Report of the Department (First Level) APT Review Committee

Submitted by rfollman on Thu, 03/25/2021 - 09:35

(APT Policy Section IV.A.7) This report has two distinct parts, neither of which is shown to the candidate.  In addition, the Unit (First Level) APT Review Committee may include an optional Minority Report in cases of major disagreement with the APT Review Committee report.  All parts of the report are incorporated into the dossier sent by the Chair to higher levels of review.

The first part is the Unit (First Level) APT Review Committee Meeting Report, describing the decision meeting. This report is ordinarily written by the Chair of the APT Review Committee or a designee. The discussions and the exact vote must be presented, as well as any departmental rules about the number of votes required for a positive recommendation.  The report should contain the meeting date and be signed by its author. 

The second part is the Evaluative Report. The Unit may form an Advisory Subcommittee, whose members should be identified, to complete this part of the report.  The Evaluative Report evaluates the candidate’s research or creativity, service, mentoring and teaching contributions, and Extension activities (if applicable) in light of the Unit’s standards. Some of the elements of the report will be based on data provided in greater detail in other sections of the dossier. In this instance, bear in mind that the purpose of this report is evaluative, and try to avoid repeating information.

The Evaluative Report should address the following questions:

  • What are the standards and expectations of the Department or discipline with respect to the candidate, as expressed in departmental criteria, and how are they measured?
  • What are the candidate’s major contributions?  Why are these contributions important in the candidate’s field?
  • Has the candidate met or surpassed the Department’s standards and expectations?
  • Does the candidate’s record demonstrate a trajectory of future contributions and accomplishments?
  • What evidence supports the Review Committee’s evaluation?

This information is particularly helpful in areas with distinctive expectations for promotion and/or tenure. It is essential to identify the specific contributions and impact for candidates who work in groups/collaborative projects that lead to large numbers of co-authored works, funded projects with multiple teams/PIs/Co-PIs, or other forms of collaborations.  Keep in mind that the report will be read by faculty members and administrators outside the Unit who may not have specific domain knowledge.

The following are suggestions for summarizing and evaluating faculty performance:

Research, Scholarly, Extension, Creative and/or Professional Activities

An evaluation supported explicitly by evidence of the quality, impact, and sufficiency of the work should be provided, including a description of the influence of the work in the field.  The nature of the scholarly activity often determines the appropriate metrics of impact, quality, and sufficiency, and may include:

  • Citation rates, h-index, impact factors, publications in ranked journal, acceptance rates, downloads, and other quantitative measures;
  • Published reviews of books and performances;
  • Outcomes, impact, and reach (i.e., attendances) of programs for extension agents.

For candidates whose work is mostly or exclusively collaborative, First Level review committees may consider conducting a citation analysis or h-index analysis on a subset of the published works by the candidate -- for example, on the published works on which the candidate served as the lead contributor.

Teaching, Advising and Mentoring

Dossiers should contain data from the campus-wide student feedback surveys.  An evaluation of the quality and quantity of the candidate’s teaching, advising and mentoring should be provided. Detailed analyses of the data should be included in the dossier in the Student Experience Feedback section. If a particular instructor’s teaching load for a period of time consisted principally of generally unpopular required courses, or if there was a particularly significant event in a given semester that may have influenced student opinion, such facts should be made known.

Teaching, advising, and mentoring may encompass a broad range of activities, including course instruction, guided research, mentoring, advising, curriculum and course design/creation/revision, program direction, program delivery (extension agents), supervision of postdocs, and other activities.  In reviewing candidate teaching activities, the First Level Review Committee must take into consideration the candidate’s teaching portfolio. Assessments of excellence in teaching can include the:

  • Assessment of instructional materials, the rigor and scope of examinations, incorporation of instructional aids, etc.;
  • Development of techniques or modes of instruction and the substantial revision of or development of courses;
  • Feedback of colleagues (peer evaluations);
  • Feedback of students (student feedback surveys);
  • Performance of students on learning outcome assessments;
  • Receipt of teaching awards or other recognitions;
  • Number and caliber of students guided in research and their placement in academic positions, postdoctoral labs, graduate programs, etc.;
  • Development of or participation in bridge or summer programs;
  • Service on awards and mentoring committees, or as an advisor for student groups or clubs, or as a mentor for other faculty;
  • Organization of professional seminars for students on article or grant submission, etc.;
  • Job placement in notable academic positions or professional practice.


Service contributions should be evaluated, particularly in those areas where service is a major component of a candidate’s activities, such as extension appointments.  To the extent possible, the report should do more than list committees or activities; it should evaluate the performance of these activities.  Evaluation may be sought from supervisors or clients in organizations for which the candidate has rendered service.  Service awards help to document and evaluate service activities.  Disciplinary service to editorial boards, national and international organizations, etc., is evidence of good citizenship and stature in the profession.

The Report of the Unit (First Level) APT Review Committee may also include a minority report. Members of the Unit (First Level) APT Review Committee who do not think that the APT Review Committee Report adequately represents their views may write a signed minority APT report that will become part of the dossier (APT Policy Section IV.A.7). A minority APT report is intended to be employed for major disagreements with the presentation of the Committee Report, not for presenting minor variations in wording, airing of departmental disputes, or the introduction of new argumentation regarding a tenure or promotion case.

Last Updated: