Changes to the Review Schedule

Proposal: Replace the current system of FAC reviews in the 2nd, 4th, and 6th year with reviews in the 3rd and 6th year, plus a post-tenure review in the 10th year prior to promotion to full. Prior to tenure, in the 2nd, 4th, and 5th years, faculty members will undergo less formal developmental reviews  conducted by Faculty Development. The substance of these reviews would only be shared with the faculty member under review.

The following charts lay out the process and schedule. Click on them for bigger versions.



Questions to ponder:

  • What will the nature of the less formal Faculty Development reviews be?
    • We envision these as much simpler and completely confidential between the reviewee and the faculty development partner(s). There would be no formal personal statement, no solicitation of student letters. The focus would be on attaining teaching excellence and making appropriate progress in the other three areas.
  • Will Faculty Development require more staffing to handle these reviews?
  • How can we make sure Faculty Development partners give good advice about what FAC will be looking for in the 3rd and 6th year reviews?
  • Will a reduced number and wider spacing of reviews hinder us from prompt action for faculty members unable or unwilling to meet Guilford’s standards?

One Comment

  1. The faculty development reviews conducted by the FD partner(s) sounds similar to the current informal mentorship program. While I appreciate the fewer large, formal reviews and more informal reviews, I think the informal review could be more robust:

    1. At least three members (or partners) of faculty development complete each review. A single reviewer may have a limited perspective (or investment) in the review process.

    2. Shorter self-evaluation is required, maybe 5-10 pages. I think this is crucial, and the self-evaluation during the informal reviews can be extended into the formal reviews, making the formal reviews easier.

Leave a Comment