Dubious Faculty Review

[Ruralguy]

Try not to speak in absolutes. If the portfolio is weak, then it has to be weak as compared to a certain standard, and you should say what that is (your own dept., the top 40 R1's, whatever) . Also, I wouldn't extrapolate into "You shouldn't promote this person." If the school doesn't tend to promote people with the sort of review you might give, then they don't.  That's on them, not you, especially if they didn't ask.

[mleok]

Try not to speak in absolutes. If the portfolio is weak, then it has to be weak as compared to a certain standard, and you should say what that is (your own dept., the top 40 R1's, whatever) . Also, I wouldn't extrapolate into "You shouldn't promote this person." If the school doesn't tend to promote people with the sort of review you might give, then they don't.  That's on them, not you, especially if they didn't ask.

Yes, that seems reasonable enough. It certainly makes sense to contextualize the assessment, and there should definitely be a difference in expectation for promotion at an institution with a 1-1 teaching load vs. one with a 3-3 teaching load. Having said that, if a department at a R1 actually has a 3-3 teaching load, then they're simply asking for trouble by sending a mediocre file to a faculty member at a R1 with a 1-1 teaching load.

[Ruralguy]

I don't know enough about the school in question or the candidate to really say anything too firmly one way or another, but I'm inclined to think that they probably need to rethink their external review process.

[Hegemony]

Yes, that seems reasonable enough. It certainly makes sense to contextualize the assessment, and there should definitely be a difference in expectation for promotion at an institution with a 1-1 teaching load vs. one with a 3-3 teaching load. Having said that, if a department at a R1 actually has a 3-3 teaching load, then they're simply asking for trouble by sending a mediocre file to a faculty member at a R1 with a 1-1 teaching load.

A little snooping reveals that the normal teaching load at Promotion Candidate's university is 3-3. My own is not 1-1 — that would be bliss! We're 2-2 in my department, partially because we have large classes size; some departments with small class sizes here are 2-3 or 3-3.

[Ruralguy]

Definitely mention that then. Though you probably also want to see what other CV's look like at that school for that career stage before you conclude that all of the difference is due to teaching load.

[teach_write_research]

Is it possible that the department wants to promote the candidate because of exceptional teaching or service, so the research just has to be adequate? Outside reviews can't speak to teaching or service, except in the most general way. The department's narrative about the candidate ought to give a clue if this is the case.

This seems possible. Maybe faculty can also prioritize the weights for their review? For example, if research, teaching, and service are broken into fifths a prof who has focused on being department head or associate dean might be able to say service is 2, teaching is 2, and research is 1. Someone else with a grant and teaching release might put research at 3 and teaching and service each at 1.

Or it's time to finally go up for full prof, ready or not.

[Harlow2]

We are an R-1 Wannabe with a current 4-4 load, which most of us are able to reduce to a 3-3 if we have provable research productivity. For promotion to full we send a list of departmental expectations to the reviewer.  Always interesting to see the variability in this process.

[Parasaurolophus]

We are an R-1 Wannabe with a current 4-4 load

Wow.

I mean, I personally am an R1-wannabe with a 4-4 load, but that's a different matter!