Columbia University

Faculty of Arts and Sciences

Other Faculty Reviews

The Arts and Sciences has a comprehensive review system for its full-time non-tenure-track faculty that is conducted by designation. Review guidelines for lecturer, professor of professional practice, language lecturer, full professor and professors of practice are listed below 

Lecturer in Dicipline

For a printable version of the guidelines, visit this link, here

In April 2004, the Faculty Affairs Committee of the University Senate approved the creation of a professional career track that allows the Arts and Sciences to appoint and continue to employ valuable teachers who would otherwise be subject to the “up-or-out” rules and the tenure review system designed for research faculty.  Faculty in these instructional roles are appointed at the rank of Associate in [Discipline], Lecturer in [Discipline] or Senior Lecturer in [Discipline].  They are appointed for a stated term and may be part-time or full-time.  The terms are renewable and are not subject to the limits on non-tenured service.  In applied fields in which there are no terminal degrees, graduate degrees are less important, and determination of rank will depend on candidates’ experience and accomplishment in their fields of professional practice. (Those members of the Special Instructional Faculty appointed with modified titles in Arts and Sciences departments where the discipline is language pedagogy are also referred to as Associates in [Language], Lecturers in [Language], and Senior Lecturers in [Language].  Details on appointment types for Officers of Instruction are found in the Columbia University Faculty Handbook at http://www.cc.columbia.edu/cu/vpaa/fhb/main.html)

lecturer ranks

The rank of Associate in [Discipline] is appropriate for individuals who have a special competence in a given field but do not qualify for the title of lecturer. Such individuals will have training in the given field but less than two years of teaching experience. 

The rank of Lecturer in [Discipline] is appropriate for individuals who are earlier in their career or have not yet attained that high level of achievement expected of a senior lecturer in discipline. Such individuals will have substantial teaching experience with documented evidence of pedagogical excellence and evidence of professional growth and activity in the given field. Evidence of growth and activity includes, but is not limited to, making contributions in the areas of research, creative or policymaking activity appropriate the lecturer’s specific assignment.

The rank of Senior Lecturer in [Discipline] is appropriate for individuals who have a superlative record of teaching as a lecturer and documented evidence of excellence in carrying out administrative or other department responsibilities such as directing specific courses; have contributed to the training of teaching fellows and served on department and university committees; shown continued professional growth and activity in the given field. Evidence of growth and activity includes, but is not limited to, making contributions in the areas of research, creative or policymaking activity appropriate to the lecturer’s specific assignment.

procedures for appointment

It is the responsibility of the Executive Vice President for Arts and Sciences to approve the creation of every full-time lecturer-in-discipline position.  A department wishing to appoint a new associate or lecturer in this career track must make such a request in writing to the Executive Vice President for Arts and Sciences as part of the unit’s regular Instructional Budget Statement. (The School of Continuing Education and School of the Arts should make such requests through their Dean.) 

statutory terms of appointment

By university statutes, all initial appointments are for one year only.  Subsequent appointments may be for a term of one, two, or three years.  Passage of the major review and subsequent continuing reviews carry the opportunity for reappointment for a term of up to five years.

The University may choose not to renew an appointment beyond its stated term because of budgetary considerations, changes in staffing or curricular needs, or less than optimal performance on the part of the officer.  In such cases, the University must give written notice according to the following schedule:

(1)  Not later than March 1 before the end of the first year of service (March 1, 2015);

(2)  Not later than December 15 before the end of the second year of service (December 15, 2014);

(3)  At least twelve months before the end of all subsequent periods of service (May 31, 2015).

review schedules

Associates in [Discipline] are reviewed for renewal of appointment in the first, second, fifth, and eighth year of service. Promotion to lecturer in discipline is possible at the time of the second-year review.

Lecturers in [Discipline] are reviewed for renewal of appointment in the first, second, fifth, and eighth years of service. Promotion to senior lecturer in discipline is possible at the time of the eighth-year review.

Senior Lecturers in [Discipline] undergo a major review prior to appointment or during their first year of service and continuing reviews every five years thereafter. 

types of reviews

Confirming Review (First Year).  The first year of service for all full-time faculty, regardless of rank, serves as a probationary period.  A decision must be made whether to extend the statutory initial appointment.  Those who successfully complete the probationary period will be extended for an additional year.  Those who do not should be notified in writing by March 1, 2015 that their appointment will not be renewed beyond June 30, 2015.

Developmental Review (Second Year).  The developmental review takes place before the end of the second year, at which time a department may decide to make a third year terminal or to recommend continuation for three years.  In the case of an Associate, promotion to the rank of Lecturer may be considered at this time.

Critical Review (Fifth Year).  The second professional review takes place the end of the fifth year, at which time a department may decide to make the sixth year terminal or to recommend continuation for three more years into the eighth year. 

Major Review (Eighth Year).  The third professional review takes place before the end of the eighth year, at which time a department may decide to make the ninth year terminal or to recommend extension for an additional five years

Continuing Reviews (Every Five Years).  All subsequent reviews are to be conducted at the end of each five-year cycle, with either a recommendation for an additional five years, or a recommendation for non-renewal after a terminal year.  Reviews from the thirteenth year on are to be conducted by the department chair and at least two other faculty (either professorial or lecturer track with one member being trained in discipline pedagogy and the other being external to the department, but not necessarily external to the University)..

promotion to lecturer in discipline

To recognize strong performance of an Associate in Discipline in a program the university will consider conferral of the title Lecturer in [Discipline].  Promotion to Lecturer does not alter the review schedule.  Proposals to promote an Associate to Lecturer may not be made before the end of the second year.  The completion of a successful second-year review does not necessarily entail promotion to Lecturer. A department should propose candidates for promotion to Lecturer only when the following qualities are demonstrated:

(1)  Substantial teaching experience and documented evidence of pedagogical excellence;

(2)  Evidence of professional growth and activity in the field in the areas of research, creative or policymaking activity appropriate to the associate’s specific assignment..

promotion to senior lecturer in discipline

To recognize high performance of a Lecturer in [Discipline] in a program the university will consider conferral of the title Senior Lecturer in [Discipline].  No promotions in rank or title are possible beyond Senior Lecturer in [Discipline].  Promotion to Senior Lecturer in [Discipline] does not entail tenure.  Proposals to promote a Lecturer in Discipline to Senior Lecturer in [Discipline] may not normally be made before the eighth year of service.  

procedures for review

In all cases, beginning with the developmental review in the second year, the Promotion and Tenure Committee will require evidence of a full and complete departmental review of the candidate’s work.  Reviews in the second, fifth, and eighth years should include evaluation by a three-person review committee.  The department chair will appoint a three-person committee to conduct a review and make a recommendation to the department for renewal or non-renewal.  It is important that at least one member of the review committee be an expert in the lecturer’s area of research, creative or policymaking activity and at least one member of the review committee be external to the department, but not necessarily external to the university.  The department will deliberate on the committee’s recommendation.  The outcome of those deliberations will be communicated to the Executive Vice President for Arts and Sciences in a letter of transmittal. 

The review process should entail:

(1)  Examination of the candidate’s dossier, which includes an updated curriculum vitae, a statement of teaching philosophy, a statement of professional work in progress, and samples of course materials such as syllabi, handouts, and supplements;

(2)   Evaluation by each of the three reviewers of classroom performance composed after observing at least two classes, and a review of student evaluations for all classes taught by the candidate since the last review (if applicable).  The evaluations composed by the three reviewers should be attached to the letter of transmittal to the standing committee. Copies of all student evaluations should be submitted to the standing committee along with the summary data page for each set of student evaluations.

The following will be assessed through a review of the statement of teaching philosophy, classroom observation, and the student evaluations: 1) strategies used to promote student involvement/attentiveness; 2)  strategies used to meet the needs of all learners; 3) reflection of pedagogical goals as reflected in the work assigned to students; 4) strategies for engaging students in  activities within and outside the classroom; and 5) consonance between pedagogical practices and the candidate’s statement of teaching philosophy.

The following will be assessed through the examination of the curriculum vitae and the statement of professional work in progress: 1) evidence of professional growth in the field; 2) active involvement in the field or profession either at Columbia or nationally; and 3) professional leadership experience and performance. 

report to the Promotion and Tenure COmmittee

In instances of a positive vote by the department, the chair of the department will prepare a letter of transmittal to be sent to the Executive Vice President for Arts and Sciences.  The letter will record the result of the departmental vote and summarize the basis for the department’s positive recommendation.  It will include a discussion of the candidate’s teaching load and course enrollments and be accompanied by an analysis of teaching performance.  The statement will analyze the available data and reports of teaching observations as they reflect both the instructor’s strengths and areas in need of attention.  The letter should also speak to the department’s recommendations at the last review as well as to the candidate’s responses to them. The letter should be accompanied by the candidate’s full dossier: curriculum vitae, the statement of teaching philosophy, the statement of professional work in progress, samples of course materials such as syllabi, handouts and supplements to the text, and written reports of classroom observations and post-visitation discussions from each of the faculty members who observed the candidate’s class and examined the student evaluations.

In instances of a negative vote by the department, the chair of the department will notify the Executive Vice President for Arts and Sciences of the departmental decision.  The chair will then notify the candidate in writing of the negative decision.  Candidates not being recommended for renewal will be given a terminal year of appointment.

Departments must submit their recommendations to the Executive Vice President for Arts and Sciences by March 1, 2015.  The Executive Vice President will then seek input from the Promotion and Tenure Committee.  The committee will review the dossier and make a recommendation to the Executive Vice President for Arts and Sciences.  The Executive Vice President will write to the chair of the department regarding the outcome of the review, with a request that the chair inform the candidate in writing with a copy to the Executive Vice President.  Candidates must be sent letters informing them of their continuing status no later than June 30, 2015, and in the case of non-renewal no later than May 15, 2015.  It is the chair’s obligation to convey to the candidate any concerns about his or her performance as well as any improvement that will be expected at the next scheduled review.

review Schedule

Review Schedule for Associates, Lecturers and Senior Lecturers in [Discipline]

Review Schedule                               Consequences

End of year one;                                 A) Recommend for one more year

(internal)                                              B) Notify will not be renewed

 

End of year two                                  A) Decision to make third year terminal

(internal and external)                      B) Recommend for three-year contract and promote to lecturer if relevant

End of year five                                  A) Appoint only 1 more year

(internal and external)                      B) Appoint 3 more years and consider promotion to lecturer if relevant

 

End of year eight                                A) Appoint only 1 more year

(internal and external)                      B) Renew for 5 more years

                                                              C) Consider promotion to lecturer or senior lecturer if relevant

 

End of thirteenth and                         A) Appoint only 1 more year

subsequent five-year                         B) Renew for 5 more years

intervals (internal)                              C) Consider promotion to lecturer or senior lecturer if relevant.

Professor of Professional Practice

The Arts and Sciences has in place a comprehensive system for review of professional practice faculty. Reviews are conducted in the first, third, fifth and seventh years of service and every seven years thereafter.  Through constructive, informative and timely evaluations, senior faculty members advance the career development of their junior colleagues and, at the same time, ensure the presence of faculty of the highest quality and distinction.  Each case is evaluated on its own merits, and the review process, and recommendations that emerge from the reviews, are intended to be treated with the utmost seriousness by departments.

STATUTORY TERMS OF APPOINTMENT

By University Statute, all initial appointments to a non-tenured rank are for one year only.  Subsequent appointments may be for a term of one, two, or three years.   Passage of the major review and subsequent continuing reviews carry the opportunity for reappointment for a term of up to seven years. Under Arts and Sciences policy, associate professors who have not passed the major review may not hold appointment at that rank for more than five years of counted service. (Faculty whose initial appointment is at the rank of Associate Professor are reviewed on a different schedule.  All receive a first-year Confirming Review.  Those on fixed-term, non-renewable appointments may request a Developmental Review at the third year point to obtain feedback on their professional development.  Those on appointments eligible for tenure consideration or the major professional practice review undergo this review in the third or fourth year of the appointment.)

The University may choose not to renew an appointment beyond its stated term because of budgetary considerations, changes in staffing needs, or less than optimal performance on the part of the officer.  In such cases, the University must give written notice to the candidate according to the following schedule:

(1)  Not later than March 1 before the end of the first year of service (March 1, 2015);(For those faculty whose appointment began in January 2013, the confirming letter must be sent by October 1, 2014 for non-renewal effective December 31, 2014.)

(2)  Not later than December 15 before the end of the second year of service (December 15, 2014);

(3)  At least twelve months before the end of all subsequent periods of service (May 31, 2015).

PROCEDURES FOR REVIEW

1.  Confirming Reviews (First Year)

The first year of service at Columbia for all full-time non-tenured faculty, regardless of rank, serves as a probationary period and a decision must be made as to whether or not to extend the statutory initial appointment.  Reviews of full-time, non-tenured faculty in their first year of service are essentially confirming reviews.  Those who successfully complete the probationary period may be extended through the fourth year.  Those who do not should be notified in writing by March 1, 2015 that their appointment will not be renewed beyond June 30, 2015.  The chair should notify the Executive Vice President for Arts and Sciences of the department’s decision by copy of the letter to the candidate no later than March 1, 2015.  

2.  Developmental Review (Third Year)

Those in their third year of counted service must be reviewed for a decision on renewal beyond June 30, 2016.  The department should use this review to place a strong emphasis on the professional development of the faculty member, identifying areas of progress and noting especially those requiring attention. Developmental reviews follow established departmental procedures.  These generally include evaluation of the candidate by a subcommittee of at least three tenured faculty and/or professional practice faculty who have passed the major review prior to departmental deliberation.  Following departmental review, the chair should submit a letter by April 15, 2015, transmitting the department’s recommendation to the Executive Vice President for Arts and Sciences.  In instances where the department is requesting renewal of the appointment, the letter should address the individual’s effectiveness as a teacher, accomplishments and potential as  a practitioner, and service to the department.  A copy of his/her curriculum vitae, a full statement of teaching and current professional plans and reports of any departmental committees must be included.  The Executive Vice President will inform the department chair as to whether this request has been approved and the department must then notify the faculty member in writing about the outcome of the review with a copy to the Executive Vice President.

3.  Critical Review (Fifth Year)

Those in their fifth year of counted service must be reviewed for possible reappointment beyond June 30, 2016.  Any assistant professor of professional practice who will have completed at least four years and no more than six years of counted service by the end of 2014-15 is eligible for a critical review, which includes consideration for promotion to associate professor of professional practice.

The fifth-year review for reappointment and promotion to associate professor of professional practice is considered a critical review.  Promotion and renewal will be offered only to those who exhibit the exceptional qualities appropriate to a prospective candidate for major review and the demonstrable likelihood of achievement in their area of professional practice necessary for passage of major review at Columbia or an institution of comparable stature.  This promotion and renewal is intended as recognition of exceptional gifts and prospective passage of major review, but is not in itself a guarantee of passage of major review.  It is also not intended as a consolation prize, and departmental recommendations for promotion must be developed with the utmost conscientiousness. 

The following materials must be included in the department’s case for renewal and promotion to associate professor of professional practice:

(1)  Statement from the candidate: The Chair of the Department of the Arts should ask the candidate to submit a complete, up-to-date curriculum vitae, as well as a full statement of teaching and current and planned scholarly and artistic activities. The curriculum vitae should indicate whether publications, productions or exhibitions listed as “forthcoming” have been accepted or contracted and when they are expected to be published, produced or held.  Entries for full-length books listed as “contracted” should also reveal whether readers’ reports exist, what portion of the work has actually been submitted to the press contracting it, and what the timetable is for completion.

(2)  A review committee report:  The first-level review of candidates for promotion to non-tenured associate professor of professional practice should be conducted by a reading committee of at least three senior faculty appointed by the department chair.  The committee should submit a written report to the department, and the chair should include this report among the materials forwarded to the Executive Vice President with the departmental recommendation.  The report should address the candidate’s teaching and citizenship as well as her or his standing as a scholar or artist.  There should be a detailed analysis of teaching performance, including a discussion of courses taught, involvement in the School’s central teaching requirements, enrollment history, student and peer evaluations (synthesized), advising, and thesis supervision.  The report should contain a specific recommendation on promotion and reappointment. 

(3)  Second-level review:  The report of the first level reading committee for faculty with modified titles is submitted to the departmental Standing Committee on Practice for further consideration.  In instances where the Committee votes not to recommend reappointment and promotion, the department chair first advises the Executive Vice President of the outcome and then informs the candidate of the negative decision.

(4)  Letter of transmittal from the chair:  In instances where the department wishes to recommend reappointment and promotion, the department chair must submit a letter stating the case for promotion in full terms, incorporating the substance of the discussion of the relevant faculty committee, the details of the vote, and an explanation of the grounds given for any negative votes.  No report on the status of the review may be given to a candidate prior to the Executive Vice President’s having made a decision.

The promotion case must comment at length upon the candidate’s likelihood of passing the major review, here or at an institution of comparable stature, based on a full and complete evaluation of his or her work as a scholar, artist and teacher.

The chair also should provide guidance in the letter of transmittal regarding the normal standards for passage of a major review within the particular disciplines or fields.  For example, are journal articles, exhibitions, etc., alone a sufficient basis for determining stature?  Is the normal assumption the publication and acclaim of one or more book length projects, being in the permanent collections of major cultural institutions, having one’s works produced in major national and regional venues, having one’s work critically reviewed in prominent vehicles, etc.?  Are there other kinds of work that constitute the basis for passage of a major review within a particular discipline?                                     

A departmental recommendation for promotion to the rank of associate professor of professional practice should not be made unless the department believes, and can demonstrate, that the candidate’s teaching and scholarship or artistic contributions are likely to merit passage of major review at Columbia or an institution of comparable stature .  Recommendation for promotion to associate professor of professional practice allows more scope for the recognition of promise and potential than an actual major review recommendation.  It is a statement of probable passage of the major practice review, not a promise of it, and this circumstance should be made clear to the candidate as well as to the department.

A departmental vote not to recommend promotion and reappointment is a decision, which is conveyed to the Executive Vice President for Arts and Sciences by the department chair.

4. Major Review

(1)  Statement from the candidate: The department chair should ask the candidate to submit a full and current curriculum vitae and a full statement of teaching and current and future scholarly and artistic plans.  The curriculum vitae should indicate whether publications, productions or exhibitions listed as “forthcoming” have been accepted or contracted and when they are expected to be published, produced or held.  Entries for full-length books listed as “contracted” should also reveal whether readers’ reports exist, what portion of the work has actually been submitted to the press contracting it, and what the timetable is for completion.

(2)  A review committee report:  The first-level review of candidates for major review should be conducted by a reading committee of at least three senior faculty appointed by the department chair.  Semi-blind letters of evaluation, which include a comparison list of appropriate benchmarked colleagues, are solicited by the department from recognized experts in the candidate's specialization.  The referees are asked to assess the candidate’s qualifications and compare her/him to other prominent figures in the field.  Based on its assessment of the candidate’s credentials and informed by the semi-blind letters, the committee should make a specific recommendation on suitability for passage of the major review.  The committee’s recommendation should be framed in a written report to the department, and the chair should include this report among the materials forwarded to the Executive Vice President with the departmental recommendation.  The report should provide a detailed analysis of the candidate’s artistic productions and describe in a comprehensive manner her/his position in the field, including a discussion of evidence in support of this assessment.  Where published reviews are available, an annotated summary of the reviews should be prepared, and the summary should indicate the importance of a particular reviewer or review venue, where relevant.  The report should also contain systematic information on the candidate’s teaching and citizenship.  The detailed analysis of teaching performance should include a discussion of courses taught, involvement in the School’s central teaching requirements, enrollment history, student and peer evaluations (synthesized), advising, and thesis supervision. 

(3)  Second-level review:  The report of the first level reading committee is submitted, along with the candidate’s full dossier and the semi-blind letters, for further consideration by the departmental Standing Committee on Practice.  In instances where the Committee votes not to recommend passage of the major practice review, the department chair first advises the Executive Vice President of the outcome and then informs the candidate of the negative decision.

(4)  Letter of transmittal from the chair:  In instances where the department wishes to recommend passage of the major practice review, the department chair is required to submit a letter stating the case for the action.  The letter should situate the candidate within the overall context of the department and describe why her/his area of work is important to the department.  It should incorporate the substance of the discussion of the relevant faculty committees, give the details of the vote, and provide an explanation of the grounds given for any negative votes.  No report on the status of the review may be given to a candidate prior to the Executive Vice President’s having made a decision.

Those who will not be put up for major review, must receive written notification by May 15, 2015, indicating that their appointment will not be extended beyond June 30, 2016.

5. Subsequent Renewals for Professors of Professional Practice        

After successfully passing the major review, a faculty member holding an appointment with a modified practice title will be eligible for renewable contracts of up to seven years in length, subject to an appropriate review.  The department chair will appoint a five-person reading committee to consider and recommend on reappointment.

The candidate will be asked to submit a curriculum vitae, a statement of professional activities, and supporting materials documenting work during the previous seven years.  Evidence of teaching performance will also be provided. 

The review committee will consider the candidate’s on-going professional and creative work; teaching; and contributions to the Division, the Department and the University at large.  It may obtain outside letters of reference and make inquiries of experts in the field; however, it is not required to do so.  Upon completion of its review, the committee will prepare a written assessment of the faculty member and make a recommendation on reappointment.  The recommendation on reappointment is forwarded to the Standing Committee on Practice for consideration and a vote.  In instances where the Committee votes not to recommend reappointment, the department chair first advises the Executive Vice President of the outcome and then informs the candidate of the negative decision.

Reasons for non-renewal may be based upon, but not limited to, the following:

(a)  Evidence of continuous and on-going poor performance in the classroom. 

(b)  Failure to maintain an active professional involvement at a high level of
excellence as evidenced by the review.

(c)  A shift in the ongoing and future goals, needs, specializations, and practices of the Department’s curriculum that cannot be adequately met or fulfilled by the faculty member.

Faculty who are not renewed shall be given an additional, terminal year of appointment.

In instances where the department wishes to recommend renewal, the department chair is required to submit a letter stating the case for the action.  The letter should describe the candidate within the context of the department, incorporate the substance of the discussion of the faculty, give the details of the vote, and provide an explanation of the grounds given for any negative votes.  No report on the status of the review may be given to the candidate prior to the Executive Vice President’s having made a decision..

A&S review of positive department recommendations

Departmental recommendations on fifth-year reviews, Major Reviews, and Continuing Reviews for professional practice appointments are reviewed by the Promotion and Tenure Committee.  In considering fifth year reviews and continuing reviews, the Promotion and Tenure Committee does not replicate or preempt a major review panel’s functions in any case brought before it and will not read a candidate’s publications, interview witnesses and solicit evaluations from outside the University.  The responsibility will rest with the department to present a convincing case to the Promotion and Tenure Committee on the content and merit of the candidate’s work, on the effectiveness of the candidate’s teaching, and on the value of the candidate’s departmental and university service.

The Promotion and Tenure Committee acts as an advisory committee to the Executive Vice President for Arts and Sciences, and after reviewing the department’s case, makes its recommendation to the Executive Vice President.            

The Office of the Executive Vice President for Arts and Sciences will notify the departments of the outcome of the review process.  Departments are expected to inform their faculty in writing immediately about the outcome of the reviews and to forward a copy of this correspondence to the Office of the Executive Vice President for Arts and Sciences.  In addition, the Department Chair and his or her designee will meet with each candidate completing the critical review to summarize progress to date and offer guidance regarding areas for attention in the coming period.

sample review and reappointment schedules

Sample Review and Reappointment Schedule for Full-time, Practice Faculty in the School of the Arts

(Hired 7/1/2014 as Assistant Professor of Professional Practice)

Year of

Appointment

Year in Service

 

Type of Review

Year through Which Appointment May Be Extended and Possible Outcome

2014-15

1

Confirming

Extension up to through 4th year

OR

Notified that will not be renewed

2015-16

2

---

 

2016-17

3

Developmental

Extension through 5th or 6th year

OR

Decision not to renew and to discontinue at the end of the 4th year

2017-18

3*

---

Leave

2018-19

4

---

 

2019-20

5

Critical

Promotion to Associate Professor of Professional Practice and extension through up-or-out date

OR

Decision not to promote and to discontinue at the end of the 6th year

2020-21

6

---

 

2021-22

7

Major practice review

1)       First-level review of candidate

2)       First-level recommendation to Dean

3)       Second Level Review Committee established if positive

4)       Second Level Review Committee recommendation to department chair

5)       Department Chair reviews and forwards materials to Arts and Sciences by January 15

6)       Arts and Sciences conducts review

7)       Awarded five-year renewable appointment

        Decision not to nominate at any point in process and letter of non-renewal sent to faculty member

2022-23

8

---

First year in a 5-year continuing practice appointment

OR

Final year at Columbia



* Up-or-out date is extended when time is discounted because of leave(s), or may be extended for service as an instructor (pre-Ph.D.).
 


Full Professor of Professional Practice

For a printable version of the guidelines, visit this link.

Promotion to the rank of full professor recognizes scholars, practitioners and teachers who are performing at the highest levels of distinction.  Scholarly and professional practice contributions since the passage of the major review will be the primary consideration in evaluating faculty for promotion to the rank of full professor of professional practice.  However, it is also important to recognize that over the career of a practice faculty member the balance of activities can shift toward more intensive involvement in teaching and institutional service.  Therefore, distinction in teaching and/or particular dedication to institutional service might weigh more heavily in the evaluation for promotion to full professor than in the evaluation for major review.

 

procedures

In the fall the departmental chair is provided with a list of each associate professor of professional practice who have passed the major review.  Those who have completed five years or more of service beyond the passage of major review will be identified as potential candidates for review for promotion to full professor of professional practice.  While it is assumed that at least five years will be required to demonstrate the levels of sustained performance expected for promotion, there may be instances of exceptional scholarly achievement or of an offer from another institution that justify review before five years have elapsed.

With the agreement of the faculty member, the department conducts a review according to its by-laws.  The candidate will be asked to provide a current curriculum vitae and a statement describing teaching, scholarly and artistic plans, service activities, and special achievements since the passage of major review.  Evidence of artistic, teaching, and service accomplishments since the passage of major review should also be provided.  Only those at the rank of tenured professor or professor of professional practice are eligible to deliberate on the case.

If the case is deemed sufficiently persuasive, a vote on the promotion is taken and recorded in a letter of transmittal from the departmental chair to the Executive Vice President for Arts and Sciences.  The letter should summarize the departmental case for promotion and is accompanied by the candidate’s curriculum vitae, activities statement, and any reading committee report that may have been prepared.

The departmental recommendation and accompanying dossier are reviewed by the Promotion and Tenure Committee of the Arts and Sciences.  If the Committee deems the dossier incomplete, it will request additional information from the departmental chair.  A recommendation on the case is made by the Committee to the Executive Vice President for Arts and Sciences.  If the recommendation is negative, the Committee will provide the Executive Vice President with guidance to be communicated to the candidate through the departmental chair.

The recommendation of the Promotion and Committee is advisory to the Executive Vice President for Arts and Sciences.  Upon receipt of the recommendation of the Committee, the Executive Vice President makes a decision and notifies the departmental chair.  (In some instances, the Executive Vice President may solicit external opinions on the case, but will not do so as a matter of general practice.)  The departmental chair then informs the candidate of the outcome.  In cases where the decision is positive, the departmental chair and the Office of the Executive Vice President work together to prepare the recommendation for promotion for submission to the Provost and the Board of Trustees.

If a review is conducted and promotion is not granted, the candidate should be informed of the basis for the declination and be provided guidance on areas for attention.  A subsequent review would not be expected before at least two years from the prior review and until the basis for the declination no longer exists.

TYPICAL SCHEDULE

March 1, 2015            Departmental recommendation and materials are forwarded to the Executive Vice President

By April 15, 2015       Promotion and Tenure Committees recommendations are forwarded to the Executive Vice President

May 1, 2015                Executive Vice President informs the department of the decision

June 10, 2015           Promotion is considered at Board of Trustees meeting

July 1, 2015                Successful promotion takes effect.

 


 

 


 

Language Lecturer

For a printable version of the guidelines, visit this link, here

In July 1987, the University Senate and Board of Trustees approved the creation of a professional career track for full-time associates and lecturers in the less commonly taught languages that allowed the Arts & Sciences to appoint and continue to employ valuable teachers who would otherwise be subject to the “up-or-out” rules and the tenure review system designed for research faculty.  In 1995-96 the option of appointing full-time language associates and lecturers in the Language Lecturer system was extended to all relevant departments in the Arts and Sciences. The official University titles for this career track are Associate in [Language], Lecturer in [Language], and Senior Lecturer in [Language]. (Details on appointment types for Officers of Instruction are found in the Columbia University Faculty Handbook at http://www.cc.columbia.edu/cu/vpaa/fhb/main.html)

LECTURER RANKS

The rank of Associate in [Language] is appropriate for individuals who have native or near-native language proficiency and some training in language pedagogy, but who have had relatively little teaching experience. That experience may range from teaching during graduate training to fewer than two years of full-time teaching at the college level.

The rank of Lecturer in [Language] is appropriate for individuals who have native or near-native language proficiency, training in language pedagogy, substantial teaching experience with documented evidence of  pedagogical excellence, and evidence of professional growth and activity in the field of language pedagogy either at Columbia or nationally. Evidence of such activity includes, but is not limited to creating textbooks or other forms of instructional materials and making presentations or publishing articles on language pedagogy or language acquisition language pedagogy or language acquisition.

The rank of Senior Lecturer in [Language] is appropriate for individuals who have a superlative record of teaching as a lecturer and documented evidence of excellence in carrying out administrative or other department responsibilities such as directing specific courses; have contributed to the training of language teachers and served on department and university committees; shown continued professional growth in support of the department’s teaching mission and capacity for scholarly contributions to the language teaching profession within and outside the University.   Evidence of such activity includes, but is not limited to creating textbooks or other forms of instructional materials and making presentations or publishing articles on language pedagogy or language acquisition.

PROCEDURES FOR APPOINTMENT

It is the responsibility of the Executive Vice President for Arts and Sciences to approve the creation of every full-time lecturer-in-language position.  A department wishing to appoint a new associate or lecturer in this career track must make such a request in writing to the Executive Vice President for Arts and Sciences as part of the unit’s regular Instructional Budget Statement. (The American Language Program should make such requests through the Dean of the School of Continuing Education.)

statutory terms of appointment

By university statutes, all initial appointments are for one year only.  Subsequent appointments may be for a term of one, two, or three years.  Passage of the major review and subsequent continuing reviews carry the opportunity for reappointment for a term of up to five years.

The university may choose not to renew an appointment beyond its stated term because of budgetary considerations, changes in staffing or curricular needs, or less than optimal performance on the part of the officer.  In such cases, the University must give written notice according to the following schedule:

(1)  Not later than March 1 before the end of the first year of service (March 1, 2015);

(2)  Not later than December 15 before the end of the second year of service (December 15, 2014);

(3)  At least twelve months before the end of all subsequent periods of service (May 31, 2015).

 

review schedules

Associates in [Language] are reviewed for renewal of appointment in the first, second, fifth and eighth year of service. Promotion to lecturer in language is possible at the time of the second-year review.

Lecturers in [Language] are reviewed for renewal of appointment in the first, second, fifth and eighth years of service. Promotion to senior lecturer in language is possible at the time of the eighth-year review.

Senior Lecturers in [Language] undergo a major review prior to appointment or during their first year of service and continuing reviews every five years thereafter.

types of reviews

Confirming Review (First Year).  The first year of service for all full-time faculty, regardless of rank, serves as a probationary period. A decision must be made whether to extend the statutory initial appointment.  Those who successfully complete the probationary period will be extended for an additional year.  Those who do not should be notified in writing by March 1, 2015 that their appointment will not be renewed beyond June 30, 2015.

Developmental Review (Second Year).  The developmental review takes place before the end of the second year, at which time a department may decide to make a third year terminal or to recommend continuation for three years.  In the case of an Associate, promotion to the rank of Lecturer may be considered at this time.

Critical Review (Fifth Year).  The second professional review takes place the end of the fifth year, at which time a department may decide to make the sixth year terminal, or to recommend continuation for three more years into the eighth year. 

Major Review (Eighth Year).  The third professional review takes place before the end of the eighth year, at which time a department may decide to make the ninth year terminal, or to recommend extension for an additional five years

Continuing Reviews (Every Five Years).  All subsequent reviews are to be conducted at the end of each five-year cycle, with either a recommendation for an additional five years, or a recommendation for non-renewal after a terminal year.  Reviews from the thirteenth year on are to be conducted by the department chair and at least two other faculty (either professorial or lecturer track with one member being  trained in language pedagogy and the other being external to the department, but not necessarily external to the University).

promotion to lecturer

To recognize strong performance of an Associate in [Language] the university will consider conferral of the title Lecturer in [Language].  Promotion to Lecturer does not alter the review schedule. Proposals to promote an Associate to Lecturer may not be made before the end of the second year.  The completion of a successful second-year review does not necessarily entail promotion to Lecturer. A department should propose candidates for promotion to Lecturer only when the following qualities are demonstrated:

(1)  Substantial teaching experience and documented evidence of pedagogical excellence ;

(2)  Evidence of professional growth and activity in the field of language pedagogy.

promotion to senior lecturer

To recognize high performance of a Lecturer in Discipline in a language program the university will consider conferral of the title Senior Lecturer in [Language].  No promotions in rank or title are possible beyond Senior Lecturer in [Language].  Proposals to promote a Lecturer to Senior Lecturer may not normally be made before the eighth year of service.  The completion of a successful eighth-year review does not necessarily entail promotion to Senior Lecturer in [Language].  A department should propose candidates for promotion to Senior Lecturer in [Language] only when the following qualities are demonstrated:

(1)  Evidence of continued excellence in teaching;

(2)  Success  in carrying out administrative or other department responsibilities such as directing specific courses, contributing to the training of language teachers, or serving on department or university committees;

(3)  Achievement and/or innovation in support of the department’s pedagogical mission, including but not limited to: contributing to the development of existing teaching materials; writing new language textbooks; developing methodological advances in teaching;

(4)  Demonstrated capacity for leadership in the language teaching profession within and outside the University;

(5)  Continuing involvement in the profession as evidenced by presentation of papers on language pedagogy or language acquisition at professional meetings and/or publication of scholarly articles in the field.

procedures for review

In all cases, beginning with the developmental review in the second year, the Standing Committee on Language Lecturers will require evidence of a full and complete departmental review of the candidate’s work.  Reviews in the second, fifth, and eighth years should include evaluation by a three-person review committee.  The department chair will appoint a three-person committee to conduct a review and make a recommendation to the department for renewal or non-renewal.  It is important that at least one member of the review committee be trained in language pedagogy and at least one member of the review committee be external to the department, but not necessarily external to the university.  The department will deliberate on the committee’s recommendation.  The outcome of those deliberations will be communicated to the Executive Vice President for Arts and Sciences in a letter of transmittal. 

The review process should entail:

(1)  Examination of the candidate’s dossier, which includes an updated curriculum vitae, a statement of teaching philosophy, a statement of professional work in progress, and samples of course materials such as syllabi, handouts, and supplements;

(2)  Evaluation by each of the three reviewers of classroom performance composed after observing at least two classes, and a review of student evaluations for all classes taught by the candidate since the last review (if applicable).  The evaluations composed by the three reviewers should be attached to the letter of transmittal to the Executive Vice President for Arts and Sciences. Copies of all student evaluations should be submitted along with the summary data page for each set of student evaluations.

The following will be assessed through a review of the statement of teaching philosophy, classroom observation, and the student evaluations: 1) strategies used to promote target language communication; 2)  strategies used to meet the needs of all learners; 3) reflection of pedagogical goals as reflected in the work assigned to students; 4) strategies for engaging students in cultural activities within and outside the classroom; and 5) consonance between pedagogical practices and the candidate’s statement of teaching philosophy.

The following will be assessed through the examination of the curriculum vitae and the statement of professional work in progress: 1) evidence of professional growth in the field of language pedagogy; 2) active involvement in the profession either at Columbia or nationally; and 3) professional leadership experience and performance.

report to the standing committee on language lecturers

In instances of a positive vote by the department, the chair of the department will prepare a letter of transmittal to be sent to the Executive Vice President for Arts and Sciences.  The letter will record the result of the departmental vote and summarize the basis for the department’s positive recommendation.  It will include a discussion of the candidate’s teaching load and course enrollments and be accompanied by an analysis of teaching performance.  The statement will analyze the available data and reports of teaching observations as they reflect both the instructor’s strengths and areas in need of attention.  The letter should also speak to the department’s recommendations at the last review as well as to the candidate’s responses to them. The letter should be accompanied by the candidate’s full dossier: curriculum vitae, the statement of teaching philosophy, the statement of professional work in progress, samples of course materials such as syllabi, handouts and supplements to the text, and written reports of classroom observations and post-visitation discussions from each of the faculty members who observed the candidate’s class and examined the student evaluations.

In instances of a negative vote by the department, the chair of the department will notify the Executive Vice President for Arts and Sciences of the departmental decision.  The chair will then notify the candidate in writing of the negative decision.  Candidates not being recommended for renewal will be given a terminal year of appointment.

Departments must submit their recommendations to the Executive Vice President for Arts and Sciences by March 1, 2015.  The Executive Vice President will then seek input from the Standing Committee on Language Lecturers.  The committee will review the dossier and make a recommendation to the Executive Vice President for Arts and Sciences.  The Executive Vice President will write to the chair of the department regarding the outcome of the review, with a request that the chair inform the candidate in writing with a copy to the Executive Vice President.   Candidates must be sent letters informing them of their status no later than June 30, 2015 and in the case of non-renewal no later than May 15, 2015.   It is the chair’s obligation to convey to the candidate any concerns about his or her performance as well as any improvement that will be expected at the next scheduled review.

review schedule

Review Schedule for Associates, Lecturers and Senior Lecturers in [Language]

Review Schedule                                 Consequences

End of year one                                   (A)  Recommend for  one more year 

(internal)                                              (B)  Notify will not be renewed

 

End of year two                                  (A)  Decision to make third year terminal

(internal and external)                        (B)  Recommend for three-year contract and promote to lecturer if relevant

 

End of year five                                  (A)  Appoint only 1 more year

(internal and external)                        (B)  Appoint 3 more years and consider promotion to lecturer if relevant

 

End of year eight                                (A)  Appoint only 1 more year

(internal and external)                        (B)  Renew for 5 more years

                                                           (C)  Consider promotion to lecturer or senior lecturer if relevant

 

End of thirteenth and                           (A)  Appoint only 1 more year

subsequent five-year                           (B)  Renew for 5 more years

intervals (internal)                                (C)  Consider promotion to lecturer or senior lecturer if relevant

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 


 




 

 


 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

Full Professor

For a printable version of the guidelines, visit this link, here

Promotion to the rank of full professor recognizes scholars and teachers who are performing at the highest levels of distinction.  Scholarly contributions since the award of tenure will be the primary consideration in evaluating faculty for promotion to the rank of full professor.  However, it is also important to recognize that over the career of a tenured faculty member the balance of activities can shift toward more intensive involvement in teaching and institutional service.  Therefore, distinction in teaching and/or particular dedication to institutional service might weigh more heavily in the evaluation for promotion to full professor than in the evaluation for tenure.

procedures

In the fall the departmental chair is provided with a list of each associate professor of professional practice who have passed the major review.  Those who have completed five years or more of service beyond the passage of major review will be identified as potential candidates for review for promotion to full professor of professional practice.  While it is assumed that at least five years will be required to demonstrate the levels of sustained performance expected for promotion, there may be instances of exceptional scholarly achievement or of an offer from another institution that justify review before five years have elapsed.

With the agreement of the faculty member, the department conducts a review according to its by-laws.  The candidate will be asked to provide a current curriculum vitae and a statement describing teaching, scholarly and artistic plans, service activities, and special achievements since the passage of major review.  Evidence of artistic, teaching, and service accomplishments since the passage of major review should also be provided.  Only those at the rank of tenured professor or professor of professional practice are eligible to deliberate on the case.

If the case is deemed sufficiently persuasive, a vote on the promotion is taken and recorded in a letter of transmittal from the departmental chair to the Executive Vice President for Arts and Sciences.  The letter should summarize the departmental case for promotion and is accompanied by the candidate’s curriculum vitae, activities statement, and any reading committee report that may have been prepared.

The departmental recommendation and accompanying dossier are reviewed by the Promotion and Tenure Committee of the Arts and Sciences.  If the Committee deems the dossier incomplete, it will request additional information from the departmental chair.  A recommendation on the case is made by the Committee to the Executive Vice President for Arts and Sciences.  If the recommendation is negative, the Committee will provide the Executive Vice President with guidance to be communicated to the candidate through the departmental chair.

The recommendation of the Promotion and Committee is advisory to the Executive Vice President for Arts and Sciences.  Upon receipt of the recommendation of the Committee, the Executive Vice President makes a decision and notifies the departmental chair.  (In some instances, the Executive Vice President may solicit external opinions on the case, but will not do so as a matter of general practice.)  The departmental chair then informs the candidate of the outcome.  In cases where the decision is positive, the departmental chair and the Office of the Executive Vice President work together to prepare the recommendation for promotion for submission to the Provost and the Board of Trustees.

If a review is conducted and promotion is not granted, the candidate should be informed of the basis for the declination and be provided guidance on areas for attention.  A subsequent review would not be expected before at least two years from the prior review and until the basis for the declination no longer exists.

typical schedule 

March 1, 2015            Departmental recommendation and materials are forwarded to the Executive Vice President

By April 15, 2015       Promotion and Tenure Committees recommendations are forwarded to the Executive Vice President

May 1, 2015                Executive Vice President informs the department of the decision

June 10, 2015           Promotion is considered at Board of Trustees meeting

July 1, 2015                Successful promotion takes effect.