to the last day of the month of the year prior to the mandatory review. )
5. Each department has its own traditions and established practices for making personnel and other decisions. Such practices may be followed in promotion/tenure reviews providing they conform to the guidelines below. If not, the procedures must be adapted to these guidelines. If there are questions of interpretation, the department chair should consult in advance with the Dean of the Faculty or the appropriate Divisional Dean.
6. The whole tenured faculty of a department is authorized to vote and collectively to make a recommendation for or against tenure at the rank of associate professor. For appointments at the rank of full professor with tenure or for promotions to full professor, the vote and authority resides with the full professors in the department. Note: the formal vote of the eligible faculty must be a secret vote.
7. Chairs of departments with fewer than five tenured full professors (for a candidate being considered for promotion to full professor) or with fewer than five tenured full and associate professors (for a candidate being considered for tenure or promotion to associate professor) should consult with their Divisional Dean about drawing upon tenured faculty of appropriate rank from other departments to form an ad hoc committee consisting of three to five or more members.
8. A reasonable effort must be made to enable eligible faculty on leave to receive all relevant materials and to participate in the discussions and vote. When faculty members are unable to attend the meeting because of a leave or other absence, they shall be invited to make their views known to the other eligible members through written or electronic communication, but their votes must be recorded separately to distinguish them from those made with the benefit of the open discussion of the case.
9. The eligible voting members of the department, and others involved in departmental votes as noted in Item 7 above, must be presented with a detailed, formal, written review of the candidate. The Department Chair may serve on the Promotion and Tenure Committee, but not as the chair of the committee.
10. This review may be conducted by all those eligible to vote, acting as a committee of the whole. Alternatively, in large departments, it is usual for the department to establish a Promotion and Tenure Committee to carry out the review. This committee may be appointed by the department chair, or it may be elected, following traditional practice in the department. Departments may establish ad hoc committees for each promotion and tenure case, or they may establish a single committee each year to review all cases. In either case, the committee should consist of three to five members who are eligible to vote, as described above. The committee should not include scholars with whom the candidate has been closely associated, such as a thesis advisor, co-author, former teacher, or other close associate; such individuals are, however, eligible to participate in the full departmental discussion and vote on the committee report. Spouses and partners of the candidate must recuse themselves from the entire promotion and tenure process.
11. It is the responsibility of the Promotion and Tenure Committee to assemble the relevant review materials (see below), to review these materials in detail, and to prepare a written report for presentation to the eligible faculty. The file and the written report should be made available for inspection well in advance of the meeting of eligible faculty at which the case will be discussed and the vote taken.
12. In the case of a Joint Appointment, the composition of the Promotion and Tenure Committee must include members of both units. Both units must vote on the Report of the Departmental Committee, with the Guidelines herein outlined concerning procedures and reporting applying to both. Each Chair and/or director should forward their unit's recommendation to the Dean only after consultation with the other unit. If the departments or programs arrive at significantly different judgments, the Dean will ordinarily invite them together to discuss the case.
13. When the candidate has an Associated Appointment in a secondary department or program, the departmental review must include a written evaluation from the secondary department explaining, among other matters thought relevant, the particular contribution of the candidate to that program's teaching and research mission and to its administration. This evaluation may be written by the Chair or director of the secondary unit after a formal consultation with departmental or program members.
14. In the case of Affiliated Appointments such written evaluations on the secondary appointment are recommended but not required.
15. The Departmental Promotion and Tenure Committee must prepare a Promotion and Tenure file for examination by eligible departmental voters. It should include the c.v. of the candidate; statement of teaching and research interests by the candidate (mandatory for tenure cases, but optional for promotion cases only); copies of publications and other writings; letters from external evaluators; and the evaluation by the Departmental Promotion and Tenure Committee. The docket should include published academic book reviews of the candidate's work. In the case of books not yet reviewed by the press, the publisher's reader reviews should be included in the docket. Citation analysis, if relevant, may also be included.
The candidate’s statement of teaching and research interests should narrate the trajectory of their career, and should include a description of the relationship among works already published or distributed, a description of new projects planned or underway, and should address the role that teaching (including particular courses) occupies in their career. The candidate’s research statement should open with a one or two paragraph introduction that describes their research and scholarship in a manner that would enable a non-expert (e.g. a member of the dean’s advisory committee on promotion and tenure) to understand the work of the candidate in an informative and jargon freestyle.
16. The file prepared by the Departmental Promotion and Tenure Committee must include a copy of the candidate's Third Year Review and the letter from the Dean acknowledging the report; and separate Assessments of Teaching Performance, Research and Scholarship, and Service.
17. The evaluation by the Departmental Promotion and Tenure Committee should not be an advocacy document; it should strive to provide a fair assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the candidate. It should indicate, with reasons, the basis for the departmental recommendation.
18. The Assessment of Teaching Performance must document and appraise the effectiveness of the candidate's teaching. The documentation should include the Course Listing Form (a list of all courses taught and their enrollments over the past four years (graduate courses, major courses; departmental service courses, college service courses, etc.)), student evaluations (for the guide to undergraduate course evaluations, see the CAS Course Evaluation Guide), as well as relevant additional information, course syllabi; first-hand evaluations of class sessions by a tenured colleague; and a description of the department standard for quantity (course load) of tenure track faculty.
The appraisal of teaching effectiveness should include an analysis of the candidate's teaching strengths and any weaknesses. In the case of the latter, some indication should be given to how the department and candidate are addressing these weaknesses. The appraisal should address both undergraduate and graduate teaching and should include not just an assessment of teaching performance in specific courses but also an evaluation of the overall significance of the candidate's contributions to the undergraduate and graduate teaching programs of the department. Specific mention should be made of research mentorship. The appraisal should be provided in narrative form; raw data, such as copies of an entire class's student evaluations, which is not accompanied with any analysis or explanation, is not acceptable to the FAS Advisory Committee on Promotion and Tenure.
The above instructions apply to external candidates as well as internal candidates. External candidates are expected to submit teaching evaluations from their current institutions and should be encouraged to address teaching in their personal statements. If evaluations are not available, alternative documentation of likely teaching effectiveness must be provided by the chair of the candidate’s department. In addition, the docket must include a description of what the candidate's graduate and undergraduate teaching contributions are expected to be and the significance of these contributions for the department.
19. The Assessment of Research and Scholarship must address issues of quality, significance, coherence, and future development. The candidate's written work, published and unpublished, should be carefully read by at least three senior members of the department, who must jointly sign this portion of the Report of the Departmental Committee. The quality and significance of the venues in which the candidate's work has appeared (e.g. journals, conference papers, websites, blogs, etc.) should be appraised. If they are not the best venues in the field, the best should be named and the absence of publications in them explained. The quality of the publisher of the candidate's book(s) should be appraised as well.
In the case of joint authorship, the Report of the Departmental Committee should include information about the norms of the field regarding order of authorship and an assessment of the candidate's contributions to the co-authored work. The Report of the Departmental Committee should indicate what parts of the candidate’s work are based on the dissertation, and for such work, what advances have been made upon the work of the dissertation. The candidate's success at securing grants should be evaluated in relation to reasonable expectations for scholars in the same field and at the same stage of professional development. The assessment should list and appraise the relative competitiveness of grants and fellowships received in the past five years.
20. The Assessment of Service must indicate the quality and significance of service to the department and the university. Specific comments, including testimony from fellow committee members, specification of authorship of particular reports and the like are helpful. The Assessment of Service can include a discussion of participation in professional organizations in the candidate's field.
21. List of all Ph.D. dissertations and Masters theses for which the candidate has been the primary advisor; a list of other dissertation and thesis committees on which the candidate has served. Provide a comparison with the average number of dissertations supervised and/or committees served on per faculty member within the department.
22. The Report of the Departmental Committee must explain the importance of the candidate's field of expertise. In what ways does the strength the candidate offers in that field advance the department's current ambitions? How does the candidate's field supplement other strengths in the department, and vice versa? How does the candidate's field and performance affect the standing of the department?
23. In the case of new appointments to tenure, it is helpful for the Report of the Departmental Committee to include the justification for establishing a tenured position within the department in the candidate's field of expertise. The report must also include a summary of the recommendations of the Search Committee and must identify the external referees consulted by the department in the search process, indicating which were selected by the candidate and which were selected by the department. A letter from a suitable evaluator selected by the search committee, which answers all the relevant questions of the tenure review process, may be used as one of the department’s six required outside letters for the Promotion and Tenure docket. The report may also include letters from other search committee referees as supplemental materials to the docket.
24. The candidate's position in the field and the discipline as a whole should be described as precisely as possible. This appraisal should include comparisons with other scholars both within the department and in the discipline at large. The department may submit additional material that it considers informative and useful for the assessment of the case, under a section of the docket titled "Supplementary Materials."
25. A complete departmental docket must include a minimum of six letters from outside evaluators. The letter of solicitation must follow the prototype attached as Appendix Items 1- 3. The letter must explicitly request comparative rankings with the candidate's peers, and it must not in any way imply that a positive or negative response from the evaluator is desired. Before departments solicit letters from outside evaluators, the Chair of the department must send a draft of the letter for review and approval to the appropriate Divisional Dean. All outside letters of evaluation must be current (written within one year of the FAS Promotion and Tenure review).
26. All evaluators should be provided with the same published work, c.v. of the candidate, and a statement of teaching and research interests. If there is unpublished work to be considered, the department should ask all evaluators to comment on the quality of the unpublished work.
27. The confidentiality of letters from outside evaluators must be preserved; only eligible voters in the department should be allowed access to the letters. Neither the writers nor the content of the letters must be communicated to the candidate or anyone else beyond eligible members of the department, not even in summary form. In all communications with them, writers of letters should be assured that their letters will be held in such confidence and that they will be seen only by tenured members of the department, the Dean of the Faculty, the Divisional Dean, the Faculty of Arts and Science Advisory Committee on Promotion and Tenure, and the Provost's Office.
28. Evaluators will normally hold a tenured position (as a full professor in the instance of cases of appointment as a full professor or promotion to full professor) in an institution of recognized distinction as a research university, or a position of equivalent rank in a non-academic institution (e.g., laboratory, museum, or research institute).
29. Evaluators should be recognized leaders in the candidate's discipline. Evaluators should be representative of their subject, broadly defined, and not drawn exclusively from extremely narrow interest groups or specializations. At least one of the six evaluators must be a scholar identified with broader sectors of the discipline in question. The list of evaluators need not be restricted to those at United States institutions; if appropriate, evaluations should be solicited from abroad.
30. Evaluators cannot be suggested by the candidate, nor can the suitability of potential evaluators be discussed with the candidate. The evaluator must not be a scholar with whom the candidate has been closely associated, such as a thesis advisor, co-author (*1), former teacher, or other close associate. Individuals listed on the candidate's c.v. as personal or professional references are not eligible to serve as outside evaluators. If the department should inadvertently solicit an opinion from someone it later learns was close to the candidate or whom the candidate independently suggested, a note of that fact must be made in the departmental report.
1* Co-authors will be acceptable reviewers only in certain fields, such as fields with very small membership or fields in which papers typically have a large number of authors (i.e. multicenter clinical trials; large epidemiology studies, etc.), and then only acceptable with permission of the Dean.
31. The candidate may identify one or two scholars who they believe would not – for professional or personal reasons – provide a balanced evaluation. The candidate must state in writing the reasons for this belief. The department and Dean are not required to accept the candidate's request to exclude a scholar as an evaluator.
32. As a professional courtesy, evaluators should be given six weeks to send their evaluations.
33. The Report of the Committee must include a list of all potential evaluators who were asked to write on behalf of the candidate, including those who declined, and those, if any, identified by the candidate as inappropriate. All departmental communications with potential evaluators should be documented and included in the docket. A brief rationale for the selection of the evaluators who have written and why the particular referee's opinion matters must be included with the docket, as well as an explanation for each of the declinations. CV's (not just bios from the evaluator's website) are required for all external evaluators.
34. The chair of the Departmental Promotion and Tenure Committee should present the case to a full special departmental meeting of those eligible to attend and vote. After a discussion, a vote must be taken. The vote must be by closed (secret) ballot, and tallied following departmental custom or departmental decision.
35. The Report of the Departmental Committee on Promotion and Tenure and the vote by eligible faculty are advisory to the Chair. The Chair must forward the Report and closed vote (including the number of positive and negative votes and abstentions, if any) to the Dean of the Faculty with their own recommendation. The report must be a balanced assessment of the candidate's performance. Documents that do not deal with evident weaknesses, in the case of a positive recommendation, or that do not deal with evident strengths, in the case of a negative recommendation, will not be accepted. If the Chair's recommendation differs in significant ways from the Report of the Departmental Committee on Promotion and Tenure upon which the department voted, the Chair must inform the Departmental Committee in writing. If the Committee is not a committee-of-the-whole, voting members of the department must also be informed.
The Chair's Letter must include a summary of the faculty discussion preceding the vote, as well as a description for non-specialists of the place the candidate's work occupies in the relevant discipline or field, and explain why it is important to the department that this field be represented on its faculty. It may also be helpful for this statement to include information about the usual criteria for excellence in the candidate's discipline (e.g., quality of venues within which the work appears). The letter must report the number of faculty eligible to vote; the faculty eligible to vote who are on leave, and when applicable, an explanation as to why faculty members, including those on leave, did not vote. If the recommendation is for early tenure, the Chair's Letter must address the reasons or circumstances that designate it as "early" (e.g. if the candidate had prior service in the tenure track at another institution, a delayed tenure clock due to family obligations or medical leave, or extraordinary accomplishments).
For external hires with tenure, the Chair must provide a summary of the department search committee report including the size and composition of the candidate pool.
36. If the Department Chair is an Associate Professor, the Report of the Departmental Committee for promotion only cases must be reviewed by the Divisional Dean, who will add their own recommendation and forward the report to the Dean of the Faculty. If the Department Chair is the candidate for promotion, the Report of the Departmental Committee should be submitted by the chair of the Departmental Promotion and Tenure committee directly to the Divisional Dean.
37. The Chair and all members of the Departmental Promotion and Tenure Committee must sign the Signature Page of the Docket, attesting that they have read the docket and that it represents the opinions of the committee clearly and fairly. The completed docket is then forwarded to the Office of the Associate Dean to initiate the succeeding stages of the review process.
38. Properly prepared, detailed and well-documented dockets are the most effective instrument for conveying the essence of the department's evaluation of the candidate. Indeed, it is the thorough and honest appraisal of the strengths and weaknesses of the candidate in each of the criteria (research, teaching, and service) that is most useful to the FAS Committee on Promotion and Tenure and to the Dean, often more so than the final vote, for it gives substantive meaning and texture to the evaluation. Submission of dockets in a timely fashion is strongly urged in order to prevent delays from unforeseen complications that may arise, most especially for dockets received near the end of the academic year.
Advisory Committee on Promotion and Tenure:
39. The FAS Advisory Committee on Promotion and Tenure consists of twelve full professors in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, representing the three divisions. Half of the Committee is elected by the Faculty; the other half is appointed by the Dean of the Faculty.
40. The Dean of the Faculty, the Deans of the College and Graduate School, and the Divisional Deans sit with the FAS Advisory Committee on Promotion and Tenure without vote and with voice confined to procedural issues or responses to questions by the Committee.
41. If there are questions in any particular case, the Chair of a Department and/or the Chair of the Departmental Promotion and Tenure Committee may be asked to attend a meeting of the FAS Advisory Committee on Promotion and Tenure to clarify the docket or to provide additional information.
42. The Committee makes its recommendation to the Dean of the Faculty. After receiving the Committee's advice, that of the Deans of the College and the Graduate School, and that of the appropriate Divisional Dean, the Dean of the Faculty will forward to the Provost the recommendation of the FAS P&T Committee as well as their own recommendation for promotion and/or tenure. In the case of a Dean's recommendation contrary to that of the department, the Dean will provide the Department Chair with the reasons. The Chair will then have ten days in which to provide further information or a counter-argument before the Dean of the Faculty's final recommendation is made to the Provost.
43. The Dean of the Faculty will ordinarily make their recommendation to the Provost by April 15 for promotion only and tenure with or without promotion cases. By statute, this constitutes the definitive FAS recommendation.
44. The Dean of the Faculty ordinarily solicits additional reviews that are treated as confidential and are for their own use and that of the Advisory Committee on Promotion and Tenure. To ensure that the Dean does not solicit evaluators already contacted by the department, the Chair of the Department is required to provide the Dean with a list of all evaluators being solicited by the department. This list should be forwarded by the first Monday in October in any given academic year.
The Provost shall evaluate each tenure and promotion docket and recommendation submitted by the Dean. In evaluating a promotion or tenure recommendation submitted by the Dean, the Provost may solicit additional information and/or letters of evaluation, and may in unusual cases appoint an ad-hoc advisory committee composed of tenured faculty to seek further counsel. The Provost shall support or oppose the Dean's recommendation in their final decision. In those cases, in which the Provost's decision will be contrary to the recommendation of the Dean, the Provost will provide the Dean with the reasons and give the Dean an opportunity to provide further information or a counter-argument before the Provost's final decision. The Provost shall notify the Dean of the final decision, along with reasons thereof if the Dean's recommendation is disapproved.
New York University utilizes the Interfolio ByCommittee P&T® platform for submission and review of all dossiers for faculty appointment, promotion and tenure requests. (For help with Interfolio see Section VIII).
The submission must include papers in pdf format, except for books.
The submission must include papers in pdf format.
The University now utilizes the Interfolio ByCommittee P&T® platform for submission and review of all dossiers for faculty appointment, promotion and tenure requests. (For help with Interfolio see Section VIII)
The completed docket must consist of the following items:
2. After receiving the recommendation of the Dean's Advisory Committee on Promotion and Tenure, the Dean will forward a recommendation to the Provost and notify the Department Chair of the recommendation. Upon notification of the Provost's decision, the Dean will write to the Department Chair and to the candidate informing them of the decision.
3. In the event of a negative decision, the candidate has the right of appeal. Ordinarily, the candidate would first confer with the Chair or the Dean to seek an informal resolution or explanation of the decision. If not settled informally, the candidate may appeal to the Dean to convoke the FAS Faculty Grievance Committee, which is a standing committee of elected faculty members. The Grievance Committee, after reviewing the case, will advise the Dean of their recommendation. After reviewing the recommendation of the FAS Grievance Committee, the Dean will notify the candidate of their final decision.
4. Should the decision not be satisfactory to the candidate, they may appeal to the President to convene the Faculty Council Grievance Committee, an advisory body made up of faculty from different schools within NYU. It makes its recommendations to the President. Grievance procedures are explained in The Faculty Handbook.
By the first Monday in October in any given academic year, the Department Chair must forward the preliminary materials for internal promotion and tenure cases to the Office of the Associate Dean through Interfolio. (See section III Materials)
By the first Monday in December in any given academic year, the completed Promotion and Tenure Docket must be submitted through Interfolio. (See section V Docket). Petal Wellington (212) 998-8067.
Note: To alleviate the congestion of conducting 35+ promotion and tenure reviews in the spring semester, the timetable for review of Promotion-Only cases will be moved up to allow for reviews to take place now in the fall semester.
The deadline for submitting materials for promotion from Associate Professor to Full Professor will be:
By the first Monday in June of any given academic year for preliminary materials.
By the last Monday in September in any given academic year for the completed docket.
The FAS P&T Committee will, whenever possible review the case in the fall semester, with promotion effective the following academic year, (e.g. September 1, 2024). All case materials must be forwarded to the Office of the Associate Dean through Interfolio. (See section 2.5). Petal Wellington (212) 998-8067.
For faculty with mid-year tenure review (Spring 2023 - Fall 2024), the relevant deadline dates are:
By the first Monday in June of any given academic year for preliminary materials.
By the last Monday in September in any given academic year for the completed docket.
For new hires starting at the beginning of the following academic year, FAS must submit completed dockets to the Provost Office no later than June 1. With this in mind, the Department Chair must submit the completed Tenure Docket no later than the first Monday in March of any given academic year. Preliminary materials (e.g. CV, statement of teaching and research interests, list of evaluators, and publications in pdf format, except for books) will be needed no later than January 1.
For new hires with tenure who cannot be reviewed by the stated deadlines, their appointments may need to be delayed to the following semester or academic year (Spring /Fall), or their initial appointment can be in a non-tenured position as Visiting Professor or Professor without tenure, with the understanding that their status will be changed as soon as the tenure process is completed. It is important that in communicating with candidates for tenured positions that they be made aware of these restrictions in the timing of our tenure review process.
Due to COVID all tenure track faculty automatically received a one-year extension of the tenure clock. Faculty who opted out of the one-year extension prior to August 31, 2020, will be considered as being reviewed “on time”.
The Tenure Clock stoppage may be granted automatically twice for two separate events, each for a maximum of one academic year or two academic semesters during the probationary period for any one of, or combination of, the following personal reasons:
A request for tenure clock stoppage requires advance approval by the Dean and the Office of the Provost. Requests should be made as early as possible, and when feasible, approvals should be in place no later than the onset of the semester preceding the period of tenure stoppage.
Application for Stopping Tenure Clock for Primary Caregivers
2023-2024
I. Assistant Professor without prior service
|
Years of Service |
|
If Hired in |
2018/2019 |
1 |
|
2019/2020 |
2 |
Third Year Review |
2020/2021 |
3 |
|
2021/2022 |
4 [Goddard] |
|
2022/2023 |
5 |
Promotion & Tenure Review |
2023/2024 |
6 |
Promotion & Tenure as of |
9/1/2024 |
7 |
II. Assistant Professor with more than three years of prior service
|
Years of Service |
|
If Hired in |
2021/2022 |
1 |
|
2022/2023 |
2 |
Promotion & Tenure Review |
2023/2024 |
3 |
Promotion & Tenure as of |
9/1/2024 |
4 |
III. Associate Professor without prior service
|
Years of Service |
|
If Hired in |
2020/2021 |
1 |
|
2021/2022 |
2 |
|
2022/2023 |
3 |
Tenure Review |
2023/2024 |
4 |
Tenure as of |
9/1/2024 |
5 |
IV. Associate Professor with more than 3 years of prior service
|
Years of Service |
|
If Hired in |
2021/2022 |
1 |
|
2022/2023 |
2 |
Tenure Review |
2023/2024 |
3 |
Tenure as of |
9/1/2024 |
4 |
Login URL : https://account.interfolio.com/login; Choose Partner Institution and select New York University; Sign in with your NYU NET ID and Password.
Administrators Guide to Interfolio by Committee P&T Review, Promotion and Tenure
Training Resources and Support are below for quick reference. We advise you to please get familiar with these guides as it will assist you in submitting a case dossier through Interfolio.
Additionally, below are some helpful resources to share with your faculty who might serve on a review committee or who might be up for review.
Dear __________:
[Candidate name], currently an Assistant Professor in the department of [dept name], is being considered for tenure and promotion. Because of your knowledge of the field, we would very much appreciate your evaluation of their published and unpublished research.
Enclosed with this letter is Professor [name]’s curriculum vitae, their teaching and research statement, and other supporting tenure materials. If you need copies of any other of their published or unpublished works to make your evaluation, they will also be made available to you. It will be of particular value to us if you provided a candid assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of Professor [name]’s research with respect to intellectual quality, originality, and rate of publication. Your comments on the scope and significance of their research and interests would be valued. We also request an explicit comparison of the candidate with the most prominent individuals working in the same field who are at comparable points in their careers. Any additional comments you consider pertinent would be welcome. If you have knowledge of Professor [name]’s teaching ability or service to the university and/or the professional community, we would appreciate your commentary on these matters as well. Also, please include in your letter a statement of how long and in what specific capacities you have known the candidate.
Please note that evaluators must not be a scholar with whom the candidate has been closely associated, such as a thesis advisor, co-author, former teacher, or other close associates.
To assist in your review, we draw your attention to the fact that this candidate’s dossier includes work performed in one or more years in which COVID placed severe restrictions on all faculty members.
[If applicable] The tenure clock was automatically extended for all tenure track faculty, including this candidate, for one year.
[If applicable]: The tenure clock for Professor [name] has [also] been extended in accordance with University policy for reasons other than COVID.
The policy of NYU is to evaluate the productivity of each candidate who has been granted an extension as if they have been in probationary status for the normal duration, so that the candidate is not penalized for having received the extension.
Finally, we would appreciate your judgment of whether or not Professor [name] would be considered among the strongest candidates for promotion and tenure in other leading departments in the field.
We will need your letter within six weeks, sooner if possible. The University's promotion and tenure committee expects the department to provide biographical information about referees. We would, therefore, be very grateful if you could forward with your letter a current curriculum vita.
Let us assure you that your letter will be kept confidential to the extent allowed by law. It will be available only to the tenured faculty of this department, and appropriate decision makers and review panels within the University.
We would appreciate addressing your response to this request to [Dept.’s Chair name], Chair of the Department of [dept. name] at xxx@nyu.edu.
We thank you for generously assisting us. We realize this is a time-consuming task, but, as you know, it is a critical element of the academic process of peer review.
Sincerely,
XXXXXX
Chair, Department of XXXX
Dear :
On behalf of the FAS Department of [dept name], I am contacting you in regard to Professor [name] of the University [West] at [East] who is being considered for a tenured appointment at the rank of full professor in the department of [dept name]. Because of your knowledge of the field, we would very much appreciate your evaluation of their research.
We are enclosing Professor [name]'s curriculum vitae and their teaching and research statement with this letter. Also enclosed are copies of their selected published and unpublished work. If you need copies of any other published or unpublished works to make your evaluation, please let me know immediately, and they will be sent. It will be of particular value to us if you provided a candid assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of Professor [name]'s research with respect to intellectual quality, originality, and rate of publication. Your comments on the scope and significance of their research and interests would be valued, as would your judgment of their standing in the field in comparison with prominent individuals at comparable points in their careers. Any additional comments you consider pertinent would be welcome. If you have knowledge of Professor [name]'s teaching ability or service to the university and/or the professional community, we would appreciate your comments on these matters as well. Also, please indicate in your letter how long and in what specific capacities you have known Professor [name].
Please note that evaluators must not be a scholar with whom the candidate has been closely associated, such as a thesis advisor, co-author, former teacher, or other close associate.
Finally, we would appreciate your judgment of whether or not Professor [name] would be considered among the strongest candidates for appointment as a full professor in other leading departments in the field.
We will need your letter within six weeks, sooner if possible. The University's promotion and tenure committee expects the department to provide biographical information about referees. We would therefore be very grateful if you could forward with your letter a current curriculum vitae.
Let us assure you that your letter will be kept confidential to the extent allowed by law. It will be available only to the tenured full professors [and associate professors if hiring is at the associate level] of this department, and appropriate decision makers and review panels within the University.
We would appreciate addressing your response to this request to [Dept.’s Chair name], Chair of the Department of [dept. name] at xxx@nyu.edu.
Thank you for generously assisting us. We realize this is a time-consuming task, but, as you know, it is a critical element of the academic process of peer review.
Sincerely,
XXXXXX
Chair, Department of XXXX
Dear __________:
[Candidate name], currently a tenured Associate Professor in the department of [dept name], is being considered for promotion to full Professor. Because of your knowledge of the field, we would very much appreciate your evaluation of their published and unpublished research.
We are enclosing Professor [name]'s curriculum vitae and their teaching and research statement with this letter. Also enclosed are copies of their selected published and unpublished work. If you need copies of any other of their published or unpublished works to make your evaluation, please let us know immediately, and they will be sent. It will be of particular value to us if you provided a candid assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of Professor [name]'s research with respect to intellectual quality, originality, and rate of publication, with particular attention to significant academic achievement since receiving tenure. Your comments on the scope and significance of their research and interests would be valued. We also request an explicit comparison of the candidate with the most prominent individuals working in the same field who are at comparable points in their careers. Any additional comments you consider pertinent would be welcome. If you have knowledge of Professor [name]'s teaching ability or service to the university and/or the professional community, we would appreciate your commentary on these matters as well. Also, please include in your letter a statement of how long and in what specific capacities you have known the candidate.
Please note that evaluators must not be a scholar with whom the candidate has been closely associated, such as a thesis advisor, co-author, former teacher, or other close associates.
Finally, we would appreciate your judgment of whether or not Professor [name] would be considered among the strongest candidates for promotion in other leading departments in the field.
We will need your letter within six weeks, sooner if possible. The University's promotion and tenure committee expects the department to provide biographical information about referees. I would therefore be very grateful if you could forward with your letter a current curriculum vitae.
Let me assure you that your letter will be kept confidential to the extent allowed by law. It will be available only to the tenured full professors of this department, and appropriate decision makers and review panels within the University.
We would appreciate addressing your response to this request to [Dept.’s Chair name], Chair of the Department of [dept. name] at xxx@nyu.edu.
Thank you for generously assisting us. We realize this is a time-consuming task, but, as you know, it is a critical element of the academic process of peer review.
Sincerely,
XXXXXX
Chair, Department of XXXX