Mid-Probationary (Third-Year) Review

Purpose

The purpose of this article is to provide COLA staff with college-specific procedures for the third-year, or mid-probationary, faculty review process, as well as to share the related policy information and any resources.

Relevant Definitions

Mid-probationary Review (MPR): Historically referred to as the “third-year review”, 3YR, or TYR.

Applies to tenure-track assistant professors.
Per EVPP Guidelines: “a required, formal comprehensive review of a tenure-track assistant professor’s performance, contributions, and trajectory.” The review is intended to “be both evaluative and developmental and assess whether the evidence supports a reasonable trajectory toward promotion and tenure.”
Conducted between the fifth and seventh semester of probationary service at UT.
- In COLA, the standard schedule for MPR is that it will occur in the faculty member’s third year in probationary status.
- If something occurs that may impact the timing of a faculty member’s MPR after it has been scheduled for the upcoming year, the department staff should contact COLA to determine whether or not a deferral might be appropriate.(See MPR Deferrals section for more info.)

Tenure-track: Refers to faculty who are expected to fulfill a period of probationary service prior to consideration for tenure (see also HOP 2-2010: Faculty Titles).

In COLA, nearly always refers to “assistant professors”, but “0040-Instructor” is also a tenure-track title. It is also possible at UT to hire tenure-track associate or full professors, but that is not a common COLA practice.

Probationary Status: Tenure-track faculty are considered to be in a probationary status as they have not yet earned a continual faculty appointment (a.k.a., tenure) but have the opportunity to work toward being considered for tenure, and thereby are in their “probationary period.”

One year of probationary service is accrued for every nine months (August 16 through May 15) of full-time academic service during an academic year.
For more information about when an academic year does or not count toward an assistant professor’s probationary period, see Extensions of the Probationary Period.

EPP: An extension of the tenure-track probationary period. For purposes of this article, refers to voluntary (i.e., requested) extensions, following the process laid out here.

Differentiated from full or partial leaves without pay (LWOP).

Areas of Review: Teaching, research, service, and mentoring

Same areas of review that will be part of promotion and tenure review (see also HOP 2-2160).

Ratings: The four ratings categories to be used for the overall and area ratings, consistent with other university faculty review procedures (see also Annual Review of Faculty and Comprehensive Periodic Review): exceeds expectations, meets expectations, does not meet expectations, unsatisfactory.

Please see EVPP MPR Guidelines section 6.c for additional descriptions of each ratings category.
Each area and overall performance assessed must be assigned a single ratings category from the 4 options listed here. Combined ratings, such as “meets and exceeds” are not permitted.

AY: Academic year; currently August 16 through May 15; the standard appointment dates for 9-month faculty at UT.

COLA: College of Liberal Arts

COLA HR: for this article, refers to COLA HR Team; specifically Ann Kelble

Dept Staff: for this article, refers to the person or persons responsible for tracking and providing administrative oversight for faculty review processes within their academic unit.

In COLA, the senior-most staff position for an academic unit, typically the department manager, is held accountable for their unit’s faculty review matters, even when some or all of faculty review job duties are delegated and/or assigned to another staff position within the unit.

Overall Process

Due Date: April 15 (year of review)

Dept Staff shall establish the expected timing of their tenure-track faculty member’s MPR. (At time of hire (or as soon as practicable).
1. For most Fall tenure-track hires, the MPR will be expected to occur during their third year of tenure-track service. E.g., Assistant Professor starting 8/16/26 (AY26-27); MPR expected to occur in AY28-29.
Dept Staff will monitor the tenure-track faculty’s circumstances so as to be aware of anything that might affect the timing.
1. Examples of circumstances that might impact timing:
  1. full- or partial leave without pay during the Fall or Spring semester
  2. a requested extension of their probationary period
2. Please refer to the EVPP MPR Guidelines sec 2 for additional information.
COLA HR sends out an email each spring (around early March) to dept staff, requesting them to submit the names of faculty who are due to undergo major faculty reviews (promotion, CPR, or MPR) in the upcoming academic year. Once Dept Staff and COLA HR have confirmed the list of upcoming AY reviews, Dept Staff will be expected to notify their affected faculty prior to March 31, including any faculty for whom an MPR is due in the upcoming year, hereafter called “MPR candidates” (in keeping with EVPP Guidelines).
Departments shall provide MPR candidates with the deadline for their materials submission, a list of the required materials, and any other relevant information about the department’s review process. (Please see also Process Details.)
The Chair will assign a faculty committee to conduct the review. The MPR Committee is responsible for conducting the initial review and preparing the report, which shall include an overall rating, ratings for each area of review, and explanations of the ratings, along with mention of any areas needing improvement. The MPR Committee will deliver their report to the Chair.
The Chair will read the MPR report and will add their ratings.
1. If the Chair disagrees with any of the Committee ratings, it is recommended that they provide feedback to the committee “in support of future alignment in faculty reviews.” (see EVPP MPR Guidelines, sec 10.b.)
Once the Chair has provided their overall and area ratings, Dept Staff will submit the following documents to COLA via the MPR Submissions Portal, combined as a single PDF, and in this order by the April 15 deadline:
1. COLA MPR Summary Form, completed through Chair ratings;
2. The MPR narrative Report;
3. The candidate’s CV;
4. The Summary of CES Report (from COLA); and
  1. Note: This report & the next one can be located in the shared Dept/COLA Box Folders. Authorized staff can search their Box files for “[Department Name] Faculty Reports and Reviews.” If you cannot locate, please contact COLA HR.
5. The Graduate Committees Report (if applicable).
The Dean will review the submitted MPR and will confirm the final review ratings. The final ratings will be communicated to the Chair by May 15.
The Chair must share the final results of the MPR in writing with the candidate, and must document the faculty member’s receipt of the MPR report.
The MPR candidate must be offered an opportunity to meet with the Chair and/or provide a written response to the final review report.
1. If provided, the written response should be added to both the department’s copy of the MPR and provided to COLA HR as part of official record of the MPR report.
The Chair (or their delegate) must also schedule a meeting with the MPR candidate to ensure they receive the feedback compiled in the MPR report.

Process Details:

Review Materials

Departments should clearly communicate which items they will gather for the MPR and which the candidate is responsible to submit.
1. Materials required by EVPP Guidelines:
  1. current CV;
  2. course evaluation survey (CES) results, including all student comments, for any organized teaching done since starting as a tenure-track assistant professor (or t-t instructor, when applicable);
  3. anything required by the department or college (as standard part of review)
    1. COLA HR will upload a Summary of CES Report and the Graduate Committees Report (if/when applicable) to the shared “[Department Name] Faculty Reports and Reviews” Box folder for use in tis review. (Typically in November; please send COLA HR an email if you haven't received.)
2. Additional suggested or optional materials: (IMPORTANT: department must specify in advance if they will require any of these items as part of the review)
  1. any peer teaching observation(s) from in rank (EVPP recommends at least one);
  2. annual reports;
  3. grant funding reports;
  4. “any documentation supporting the in-rank record of teaching, research, mentoring, and service”
  5. statement of professional goals and accomplishments;
  6. any other materials the MPR candidate deems appropriate for the review.

Department Committee Requirements

Only tenured faculty are eligible to serve on MPR committees.
If the MPR candidate is jointly appointed in two departments, the department chair for the primary academic appointment is responsible for organizing the review committee but may collaborate with the chair of the joint department.

Review and Report Requirements

A rating “summarizing [the MPR candidate’s] overall performance, contributions, and promotion trajectory in their probationary period at the University.” (EVPP MPR Guidelines, sec 3.f)
Each of the following areas must be assessed and assigned a rating reflecting the candidate’s performance, professional contribution, and promotion trajectory in that area:
1. Research, scholarship, and creative endeavors;
2. Teaching;
3. Service; and
4. Mentoring.
The report should include “explicit feedback about progress towards promotion and tenure” and provide feedback and suggestions for areas of improvement, and, when relevant, identify need to refocus academic and professional efforts. (EVPP MPR Guidelines, sec 4)
1. The report should offer explanations of the ratings categories that have been assigned overall and in each area. These explanations should provide relevant context, to help the candidate understand their trajectory.
  1. For example, it should be clear what it means to “meet expectations” in teaching, or what types of activities would merit exceeding expectations in research, and how those categories relate to promotion trajectory. E.g., should a candidate who “meets expectations” in all areas understand that they are “on track” for tenure review? [If not, should the committee/department revisit their parameters for each category?]
2. The review and its resulting report are meant to be helpful to the MPR candidate. Per the Guidelines, sec 10.c., “Supervisors and review committees are strongly recommended to identify and help candidates find ways to correct any flat spots in their portfolios and performance if relevant and possible.”
The review committee should keep in mind that the report will be included as part of the MPR candidate’s promotion file when the candidate goes up for promotion and tenure. It is in the best interests of all involved that the committee provide useful feedback to the candidate in their report. It will also help inform reviewers at the college and presidential levels to understand the expectations of the candidate’s field and to understand whether or not the department made a good faith effort to provide appropriate developmental guidance to their tenure-track assistant professor(s).
When the report and the ratings are finalized (i.e., after Dean confirms final ratings), they must be sent to the MPR candidate.
1. Departments must document that the candidate has received their report and must keep this evidence on file, to be produced if requested.
2. As mentioned above, if the assistant professor provides a written response to the report, that written response shall be kept on file as part of the record of the review.

Meeting Requirements

Per the Guidelines, the MPR candidate’s supervisor, their Department Chair, is required to meet with the candidate to discuss the MPR results, and this meeting must take place no later than the end of the seventh term of probationary service. In other words, the meeting must take place before the end of the Fall term after the MPR is conducted. (see 3.h, 5.c.vi, and 7.d)
1. If the Department Chair role changes prior to the meeting with the MPR candidate, the departing and incoming chairs must coordinate to ensure that the meeting takes place as required, preferably in a way that best supports the assistant professor.

Requesting an MPR Deferral

Definitions

For the purposes of this article, we will differentiate between MPR scheduling and an MPR deferral:

Scheduling refers to the establishment of when an assistant professor will undergo their mid-probationary review.
- Scheduling takes place prior to the formal confirmation and notification of the upcoming review, i.e. prior to March 31 of the academic year preceding the year of review. (See Step #3 of the Overall Process, above.)
- Important: The MPR must be conducted within the fifth and seventh term (fall or spring) of probationary service. All review timing issues must comply with this requirement.
A deferral may be requested when circumstances arise that necessitate a re-scheduling of a scheduled review. This request must be recommended by the Chair and the Dean and approved by the Provost’s Office.
- A deferral would be requested after the formal confirmation and notification occurs.
EPP: An extension of the tenure-track probationary period. For purposes of this article, refers to voluntary (i.e., requested) extensions, following the process laid out here.
- Differentiated from full or partial leaves without pay (LWOP) from UT.

Circumstances that May Impact Review Timing

Please Note: The circumstances that follow may affect scheduling or may be used to request a deferral, but they will not automatically affect the schedule of the review, especially if the assistant professor has already submitted their review materials. In order to impact review scheduling, the Dept Staff will have to communicate the assistant professor’s desire in writing--typically this occurs during the annual review confirmation process. (See Step #3 of the Overall Process, above.)

The information regarding what may or may not be permitted to defer a mid-probationary review comes from the EVPP MPR Guidelines, sec 5.b.

The following can be used to request a deferral of a scheduled review or to delay the timing of an anticipated review:

Assistant professor has an approved personal circumstances EPP in place prior to their third year of service.
Assistant professor is requesting a personal circumstances EPP for the academic year in which the MPR is scheduled.
- Note: an approved modified instructional duties (MID) assignment is not a valid reason for requesting a deferral unless it is accompanied by a personal circumstances EPP. (see also Modified Instructional Duties)
Assistant professor in on an approved personal LWOP in the term during which the MPR is scheduled to take place.

Circumstances that are Not Permitted to Impact Review Timing

As noted above, the information regarding what may or may not be permitted to defer a mid-probationary review comes from the EVPP MPR Guidelines, sec 5.b.

Assistant professor has a professional LWOP during the scheduled academic year of review.
- The Guidelines state that exceptions may be possible in rare circumstances, with the approval of the dean and the provost.
Assistant professor has an approved MID assignment without an accompanying personal circumstances EPP during the scheduled year of review.
Assistant professor has one or more course releases.
Assistant professor is taking a RIA (Research Intensive Award), formerly known as a college research fellowship.
Assistant professor has a release from the instructional budget; typically takes the form of either a grant-funded course buyout or an external fellowship that is paid to the faculty member via UT payroll.

Process for Submitting an MPR Deferral Request

An assistant professor with an officially scheduled MPR encounters a personal disruption that causes them to want to delay their review. They should email the request for the MPR deferral to their Chair, citing the reason for their request.
1. This request should only include such details as establish the allowable basis of the request. In other words, it is neither necessary or advisable to include extensive medical or personal details.
  1. Broad descriptions, e.g., “expected birth of a child,” “medical condition,” “injury and recovery,” “surgery,” etc. are sufficient.
2. This request may also include a request for an extension to their probationary period (EPP). If it does, the EPP process will be followed concurrently with the MPR deferral.
The Chair will confirm whether the deferral request is allowable under policy and consider whether the delayed review is advisable and in the best professional interests of the faculty member.
1. The Chair may want to discuss the request further with the assistant professor, depending on the circumstances, in order to ensure the assistant professor has fully weighed the pros and cons of proceeding with their review versus delaying. Per the Guidelines, “the unit should schedule the deferred MPR so that it best serves the University’s interests and can provide timely feedback to the faculty candidate.” (see Guidelines, 5.b)
When the Chair agrees that the MPR deferral is allowable and recommended, they shall declare that in an email, sent or forwarded--along with the assistant professor’s request--to COLA HR, attn: Ann Kelble.
1. It doesn’t matter to us if the chair wants to send the email themselves, copying their Dept Staff, or if they prefer to forward the request and recommendation email to the Dept Staff for their handling. In either case, the Dept Staff should be notified and should also confirm the eligibility of the request.
COLA HR will coordinate the dean’s recommendation and submission of the deferral request to the Provost’s Office for their approval.
Once the deferral request has been approved, COLA HR will update their records and notify the Dept Staff and Chair via email, confirming the new timing of the assistant professor’s MPR.
The Chair and/or Dept Staff are responsible for notifying the assistant professor of the deferral and the new schedule of their mid-probationary review.