Deans’ offices and the Provost’s Office (PO) confirm the names of all full-time faculty scheduled for review in the following academic year.

For “stand alone” rank reviews only:
Faculty discuss with their dean or designee their interest in being reviewed for promotion in rank, and, after that, submit an official request using the PO forms. Faculty are encouraged to contact their dean or executive dean regarding the status of their rank review application at any time and the dean or executive dean will communicate decisions to the faculty member directly.

• Note that all requests will be initially reviewed by the dean or executive dean who creates a local college-specific process to determine whether the request to be considered for a rank review will be forwarded to the PO. (The college-specific practices regarding rank review requests will be memorialized in the College Supplements).
• For requests for a review to the rank of Full Professor, deans or executive deans must indicate the specific full professor path (the pedagogy path or the RSCP (research, scholarship, and/or creative or professional practice) path) and the rationale for selection of the path, for each request per the policies outlined in the Full-Time Faculty Handbook. Effective AY 18-19 the provost has formed the PO Full Professor Advisory Committee (PO-FPAC). This committee is advisory to the provost and will consider rank review requests (for full professor only) from the colleges to the provost, assisting the provost in determining eligibility to move forward with a promotion review for the rank of full professor.

Candidates for promotion or reappointment review will be notified by their deans’ offices and will be provided with guidelines for the review process. (Candidates for standalone rank reviews are notified in February.)

• At this time, the dean and/or designee will inform the faculty about the requirements for the review and the faculty will be counseled early and often about substantive expectations and standards for the review. The annual review process will be one of the occasions when this mentoring and information sharing takes place. Faculty will be provided with systematic and frank advice about their progress annually in benchmark reviews and constructive criticism, and practical guidance will be provided for future efforts.
• At any time during the review process faculty may consult with the Associate Provost of Faculty Affairs in the Provost’s Office, or with their dean’s office to answer questions and/or find out the status of the review in terms of the overall process.

For “stand alone” rank reviews only:
The dean’s office forwards supported applications to the PO using the Provost’s Office form and formally requests that such reviews be considered and scheduled.

• The PO also asks that the dean and/or executive dean forward his/her overall judgments regarding all applications in one summary document for the PO consideration and review.

Faculty scheduled for promotion or reappointment review the following fall submit an updated CV to the dean’s office (or department chair for NSSR). Effective April 2019: where external letters are required, faculty submit an annotated list of no more than 3-4 potential external letter writers. Faculty may also submit a veto list of up to 2 names of people whom they do not want contacted to serve as external reviewers. When making the list, faculty are asked to refrain from recommending anyone who might benefit from their promotion, such as their dissertation advisor, a co-editor, or a co-author.

• The names of the external reviewers are strictly confidential and candidates for review should not be in touch with any individuals whose name has been provided.
• No more than 30% of the letters solicited and used for the review can be from the candidate’s list of suggestions. For this reason, candidates are advised to provide no more than 3-4 names mindful that the review committee will supplement the list with their own list which is likely to already include key figures in your field or discipline.
• Please see External Letters for Full-Time Faculty Reviews regarding number of letters required and specific practices and procedures for external letters.

For “stand alone” rank reviews only:
By February 1 all applications will be reviewed by the PO and decisions communicated to the colleges. Executive deans/deans will notify the faculty about the outcome of each application for consideration for rank review; if the case is not approved, reasons for that decision will be provided.

Peer review committees (both ad hoc committees and college-level committees) are formed for each candidate for review and approval by the PO.

• Executive Deans or Deans, in accordance with college-specific procedures memorialized in College Supplements (where available), identify peer faculty to serve on all peer review committees (college-level committees as well as ad hoc committees) and submit a proposed list of these committees to the PO for review and confirmation.
• Eligibility to serve on ad hoc or college-level committees: Committee members are peers with disciplinary and/or trans-disciplinary expertise to assess the RSCP, teaching, and service of the candidate. Generally, committee members are full time faculty at the same rank or higher than the candidate.
• Ad hoc peer review committees generally have 3-4 members, most of whom are New School faculty, and one of whom serves as chair. For NSSR, the peer review committee is the department or subcommittee of the department depending on the type of review.
• In some cases, where disciplinary capacity is limited, faculty outside of The New School may be asked to serve on the committee (not be confused with external letter writers).
• Chairs of ad hoc committees (or NSSR departments) in consultation with the dean and committee members, create a list of external reviewers to be contacted for the purpose of writing letters, taking into account any lists submitted by the faculty member being reviewed. Further, they ensure that faculty engaged in interdisciplinary or cross-disciplinary work have appropriate external letter writers reflecting the faculty member’s scope and range of work.
• Ad hoc peer review committees are charged by the dean or executive dean of the college (or his/her designee). In NSSR, the department chair charges and convenes the group.
• Faculty serving on an ad hoc peer review committee may not serve on any committees at other levels of the review and are required to physically recuse themselves when the case is considered at any other level of the process. By implication, they may vote only once regarding any case. Any exceptions, whether they are the function of contingent circumstances or features of standing procedures (such as those at NSSR), must be clearly articulated and transparent to faculty undergoing review and indicated in review letters. It is understood that all such exceptions must be rigorously limited. There are no exceptions at the university level: UPRC and UTRC committee members are physically recused from any case where they served at any other level of the review. Finally, faculty members are encouraged to recuse themselves if participating in a review would present a conflict of interest of any sort; possible reasons for recusal would include, but not be limited to, having a family relationship, close friendship, and/or financial or fiscal relationship.

For “stand alone” rank reviews only:
By March 1 faculty will be notified by their dean’s office that they are to be considered for rank review (with the exception of rank reviews from instructor to assistant) will provide their dean’s office with an annotated list of 3-4 potential external reviewers. Faculty may also submit a veto list of up to three external reviews. (See External Letters for Full-Time Faculty Reviews for additional details about external letters).

March - May deans’ offices will identify faculty to serve on the ad hoc rank review committees and submit the names for vetting by the PO.

Dossier due to candidate’s dean’s office by July 1 or later as specified by the candidate's dean's office. Please see Full-Time Faculty Review Dossier for information.

For “stand alone” rank reviews only:
Dossier due to candidate’s dean’s office by August 1 or earlier as specified by the candidate's dean's office. Please see Full-Time Faculty Review Dossier for information.

Dossiers are made available to external letter writers, where required, and their evaluative letters are collected. Reviewers are given access by the dean’s office to the PDF of the dossier through Google drive or Dropbox, per dean’s office guidelines.

The PO provides an orientation for all chairs of faculty peer review committees, both ad hoc and college level, and NSSR department chairs or designees. Also invited are the chairs of UPRC and UTRC.

The review process has the following steps at the college level in the fall semester:

• Review by the ad hoc peer review committee (or NSSR department) whose letter is added to the dossier for submission to the college-level committee and which includes assessment of the Course Evaluations.
• In NSSR, the department reviews the dossier and writes the substantive letter that goes to one of the college-level committees (tenure, or reappointment, or promotion).
• In Parsons:
• Worth noting: the material received by the ad hoc committee for RTA or RTA-oars reappointment reviews does not include a letter from the Parsons School Dean.
• For all other reviews at Parsons the dossier goes to the School Dean and External reviewers at the same time.
• Review by the college-level committee whose letter is added to the dossier for submission to the school dean and/or executive dean in accordance with college-specific practices:
• In Lang, the chair of the ad hoc peer review committee presents the case to the college committee, which includes the dean and associate dean as ex officio members.
• In Parsons, the college-level committee (APT) only reviews tenure, EE, and PPR cases; at this time, there is no college-level committee for RTA or RTA-oars reviews.
• Review by the school dean (in Parsons, SPE, and CoPA):
• In Parsons, for tenure and EE reviews, review by and input from the school dean is based on the dossier and course evaluations without access to external letters. For RTA and RTA-oars reviews, review by and input from the school dean is based on the dossier, course evaluations, and the letter from the ad hoc review committee. The school dean’s letter is added to the dossier.
• In SPE, the school deans review the dossier, external letters (when required), and the letter from the peer review committee. The school dean’s letter is added to the dossier.

• Review by the executive dean whose letter reflecting their independent assessment of the case is added to the dossier for submission to the PO. In cases of joint appointment, significant involvement in a second college, and/or substantial cross university collaborations the dean will solicit input from the other dean (or deans) at the beginning of the review. This is especially important for faculty engaged in interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary work.

Note: In each and every case, substantive points made in letters at every level of the review must be supported by arguments and evidence from the dossier, including external letters and all supplemental materials.

The review process has the following steps at the level of the Provost’s Office in the spring:

• Once received from the colleges (and throughout the spring), the PO distributes full dossiers (including all additional materials) to the UPRC (University Promotion Review Committee) for tenure, EE, and rank reviews of tenured and EE faculty, and to the UTRC (University Term Review Committee) for RTA and RTA-oars reappointment reviews and rank reviews of RTA faculty.
• PPR reviews (post-probationary reviews for tenure-track and EE track faculty) go directly to the PO from the college and are not reviewed by the UPRC.
• In each and every case the UPRC and UTRC submits a letter regarding the procedures used for the review. As with all review letters, the UPRC and UTRC letters must reference the evidence used from the dossiers to support the arguments being made.
• The UPRC and UTRC meeting schedules are coordinated with the schedule of the Board of Trustees.
• The Provost reviews the recommendations of the UPRC and UTRC and in each case makes an independent assessment.
• The PO forwards dockets for all successful cases to the President and the Board of Trustees for official consideration and approval.
• The President and Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees review the dockets of the candidates forwarded by the PO for consideration.
• The Associate Provost informs the deans and faculty about promotion and reappointment actions taken by the Board of Trustees (after each and every Board meeting) and follows up with official Provost’s Office notification letters and, where relevant, salary increase letters.

Estimated official notification to the faculty member of the review’s outcome.

Post-review follow-up and feedback for the candidate with the executive dean or designee and/or school dean and/or associate dean and/or the chair of the peer review committee and executive dean or dean or their designee.