It is the expectation that, in all but rare circumstances, faculty members in the Tenure-track/Tenure and Non-Tenure Faculty Lines will be considered for promotion by the APT Committee after five (5) years in rank (at both Assistant Professor, and Associate Professor levels) with the expectation to be promoted by their 6th year in rank.
In some cases, personal or professional circumstances may warrant an additional variable term in rank prior to APT Committee review. In those cases, the Chair, The Dean of Faculty Affairs, and the Executive Dean for Administration and Finance will meet to review the faculty member’s performance according to the following criteria:
- Scholarly productivity: As indicated above, but within the context of >five years in rank.
- Qualified support: In considering qualified support as a criterion for reappointment, the following shall be considered:
- As set forth in Appendix 3: Geisel Policy on Compensation and Research Support, qualified sources are defined as to whether or not they derive from central funds of the Geisel School of Medicine. They are not defined by other parameters, such as indirect cost recovery levels or the fund/foundation/granting agency (unless that entity provides centrally-derived funds).
- Meeting compensation expectations is not the sole determinant for either reappointment or advancement. Expectations for reappointment and advancement extend to include criteria set forth both above and below (Part III: Areas of Endeavor) that reflect accomplishments recognized both internally and externally with respect to scholarship, advances in research, excellence in teaching, and both intramural and extramural service/engagement as defined for each line.
- Meeting expectations for compensation recovery is not the determinant by which the institution makes commitments of space or other institutional resources to a faculty member. Allocation of both facilities and administrative support to any faculty member rests on the obligations that the School has set out as part of an offer of employment, the conditions of the award that The School accepts as the grantee for a sponsored award, and factors such as the modified total direct costs (MTDCs) and indirect costs (IDCs) that are provided with such awards.
- The amount of any award to a faculty member is not in and of itself a criterion for promotion: promotion rests on an assessment of academic accomplishments. In making its deliberations, however, the APT Committee may consider the size of an award as a relevant criterion if it connotes the competitive nature of that award and the external recognition of excellence and achievement that is bestowed upon the faculty member who receives such a highly competitive award.
iii. Evaluations of performance to date from full professors in the department and (if relevant) from secondary/tertiary Chairs or other individuals who may have specific expertise to comment on the performance of the faculty member to date.
iv. Teaching: Assessment shall consider the expected teaching obligations and a review of the faculty member’s performance to date
v. Service: Assessment shall consider institutional and external service roles.
vi. Mitigating circumstances: These may include significant personal disruptions (e.g., illness or parental leave) or untoward professional disruptions (e.g., a lab fire and loss of key experimental material or data).
It is the expectation that the Chair, the Dean of Faculty Affairs and the Executive Dean for Administration and Finance will be in agreement on extending an additional provisional appointment term when it is warranted.
In those rare circumstances where the Chair, the Dean of Faculty Affairs, and the Executive Dean for Administration and Finance are not in agreement as to whether or not a faculty member should receive a provisional reappointment, the Dean’s Office shall convene a panel of five full professors who are not in the faculty member’s home department and with whom the faculty member and the Chair do not have a conflict of interest, to review the performance of the faculty member and to make a recommendation to the Dean as to whether or not a second term should be provided and the duration of that second term. This panel must be convened within one (1) month of the time of assessment by the Chair, Dean of Faculty Affairs, and Executive Dean for Administration and Finance.
Unless there are conditions of financial exigency, as determined by the Dean and the Board of Trustees of Dartmouth College, or if there is documentation that the faculty member should be dismissed for cause (see section on Council on Academic Freedom and Responsibility in the document, entitled “Organization of the Faculty of Dartmouth College,” OFDC), the Dean will advance the recommendation of this review panel to the DAB and on to the Provost Office.
The Dean may, however, indicate (in writing) to the DAB/Provost that they do not support the recommendation of the panel.
If, following this process, a provisional reappointment is not approved, reconsideration of this decision may be made only following considerations outlined under the section on Council on Academic Freedom and Responsibility, in the OFDC document.
If a provisional reappointment term is recommended by the panel, the faculty member shall receive a letter indicating the duration of that term, stating that there shall be continuation of compensation support during that term, providing the date required for review by the APT Committee for promotion, and giving a provisional end date for the appointment if the candidate is not promoted (i.e., is not successfully recommended at all levels—the APT Committee, the Dean, the DAB, and the Provost).
In all cases, awarding a reduced-term additional appointment at any rank also requires establishing a plan to restore the faculty member’s academic trajectory to an appropriate level and time frame. While such plans do not always necessitate provision of bridge funding, the templates in Appendices 3C and 3D are appropriate for delineating such a plan.