leadership of research projects or programs and appropriate autonomy are encouraged but not required. PI eligibility Automatic Minimum term Coterminous with funding Maximum term 3 years 5 years 5 years Maximum time in rank: Normally 9 years* No limit No limit Decision not to reappoint > 3 months prior to end of term should be communicated Departmental or Sectional Initial appointment, and Initial appointment, and Initial appointment, and faculty review of progress third year in rank fifth year in rank every fifth year in rank and vote Decision not to reappoint in >6 months to end of term wake of this review should be communicated Letters for appointment or Normally 3 Normally 3-5 Normally 3-5 promotion Must letters be arm’s No Yes, except when justified Yes “at length”? in letter Requirements: Departmental or Sectional Yes faculty review and vote at initial appointment? Training complete? Yes Salary support assured? Yes Intellectual contribution to Expected or evident Yes research program(s)? Achievement: Capable of advancing to (a) Compelling rationale for Same as Research Research Associate academic appointment; (b) Associate (associate (associate professor) Intellectual contribution, professor), plus national within 9 years in rank typically evident through recognition for these publications and activities and investigative to grants activity; excellence in the area of (c) External standing scholarship *Research Associates beyond the year in rank as of 1 July 2012 have until 1 July 2015 to advance regardless of time in rank. Change log 2012-06-27 Chair’s letter for initial appointment as Research Associate (Assistant Professor) From: Also include in electronic format: from outside referees (combined alphabetically in a single PDF be appreciated) •Letters list of all external scholars invited to submit evaluations of the candidate. This list should note •A who selected the external referees, why the particular referees were chosen and, if a referee declines, the reasons given for such refusal. sample copy of the letter sent to external referees soliciting an evaluation of the candidate. •A internal letters from faculty colleagues, whether within the appointing unit or in related •Any areas elsewhere on campus. We are looking not for simple endorsements, but for close, analytical judgments of the value of the candidate's work. To: Also include in electronic format:
leadership of research projects or programs and appropriate autonomy are encouraged but not required. PI eligibility Automatic Minimum term Coterminous with funding Maximum term 3 years 5 years 5 years Maximum time in rank: Normally 9 years* No limit No limit Decision not to reappoint should be communicated > 3 months prior to end of term Departmental or Sectional faculty review of progress and vote Initial appointment, and third year in rank Initial appointment, and fifth year in rank Initial appointment, and every fifth year in rank Decision not to reappoint in wake of this review should be communicated >6 months to end of term Letters for appointment or promotion Normally 3 Normally 3-5 Normally 3-5 Must letters be “at arm’s length”? No Yes, except when justified in letter Yes Requirements: Departmental or Sectional faculty review and vote at initial appointment? Yes Training complete? Yes Salary support assured? Yes Intellectual contribution to research program(s)? Expected or evident Yes Achievement: Capable of advancing to Research Associate (associate professor) within 9 years in rank (a) Compelling rationale for academic appointment; (b) Intellectual contribution, typically evident through publications and to grants activity; (c) External standing Same as Research Associate (associate professor), plus national recognition for these activities and investigative excellence in the area of scholarship *Research Associates beyond the year in rank as of 1 July 2012 have until 1 July 2015 to advance regardless of time in rank. Change log 2012-06-27 Chair’s letter for initial appointment as Research Associate (Assistant Professor) From: Also include in electronic format: •Letters from outside referees (combined alphabetically in a single PDF be appreciated) •A list of all external scholars invited to submit evaluations of the candidate. This list should note who selected the external referees, why the particular referees were chosen and, if a referee declines, the reasons given for such refusal. •A sample copy of the letter sent to external referees soliciting an evaluation of the candidate. •Any internal letters from faculty colleagues, whether within the appointing unit or in related areas elsewhere on campus. We are looking not for simple endorsements, but for close, analytical judgments of the value of the candidate's work. To: Also include in electronic format:
RAcompendium.docx