Qualifications
Board of Regents Policy Manual, Sections 8.3.1.2 and 8.3.1.3

Minimum employment qualifications for all academic ranks within the Institute shall be: 

• Consistent with the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools’ requirements for institutional accreditation, 

• Evidence of ability as a teacher, 

• Evidence of ability and activity as a scholar in all other aspects of duties assigned, 

• Successful experience (this must necessarily be waived in the case of those just entering the academic profession who meet all other requirements), 

• Desirable personal qualities judged on the basis of personal interview, complete biographical data, and recommendations, and 

• Consistent with Board of Regents policy for Research Universities, initial appointees to the associate or full professorial rank should have the terminal degree in the appropriate discipline or equivalent in training, ability, or experience. 

Evidence of current academic credentials (or equivalents) shall be maintained by the Institute for all Faculty members, including any part time, temporary, or visiting instructors. 

Hiring with Probationary Credit 

A maximum of three years of probationary credit towards promotion may be awarded for service at other institutions or service in a faculty rank within the Institute can be established only at the time of the individual’s initial appointment. In extraordinary cases, more than three years of probationary credit towards promotion at initial faculty appointment may be awarded, but such awards require approval by the President and written notification to the USG Chief Academic Officer. Without the approval of the President, faculty given probationary credit towards promotion may not use their years of credit towards consideration for early promotion. 

Individuals serving in part-time, limited term, or full-time temporary positions are not eligible for probationary credit toward tenure or probationary credit towards promotion. 

Hiring with Tenure 

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Handbook, in exceptional cases the Georgia Institute of Technology may recommend to the Board of Regents that an outstanding distinguished senior Faculty member be awarded tenure upon the Faculty member’s initial appointment. Each such recommendation shall be considered by the Board individually and shall be granted only in cases in which the Faculty member, at a minimum, is appointed as an Associate or Professor, was already tenured at a prior institution, and brings a demonstrably national or international reputation to Georgia Tech. 

Procedures 

In cases where an Instructional Unit of Georgia Tech wishes to pursue hiring with tenure, the following procedures should be followed: 

• The Academic Head (Dean/Chair) responsible for the hire should prepare a written letter making the case for hiring with tenure. This letter, along with a complete Biographical Sketch or curriculum vitae detailing the relevant career activities of the individual should be forwarded to a committee of the Faculty for review. 

• A committee of the Faculty should review the qualifications of the candidate and render a consultative vote as to whether the candidate should be hired with tenure. This committee may be a standing Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure (RPT) committee within the unit or an ad hoc committee of the Faculty organized to review the case for tenure upon appointment. Members of an ad hoc committee must meet the Instructional Unit’s qualifications to sit on an RPT committee in that Unit. In any case, the committee members should be elected by the Unit’s faculty. The committee should review all of the application materials submitted by the candidate, and may request additional materials (e.g., written letters of reference). 

• The Faculty committee should use the appropriate criteria for appointment and tenure at the rank of Associate Professor or Professor as established in this Handbook and as may be further specified within the unit considering the candidate. 

• The committee should prepare a written letter to the Academic Head of the Instructional Unit and record its vote on the case for tenure on appointment. 

• The letter from the Academic Head (Dean/Chair) and the letter from the Faculty committee should be forwarded to the Provost and Executive Vice-President for Academic Affairs for their review and final determination whether the Institute will petition the Board of Regents for tenure upon appointment. 

Joint Appointments 

Joint appointments must involve a budgetary commitment to the individual by each Unit. Normally, this would involve teaching and/or research activity. Each Faculty member with a joint appointment should have a Home Unit which has responsibility for administrative activity for the individual. Promotion, tenure, and reappointment decisions should involve all affected Units. 

Instances may arise where it is appropriate for a research titled Faculty member who is not in an Instructional Unit to have a joint appointment in an Instructional Unit. Such arrangements are to be encouraged where they work to the advantage of all parties concerned. The head of the Instructional Unit in which the joint appointment is held will be expected to supply letters of evaluation for all promotion/salary decisions. Tenure is not awarded to persons whose home unit is not an Instructional Unit. 

Salary
The salary level associated with each Faculty position shall be based upon the general principles set out in Section 3.1.2.  In addition, the following specific criteria shall be utilized for salary determinations for Tenure-Track Faculty:

Documentation
In determining entry level salary as well as merit increases, appropriate documentation in support of quality of performance is required. The following is illustrative:

Instruction: The quality of instructional performance should be evaluated by peers, Students, and Unit Heads. Student evaluation should be ascertained on a systematic basis.

Contribution to curriculum development, such as the development of new courses or new laboratory experiences, should be evaluated by the Unit Head.

The number of independent study courses, theses, dissertations, etc., supervised. Quality should be evaluated by peers and the Unit Head.

Creativity: The number and brief description of research grants applied for and funded; publications in scholarly journals; and presentations at conferences and workshops. The quality of these contributions should be evaluated by recognized leaders in the field.

Professional honors and awards as well as invited addresses speak to the quality of the contribution. Innovative instructional techniques can be evaluated by peers, Students, and Unit Heads.

Service: The quality of service to Students, such as academic advising, directing field trips, etc., should be evaluated by Students, peers, and Unit Heads.

Service to the academic community might take the form of presenting lectures or seminars or serving on various types of committees. Appropriate documentation might be letters from those persons responsible for the activities.

Service to the Institute might involve such things as working on programs with Communications and Development, alumni organizations, or serving on various Institute committees. Appropriate documentation about quality of service might take the form of letters from the persons responsible for these activities or the chairs of the committees.

Contributions to the profession or discipline might take a number of forms: serving in leadership positions, participating in symposia or serving on panels, or editing professional journals. Appropriate letters regarding the quality of contributions would be expected.

Evaluation of quality of service to the community might be ascertained from letters from appropriate individuals. The service might take the form of presenting lectures, participating in panel discussions, appearing on appropriate radio and television programs, or judging science fairs.

Faculty Summer Salaries
Payment of compensation to Tenure-Track Faculty members for full-time employment during the summer session shall be at a rate not to exceed one-third (1/3) of their regular nine months compensation for the previous academic year.

Merit Increases
Merit increases for full-time Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty shall be based on the same principles applicable to all Faculty members, but shall consider weights especially appropriate in Instructional Units.

Annual Reviews
In addition to the general principles set out in Section 3.1.2, evaluation criteria for Tenure-Track Faculty follow those used for promotion, tenure, and salary decisions as set out further above and in Section 3.3.7. In each particular case, the criteria used will be ones appropriate to the individual’s major responsibilities.

The requirement for regular evaluations extends to all instructional Faculty whether they are tenured, non-tenured, part-time, temporary, or visiting. If a person is the instructor of record during the year, that individual will receive an evaluation by means regularly used to assess the teaching effectiveness of full-time faculty, as set out further in Section 3.3.7 of this Handbook. Each College will set out in written policies how the evaluations will be carried out for those teaching courses in their purview.

Procedures on Reappointment 

Administrative Evaluations 

Tenure-track faculty without tenure shall be evaluated annually by their Unit Head(s). These annual evaluations of tenure-track faculty without tenure shall encompass the following: a) teaching; b) student success activities, as evidenced by activities within teaching and instruction, academic achievement, and service; c) research/scholarship; d) professional service; and e) professional growth appropriate to the Institute, college, or school. These annual evaluations must conform to the procedures detailed in 3.1.2.1.  All administrative reviews must utilize the following Likert scale:  

1 — Does Not Meet Expectations 

2 — Needs Improvement 

3 — Meets Expectations 

4 — Exceeds Expectations 

5 — Exemplary 

Noteworthy achievement is reflective of a 4 or 5 on the above Likert scale. Deficient and unsatisfactory are reflective of a 1 or 2 on the above Likert scale. 

For the first three (3) reappointment cycles, the Unit Head(s) shall review the credentials and work of the individual Faculty member and make a recommendation regarding reappointment. If the recommendation is positive, the Dean(s) (where not the Unit Head) shall review the recommendation and documentation. If the Dean's recommendation is positive, then the President shall review the recommendations and make a decision. 

In the event that any of these decisions is not to reappoint, the appropriate Unit Committee, the College Committee (where appropriate), and the Provost's Advisory Committee shall be convened and a complete review by all committees shall be conducted and forwarded to the President. 

It is expected that this process will be completed at the Unit level in time to coincide with the annual evaluation process and the recommendation of salary increases. Each unit will publish, no later than the mid-point of the summer semester, the schedule for the reappointment, promotion, and tenure process for the following academic year. 

For joint appointments, this process shall be modified so that the elected committee established shall include at least one individual from each Unit where the Faculty member holds an appointment, as well as all Unit Heads involved. 

Critical Reviews 

The purpose of the third year Critical Review is to provide a rigorous analysis and detailed feedback of the faculty member’s body of work in the areas of teaching, student success activities, research/scholarship, and service towards tenure. All previous annual evaluations must be part of the review. The overall evaluation must indicate whether the faculty member is making satisfactory progress toward tenure and promotion. 

In the spring of the third year, a complete review of the Faculty member's credentials and intellectual contributions shall be conducted by the appropriate elected Faculty committee at the Unit level (or in the case of a joint appointment, the appropriate joint committee), the Unit Head(s), the Dean's Committee and the Dean (in those units having organizational elements such as schools or departments), and then by the Provost's Committee. Each recommendation will specify one (1) of four (4) outcomes: 

• 'Reappointment'. 

• 'Reappointment with counseling' which implies that academic performance, in most respects, is positive and appropriate, but that some 'mid-course corrections' are needed prior to the tenure decision. 

• 'Reappointment with warning' which implies that, as the candidate moves toward the tenure decision, some substantial adjustments must be made in the academic performance if the outcome of that decision is to be positive. 

• 'Non-reappointment' which means that the candidate should expect no contract to be offered beyond the following academic year. 

All these recommendations shall be forwarded to the President who shall make the decision and then inform the appropriate individuals. This review should coincide with the annual salary review at the Unit level. A complete review may be conducted during the fifth year at the request of the candidate. 

If the Critical Review at the end of the third year (as described above) results in a positive reappointment decision, the fourth year and fifth year reviews will be processed in the same way that the Administrative Reviews are conducted. If the decision is 'reappoint with warning' then the fourth-year review process will be the same as the third year Critical Review. Similarly, if the fourth-year decision is 'reappoint with warning' then the fifth-year review process will be the same as the third year Critical Review. 

The committee appointed to review the Faculty member's contributions will avail itself of the opportunity to review carefully the materials submitted by the individual and to comment in detail on the intellectual products of the candidate. Because this committee will be comprised of individuals who are knowledgeable in the field, the committee will have the responsibility of placing the candidate's contributions in context and to comment on the importance of the work. The Unit Head(s) should also obtain input from other Faculty members in the Unit regarding the candidate's contribution to teaching and service. This may include a Unit-wide committee to ensure consistency within the Unit across all candidates under review. 

In the event that the Faculty member's service is interrupted by a leave of absence, then that particular year of absence or extension shall not be counted as contributing to the service periods stated in any of the above procedures. In any year of absence or extension, the Faculty member will be reviewed according to regular procedures, except that if a Critical Review would be called for as described above, that review shall be postponed until the next normal year of service. 

Candidate’s Responsibility 

The candidate has the responsibility to prepare, review, and submit all required documentation and materials, except for evaluation letters, if applicable. However, the list provided by the candidate for external evaluators should be included in the package. When this documentation is complete and in the proper format, the candidate will sign a statement that it is both accurate and complete. 

Should the candidate fail to meet the deadlines established by the Unit for submission of the required documentation, the Faculty member will receive a letter of non-reappointment. 

Feedback to Faculty Members 

It is important for the Faculty member to receive feedback regarding the assessments involved. The appropriate person for the individual Faculty member to receive this feedback is from the Unit Head(s). The Unit Head shall receive a copy of the recommendations prepared by each committee and by all other administrators with direct responsibility for reviewing the candidate, including the Dean (for those units where the Dean does not serve as the Unit Head), the Provost, and the President. The Unit Head shall review each recommendation, including their own, with the candidate, and counsel the candidate appropriately in a scheduled conference.  

A written report of the faculty member’s progression towards achieving future milestones of tenure must be provided to the faculty member after the conference. The faculty member must sign a statement to the effect that they have been apprised of the content of the Critical Review evaluation.  

The faculty member may respond in writing within ten (10) business days to the Critical Review evaluation. This written response is then attached to the evaluation. The Unit Head(s) must acknowledge in writing within 10 business days receipt of the response, noting changes, if any, in the written Critical Review evaluation made because of either the conference or the faculty member’s written response.  

This section sets forth guidelines for promotion of Tenure-Track Faculty and criteria to be used in granting of tenure. It is to be emphasized that this document lists criteria intended only as guidelines and not as a prescription for tenure and promotion. The possible factors to be used for evaluation are listed to aid the Faculty in their career development and to be used with, but not substituted for, enlightened judgment on the part of responsible administrators and Faculty in providing for the long-term development of Georgia Tech. (See Sections 3.3.5, 3.3.6, & 3.3.7.) 

Promotion and tenure decisions are made separately, and guidelines for evaluation relative to each of these decisions are required. The philosophy underlying the two decisions differs, although the criteria used as a basis for each decision are similar. The performance of a Faculty member may justify promotion but not the awarding of tenure. The converse can occur, although it is not likely.  

Promotion is based on the intrinsic merit of the individual's work. It recognizes the Faculty member for meeting the criteria of the next higher level in the professional hierarchy. The decision is based on an evaluation of the individual's scholarly activity including a) teaching, b) student success activities, c) research/scholarship/creative activities, d) service, and e) professional development. The decision to promote or not to promote should not be tied in any way to questions of tenure. 

In contrast to promotion, which is based on the merit of the individual’s work, tenure represents the Institute's selection of a Faculty member for a long-term commitment. Individuals are selected whose performance is outstanding and whose capabilities and interests, as manifested in performance, most closely support the objectives of the Institute, the College, and the Instructional Unit. The decision is based on an assessment of the compatibility of the individual's performance and interest with the needs and objectives of the Institute, the college, and the individual Instructional Unit. 

For a Faculty member to be considered for tenure, the individual's performance must be judged to be at or above the level appropriate to their professorial rank. That judgment should be based on the criteria set forth in the "Guidelines for Promotion at Georgia Tech" (see Section 3.3.6). All dimensions of the performance must be considered, that is teaching, student success activities, research/scholarship/creative activities, service, and professional development. In appraising a candidate's qualifications for tenure, the weighting of the five (5) categories set forth above may vary for each case. It is recognized that the Institute has varied responsibilities and these responsibilities may best be met by a Faculty whose members have a mix of strengths. Given an appropriate level of performance, the primary criterion for tenure is the compatibility of the individual's performance and interests with the objectives of the Unit, the College, and the Institute. Statements and supporting documentation from the candidate, the Unit Head, and the Dean should address this question. Assuming an appropriate performance level, the individual's professorial activity is evaluated relative to its compatibility with stated objectives. 

Each Instructional Unit should have a set of clearly defined and prioritized objectives defined in accordance with the mission of that Unit. The more clearly and specifically the objectives are articulated, the more precisely can an individual's capability and interest be compared to those objectives. The objectives are not static; however, they must be influenced or modified by factors such as changing enrollment patterns and changes in the unit's and Georgia Tech's mission within the University System of Georgia. Modifications in objectives typically occur gradually, not instantaneously, thus permitting faculty awareness of the changes. 

Tenure resides at the Institutional level. Institutional responsibility for employment of a tenured individual is to the extent of continued employment on a 100% workload basis for two (2) out of every three (3) consecutive academic terms (normally for fall and spring terms) until retirement, dismissal for cause, release because of financial exigency, or program modification as determined by the Board of Regents.

These guidelines are in full accord with the policies and procedures of the Board of Regents; however, the Georgia Tech criteria are more demanding than those established by the Regents.  These guidelines are intended to aid Tenure-Track Faculty in the conduct of their affairs in order to satisfy the requirements for promotion and/or tenure. They are not, however, a substitute for the advice and counsel of the Unit Head. All Faculty members should receive at a minimum an annual administrative review of their progress.

Board of Regents Policy Manual, Section 8.3.7

Criteria

Minimum expectations in all professorial ranks are:

• Superior teaching, demonstrating excellence in instruction;
• Outstanding involvement in student success activities, as evidenced by activities within 
  teaching and instruction, academic achievement, and service;
• Academic achievement, as appropriate to the mission;
• Outstanding service to the Institute, profession or community; and
• Professional growth and development, within the context of rank and responsibilities.

More details are provided in Section 3.3.7. 

Noteworthy achievement is required in at least two of the above categories but is not required in all categories. A written recommendation should be submitted by the head of the unit concerned setting forth the reasons for granting tenure. The Faculty member's length of service with the institute shall be taken into consideration in determining whether or not the faculty member should be granted tenure. 

In addition to the minimum criteria above, tenure at the rank of Associate Professor requires the earned doctorate or its equivalent in training, ability, and/or experience. Neither the possession of a doctorate nor longevity of service is a guarantee per se of being granted tenure. 

Extension of the Probationary Period for Tenure 

The five (5) year probationary period must be continuous except that a maximum of two (2) years interruption because of a leave of absence or alternative service may be permitted, provided, however, that an award of credit for the period of an interruption shall be at the discretion of the President. In all cases in which a leave of absence is based on birth or adoption of a child, serious disability, or prolonged illness of the employee or immediate family member, the five (5) year probationary period may be suspended during the leave of absence. Extension of the probationary period changes only the year in which consideration for tenure is required, not the year in which the individual is eligible to be considered for tenure. 

Purpose 
The Georgia Institute of Technology has a critical interest in attracting and retaining a Faculty of the highest quality. This interest is enhanced by ensuring that Faculty members are promoted and tenured in ways that are fair and humane. To ensure equity in administering the system of academic tenure, the Institute must provide consistent conditions and standards while supporting members in balancing personal and family obligations with professional and scholarly achievement. For these reasons, extensions of the probationary period for tenure are reserved for compelling circumstances which impair the ability of an individual to establish the stature expected of Faculty members at Georgia Tech within the normal time frame. 

Conditions 
Approvals of extensions of the probationary period are never automatic but may be granted when circumstances cause substantial impairment of a candidate’s ability to pursue their teaching and scholarly activities. Such circumstances may include severe personal illness, childbirth, adoption, or other significant obligations to a member of the family or household. The probationary period may not be interrupted for more than one (1) year per event with a maximum extension of two (2) years. 

If an extension is granted, no additional requirements for tenure can be imposed upon the candidate by virtue of the extension. Thus, the candidate continues to be subject to the requirements to which they would have been subject without the extension. 

The terms and conditions of this policy apply equally to all genders. 

Procedures 
Requests for an extension of the probationary period must be made in writing and submitted to the appropriate Unit Head (Dean/Chair) who will review the request. All requests must be made within twelve (12) months of the event related to the extension request. Any supporting documentation should be attached to the request. Requests are not granted automatically. Generally, however, Georgia Tech will attempt to provide extensions to all candidates who are making good progress and are requesting an extension due to childbirth or adoption. Other circumstances warranting extension are considered equally valid but must, necessarily, be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Every effort should be made to accommodate a request when it becomes clear that circumstances, consistent with this policy, will substantially impede the Faculty member’s progress toward achieving indefinite tenure or promotion. 

The Unit Head will forward the request to the appropriate Dean along with an evaluative statement addressing the Faculty member’s scholarly progress. The Dean will make a recommendation and forward this request to the Provost for final action. Consistency with Board of Regents’ policy dictates a required leave to be comprised of sick leave or other alternatives. 

Unit Heads who recognize the need for a Faculty member to request an interruption of the probationary period are encouraged to discuss this policy with that individual and to do so in a timely manner. Faculty members should feel free to approach their Unit Heads for information concerning this policy or with individual requests for extension. 

Administrative reviews will continue to occur on a regular basis and are unaffected by this policy. Critical reviews, however, will be delayed with the probationary period extension. 

Criteria
Board of Regents Policy Manual, Section 8.3.6

Minimum expectations in all professorial ranks are: 

• Excellent teaching and effectiveness in instruction; 

• Noteworthy involvement in student success activities, as evidenced by activities within teaching and instruction, academic achievement, and service; 

• Noteworthy professional service to the Institute and/or the community; 

• Noteworthy research, scholarship, creative activity or academic achievement; and 

• Continuous professional growth and development, within the context of rank and responsibilities. 

More details are provided in Section 3.3.7.  

Noteworthy achievement in all of the above areas is not required but should be demonstrated in at least three (3) areas. A written recommendation should be submitted by the head of the unit concerned setting forth the reasons for promotion. The Faculty member’s length of service with the Institute shall be taken into consideration in determining whether or not the faculty member should be promoted. 

In accordance with Regents’ policy for Research Universities, promotion to the rank of Associate Professor or Professor additionally requires the earned doctorate or its equivalent in training, ability, and/or experience. Neither the possession of a doctorate nor longevity of service is a guarantee per se of promotion. 

Guidelines for Promotion 

From Instructor to Assistant Professor 

• A doctorate in an appropriate discipline or experience which is of value comparable to the doctorate in preparing the candidate for the role of an educator; 

• Clear evidence of effective teaching and involvement in student success activities; and 

• Clear evidence of creativity. 

From Assistant to Associate Professor 

• Sufficient time in rank. Generally, five (5) or more years in rank are expected. Four (4) years in rank at the time of promotion, at least two (2) of them at Georgia Tech, or two (2) years of relevant professional experience plus two (2) years as an Assistant Professor at Georgia Tech, are a minimum requirement. Credit for previous academic or professional experience must be explicitly stated at the time of employment. Faculty may be considered for promotion with less than the required minimum four years in rank listed above. However, these cases would require strong justification and prior approval by the president before the promotion documentation is submitted; 

• A doctorate in an appropriate discipline or experience which is of value comparable to the doctorate in preparing the candidate for the role of an educator; 

• Clear evidence of effective teaching and involvement in student success activities; 

• Clear evidence of creativity while at Georgia Tech; and 

• Clear evidence of contributions to Georgia Tech in meaningful ways by service to the Institute, to the public, or to appropriate professional organizations. 

A candidate for promotion to Associate Professor should satisfy the first four (4) of these qualifications. Marginal qualifications in any of these areas might be compensated for by strength in the fifth. 

From Associate Professor to Professor 

• Sufficient time in rank. Generally, six (6) or more years in rank are expected. Four (4) years of relevant professional experience at the time of promotion, at least two (2) of them at Georgia Tech, or two (2) years of relevant professional experience plus two (2) years as an Associate Professor at Georgia Tech are considered a minimum requirement before promotion. Credit for previous academic or professional experience should be explicitly stated at the time of employment. Faculty may be considered for promotion with less than the required minimum four years in rank listed above. However, these cases would require strong justification and prior approval by the president before the promotion documentation is submitted; 

• A doctorate in an appropriate discipline or experience which is of value comparable to the doctorate in preparing the candidate for the role of an educator; 

• Significant contributions as an educator; 

• Clear evidence of significant involvement in student success activities; 

• Clear evidence of significant creativity; 

• Evidence that the candidate is making substantial contributions to Georgia Tech by service to the Institute, to the public, or to the profession; and 

• Broad recognition in terms of visiting professorships, invitations to give papers or seminars, memberships on national committees, offices in professional societies, or other appropriate honors. 

A candidate for promotion to Professor should satisfy clearly the first five (5) of these qualifications and should have some demonstrable accomplishments in the sixth and seventh. 

Evaluation of Faculty Members as Teachers and Educators 
Criteria for effective teaching are difficult to define. As a minimum an effective teacher should continue to become more proficient in the subject matter and more efficient in achieving the objective of the courses being taught. An effective teacher should be able, especially, to motivate students to do their best and to respond favorably to the teacher's enthusiasm for the subject. 

The concept of educator implies a broad perspective toward higher education that encompasses more than effective teaching. It involves such things as leadership in developing new educational programs, including postgraduate educational programs, attracting graduate Students, developing new laboratory experiments, etc. 

Listed below (with no attempt to suggest any rank order) are types of evidence that may be used to evaluate the performance of a Faculty member as teacher and educator: 

Course and Curriculum Development 

• Development of new courses and laboratory experiences or new approaches to teaching. 

• Extensive work in curriculum revision or teaching methods for the school or department. 

Teaching Skills and Methods 

• Relative performances of students in the candidate sections of multi-section courses. 

• Participation in programs, conferences, or workshops designed to improve teaching skills. 

• Awards or other forms of recognition for outstanding teaching. 

• Systematic Student evaluations, such as exit interviews or other standardized questionnaires. Information such as percentage of Students providing data and a copy of evaluation instructions must be provided. (See Student Opinion of Courses and Instructors below). 

• Demonstrated ability to teach basic courses effectively at the undergraduate and at the graduate level (when appropriate) where such courses are offered in the disciplines. 

• Demonstrated ability to communicate effectively in the classroom environment. 

Generation of Textbooks, Instruction Materials, and Publications on Teaching 

• Publication of books or articles on teaching methods. 

• Publication of new instructional techniques or descriptions of laboratory materials (if not listed under Creative Activities). 

• Publication of textbooks (if not listed under Creative Activities). 

• Effective utilization of audio-visual aids and multi-media where appropriate. 

• Expository articles of broad interest exemplifying command of subject, breadth of perspective, etc. 

Evaluation of Creative Contributions 
While difficult to define precisely, creativity is characterized by the making of original and innovative contributions. The nature of the creative work must be appropriate to the individual's discipline. Moreover, it must be shown that significant creative activity has been performed while at Georgia Tech. To provide objective evaluation of creative activities, external peer review normally is required. The review should be based only on the individual's work and should not include opinions regarding promotion or tenure. A brief description of the reviewer, including positions and title, should be included. In general, the quality of such activities is of more importance than the sheer quantity. In cases where the creative work is a joint effort with others, there must be clear evidence that the individual under consideration has taken a leading role in conducting the work. 

The creative work may be in a variety of forms. The nature of the material offered, and the relative weight assigned to the various types of activity will vary among disciplines. Some examples of creative activities that may be appropriate at this institution are as follows: 

Publications 

• Research papers in scholarly journals, literary publications, and books. 

Unpublished Writings and Creative Work of Limited Circulation 

• Technical reports, engineering and architectural designs, and grant applications. 

• Inventions leading to patents. 

• Presentations at conferences and meetings. 

Creative Educational Contributions 

• Innovative teaching methods, research in instructional techniques, and textbooks. 

Artistic Creations 

• Paintings, sculpture, and music. 

External Recognition of Creative Work 

• Prizes and awards, invited presentations, and consultancies. 

• For promotion to the rank of Associate Professor there should be clear evidence that the person has demonstrated an ability to make original and innovative contributions to a chosen field. 

• For promotion to Professor there should be clear evidence that the person has demonstrated consistent performance in the making of original and innovative contributions that are nationally recognized for their excellence. 

At all levels, the candidate’s creative accomplishments throughout their entire career should be considered and special attention given to those that occurred at Georgia Tech. 

Student Success Activities 

Activities that faculty members perform that contribute to student success encompass a wide spectrum of formal and informal interactions with students. Student success activities most generally relate to teaching, creative and scholarly activities, and service, though faculty should feel free to think more holistically about this category. For the purposes of this evaluation, “students” can include a broad group of learners that are engaged in our academic programs such as participants in life-long learning programs and individuals in training programs such as postdoctoral scholars. 

Examples of some activities that contribute to student success goals are listed below.  

• Involvement in High Impact Practices (HIP) such as first-year experiences, living learning communities, undergraduate research, study abroad, internships, service/community learning, and project-based and capstone courses.  

• Contributions in Learning and Education such as course or curricular design; academic or career advising; recruiting and supporting a diverse student community; and integrating research into student learning. 

• Supportive Student Service Activities such as advising a student organization; serving on student-focused committees; participation in camps and pre-college programs; and, participating in programs for students with historically underserved backgrounds or identities. 

• Research Mentorship such as research, academic, and professional skill development; career guidance; and modeling behavior described in the “Advisor-Advisee Expectations” section of the Georgia Tech catalog.  

• Faculty Professional Development such as accessing resource materials or participating in professional development programs that improve teaching and mentorship of students.  

Faculty members are afforded the discretion to determine the student success activities that they undertake, though faculty members who serve the role as the primary advisor in research must be evaluated on their activities on mentorship in research. More examples are given in the Student Success Activities Guidance document available from the Provost’s office.  

Evaluation of Service Activities 
While Faculty members usually contribute to the Institute primarily through teaching and creative activities, they also may contribute significantly to the development of Georgia Tech through rendering appropriate types of service to the Institute, to the public, and to the professional organizations to which they belong. 

• Professional Education 
  There is a rapidly escalating need for postgraduate professional education opportunities for persons to deepen, broaden, and raise the level of their knowledge and understanding, both in their professional field and in general. For this reason, Faculty participation in professional education activities constitutes a service to the public, to professional fields which seek to serve that public, and to the Institute. 

• Service to the Academic Community 
  Presenting lectures, participating in seminars, developing research proposals with other faculty members, serving on committees, study groups and task forces, and lending one's professional expertise to other faculty members for their benefit. The quality of the member's participation in such activities should be documented. 

• Service to the Institute 
  Significant service to the offices of the Institute, such as Institute Relations and Development, the Alumni Association, the Athletic Board, Education Extension teaching, special student services, recruitment, and similar activities; and serving on various Institute committees. Documentation of these activities should include statements regarding the frequency of meetings, records of attendance, offices held, contributions to special reports, etc. 

• Availability for Service Activities 
  Maintaining regular office hours and expressing willingness to serve whenever opportunities are available. Documentation should include a statement from the Unit Head. 

• Service to the Profession 
  Membership in professional organizations; attendance at professional meetings and conferences, organizing professional meetings, serving as a discussant of papers read by others at professional meetings or being a panel member at such meetings, holding office in professional organizations; contributing consultative, advisory, editorial service in a professional capacity’ and serving as site visitor for accreditation review. Documentation should include appropriate records, awards, or other forms of recognition. 

• Service to the Community 
  Community Service involves a wide range of activities directed toward local, state, or national groups. Examples of such service include: 

  • Lectures, 

  • Panel discussions, 

  • Radio and television appearances, 

  • Membership on advisory boards or civic committees, 

  • Involvement in community, charitable organizations, or the government, 

  • Involvement in youth and citizen recreation programs, and 

  • Advising students or judging the entries at science fairs. 

Appropriate documentation of service activities should be included. For persons being considered for promotion to Associate Professor, the rendering of service in any of these categories is appropriate. For persons being considered for promotion to the rank of Professor, participation in service activities is required, and some form of leadership activity is expected. 

Student Opinion of Courses and Instructors 
To provide instructors with information about Student opinions of their teaching and courses, the Institute has developed the Course/Instructor Opinion Survey (CIOS). Provision is also made for written comments from the students. 

The surveys are conducted on-line, and instructors may access the results for their courses on-line. 

Unit Heads receive the responses to the Institute core items, and any optional questions from the respective units; however, they receive neither the responses to any additional optional items the instructors may have elected to include, nor the written comments. Students have access to the responses to the core Institute questions if the response rate is over a threshold requirement. 

The results of the CIOS serve as one (1) component of an overall assessment system for documenting teaching proficiency. The survey, processed in the Office of Academic Effectiveness, is administered in each School or College on a systematic basis at the end of each term. CIOS scores themselves cannot be used to justify a 1 or 2 rating for Teaching on the Likert scale; another independent measure must be provided.  

Candidate’s Responsibility 
The candidate has the responsibility to prepare, review, and submit all required documentation and materials, except for evaluation letters. However, the list provided by the candidate for external evaluators should be included in the package. When this documentation is complete, and in the proper format, the candidate will sign a statement that it is both accurate and complete. 

Should the candidate fail to meet the deadlines established by the Unit for submission of the required documentation, consideration of promotion and/or tenure may be delayed until the following year. However, if such a delay would have the effect of violating the maximum time of employment for an untenured Faculty member, the Faculty member will receive a letter of non-reappointment. 

Format for Promotion and/or Tenure Packages: Guidelines for Candidates 
It is important that all candidates follow as closely as possible the same format in preparing the documentation for promotion and/or tenure packages, although some flexibility should be allowed. All candidates must include a copy of their curriculum vitae. The candidates should also write a brief summary of their major accomplishments at Georgia Tech with regard to teaching, research, student success activities, and service. For faculty who serve as the primary advisor of a graduate student or postdoctoral scholar, this narrative should include a discussion of their mentorship in research. These personal narratives shall be three (3) to five (5) pages with one-inch margins, standard single-spaced, and 10-point minimum font. The candidates also are required to submit evidence of three (3) to five (5) examples of their relevant, creative capabilities. These may include published papers, books, software, patents, art productions, or other relevant examples. 

Format for Promotion and/or Tenure Packages: Guidelines for Units 
It is appropriate that each set of documents prepared by a Unit be preceded by letters of transmittal from the Unit Head, and from the Committee referenced in Internal Peer Review Section below, and the Peer Review Committee of that School. These will include comments regarding whether a candidate meets the required qualifications for each separate point of the promotion and/or tenure guidelines (See Sections 3.3.5 & 3.3.6). These comments should be brief and highlight the more significant contributions in each area. The presentation should be written so that the merits of the case are fully apparent to persons who may not be familiar with the discipline of the individual under consideration. Comparison of the relative merits of multiple candidates from within the department is encouraged. 

The letter of transmittal should be followed by a curriculum vitae, prepared by the candidate, detailing the relevant career activities of the individual. Finally, the package may include further relevant documentation such as letters of evaluation, student evaluations, the candidate’s annual evaluation materials since the last RPT event with at most the last five years-worth of reviews included, and, if unavoidable, copies of unpublished creative work. 

External Peer Review 
Letters of recommendation from appropriate individuals outside the Institute must be obtained by the Unit for any decisions related to tenure or promotion. The individuals from whom letters are sought should be clear leaders in the field. Brief biographical sketches of these individuals should be included in the materials submitted for consideration, as well as the letters received. Generally, the letter writers should not have a personal or professional connection to the candidates (e.g., dissertation advisor, postdoctoral mentor, research collaborator). If letters from such individuals are included, they must be in addition to those normally required, identified as such, and filed separately from other external letters. A justification for including letters from these individuals must be included in the package. 

The list of individuals from whom letters are to be obtained should be developed jointly by the candidates for promotion and/or tenure and the Unit Head(s). The final decision regarding who shall be selected to provide recommendations from the list shall rest with the Unit Head(s) and the Faculty committee. It is appropriate to use the same letter for two (2) consecutive years of the process. 

A candidate for Promotion and Tenure may request that a particular individual not be contacted as an external reviewer. Such requests are typically honored. If the School Chair or Dean concludes that circumstances require use of that reviewer, the letter must be in addition to those normally required, identified as such, and filed separately from the other external letters. A justification for including the letter must be included in the package. 

External evaluations shall be solicited by the Unit Head(s) and supplied to the office of the Dean. These letters shall be solicited with the understanding that, insofar as possible, access to them will be limited to persons involved in the promotion/tenure decision. 

All candidates will be asked to sign a waiver indicating whether or not the candidate “waives all rights to see the identity of the external letter writers and/or the content of their letters.” The waiver form with the candidate's decision will be included in the package. 

Internal Peer Review 
Each College (or Unit within a College) should determine and publish appropriate measures of scholarly impact of Faculty candidates for Promotion and Tenure. Each Promotion and Tenure package should include an explicit discussion of the impact of the candidate’s scholarship relative to the College’s or Unit’s measure of impact. 

The first-level Peer Review Committee should be tailored for each candidate so that it is composed of Faculty in the same or related fields or technical interest areas. The Unit Head typically appoints this committee in consultation with the unit RPT Committee. Candidates shall have the opportunity to suggest to the Unit Head(s) the names of individuals who would be appropriate members of the committee. For joint appointments, input should be obtained from the Faculty of both units. In the event that the individual units do not have appropriate expertise relating to the candidate’s specific creative contributions, the committee may include individuals who are not members of the Georgia Tech faculty. 

RPT Committee Peer Review

The unit’s RPT committee will also review the candidate’s materials to provide some consistency across the unit and to comment on the teaching and service contributions of the candidate, as well as those activities described in this Handbook.

Unit RPT Committee Composition

• Unit RPT committees shall be elected on an annual basis by the tenure-track faculty within a Unit. The election shall be by secret ballot and shall be conducted by the Unit’s elected Faculty Advisory Committee (FAC). The FAC will also arbitrate and decide any issues with the election. The Unit Head may appoint additional members in consultation with the Unit’s elected RPT committee to balance the committee with respect to sub-disciplines and other relevant aspects, such that no more than one-third of the total number of the RPT committee members shall be appointed by the Unit Head. The Unit’s FAC, in consultation with the Unit’s faculty, will determine the total number of RPT committee members and the distribution of associate and full professors. All members of the RPT must be tenured faculty members. The RPT committee will elect its own chair.
• If a Unit has fewer than ten (10) tenured faculty members and those faculty members are not evenly distributed between associate and full professor ranks so as to accomplish fair and impartial reviews, then the Unit may choose to elect members from the Unit’s College to complete the RPT committee.
• A committee of the whole (i.e., all tenured faculty members within a Unit) meets the requirements of this section, if it is elected by the Unit’s tenure-track faculty members.
• For evaluations of full professors and for promotion to full professor, only full professors may participate. For evaluations of associate and assistant professors, any member of the committee may participate.

Decisions Involving Joint Appointments

A committee drawn from appropriate individuals of each Unit shall be established to provide recommendations. In the event that individual Units do not have appropriate expertise related to the candidate's specific creative contributions, a special committee shall be constituted and may include individuals who are not members of the Georgia Tech Faculty. The composition of this committee is governed by this Handbook. All Unit Heads involved jointly shall provide recommendations. These recommendations then will be passed along to the next level(s) as appropriate.

Joint Academic/GTRI/Center Appointments 
Promotion and/or tenure decisions of academic Units will be based on their own criteria; however, letters of evaluation from appropriate GTRI Unit Heads and/or Center Directors must be included in the documentation of these candidates. Appropriate individuals from GTRI or the Center normally will be included in the unit-level committees appointed to make the initial recommendation. 

The Provost and Executive Vice President's Advisory Committee 
The College Deans, the Provost and Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs, and senior members of the Faculty representing the Colleges, comprise the advisory committee. The Vice Provost for Faculty may participate in the discussions of the committee but does not vote. Similarly, the college Deans participate in the discussion but do not vote on the candidates from their colleges nor do representatives from a specific unit (such as Physics) vote on Faculty members from that unit. Normally, the Vice Provost for Faculty chairs the meetings. The Committee forwards all packages, along with its recommendations to the Provost and Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs. 

Recommendation of the Provost and Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs 
The Provost and Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs considers all information that has been compiled, transmits the complete package along with their recommendations to the President, and then notifies the college Deans of the recommendations involving Faculty within their respective colleges.  

Final Dispositions and Reports 
Upon approval of the award of tenure and/or promotion to an individual by the President, that individual shall be notified in writing by the President; notification will be forwarded to the Board of Regents. 

An annual report shall be made to the President by each Unit of the Institute on the status of its Faculty. The annual report shall include the numbers of tenured and non-tenured Faculty, by rank. Individuals who have been retained in full-time faculty status at the Institute for a period in excess of seven (7) years without the award of tenure shall be identified by name and justification for such retention given. These reports shall be available for public inspection. 

The Institute shall provide data annually to the Board of Regents, showing the Institute’s tenure rates by gender and race. 

Feedback to Faculty Members 
After the final decision has been made and communicated in a letter from the President, it is important for the Faculty member to receive feedback regarding the assessments involved. The appropriate place for the individual Faculty member to receive this feedback is from the Unit Head(s). The Unit Head shall receive a copy of the recommendations prepared by each committee and by all other administrators with direct responsibility for reviewing the candidate, including the Dean (for those Units where the Dean does not serve as the Unit Head), the Provost, and the President. The Unit Head shall review each recommendation, including their own, with the candidate, and counsel the candidate appropriately. 

In cases of disapproval of promotion, a candidate shall be counseled concerning the reasons for a negative decision. 

Purpose 
The performance of each academic administrator will be reviewed annually by their supervisor based on criteria related to their duties. In addition, a comprehensive formal review must be completed at the end of every fifth year of appointment for all faculty who have an administrative appointment of 50% or greater, including those who hold tenure. 

The criteria for review will be based on the duties of the administrator as determined on appointment or later updates to those duties. For tenured faculty administrators, the supervisor and faculty member should determine relevant criteria related to traditional faculty activities (i.e., teaching, scholarship and creative activities, student success, and service) that align with the responsibilities of the administrator’s position. These appropriate criteria are included in the annual and comprehensive reviews. (Note that while this section of the Handbook pertains to administrators who are tenured faculty members, the annual review process described in the current paragraph will also apply to academic administrators who hold a faculty rank but are not tenured.)   

The purpose of a comprehensive review is to evaluate the progress of the administrator and to provide the opportunity for constructive input from Faculty and other constituencies. It is typical to appoint a tenured or tenured-track administrator for terms of three (3) to five (5) years, and the comprehensive review may be used to determine if the administrator should be appointed for additional terms.  

It is recognized that all administrators, including Deans and School Chairs, serve at the will of their immediate supervisors and higher administrators. Nothing in this review process is meant to limit the ability and responsibility of higher administrators to make changes in leadership positions whenever it is deemed necessary or desirable.  

Also see USG policy 8.3.5 Evaluation of Personnel and USG ASAH sections 4.7 Post-Tenure Review and 4.8 Evaluation of Faculty. 

Five-Year Review Procedures 
The general procedures for a 5-year comprehensive review of academic administrators is discussed here, while the specific criteria and procedures for review of school chairs and deans are given in Sections 3.3.10.1 and 3.3.10.2. 

The 5-year comprehensive review should be completed by a committee, with membership as determined by the procedures in the faculty administrator’s School or unit. The committee should receive from the administrator: a summary of activities and accomplishments, a list of job duties, a self-evaluation, and the results of prior annual evaluations. The overall review should include a 360° evaluation that incorporates feedback from a variety of constituents such as the students, peers, and other groups as appropriate to the role. The administrator being reviewed has a chance to make comments on the committee’s report.   

The report, and any additional comments from the administrator, is presented to the supervisor. The supervisor will make their own written assessment of performance and share it with the administrator under review. Based on that assessment and results of the committee’s review, the supervisor will make a decision on reappointment and on any improvements that should be made. The supervisor will inform the administrator and the review committee in writing of the decision.   

The 5-year comprehensive review is allowed to take the place of the standard post tenure review for tenured administrators.