RUL 05.67.07 – Department of Crop and Soil Science Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure Standards and Procedures

Authority: Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost

History: First Issued: October 1999. Last Revised: May 20, 2021.

Related Policies:
NCSU POL05.20.01 – Appointment, Reappointment, Promotion and Permanent Tenure
NCSU POL05.20.02 – Emeritus/Emerita Faculty Status for Faculty and Senior Administrators
NCSU RUL05.67.22 – College of Agriculture and Life Sciences Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure Standards and Procedures
NCSU REG05.20.27 – Statements of Mutual Expectations
Glassick Standards 

Additional References:
Office of the Provost RPT Website


This rule describes the standards of the Department of Crop and Soil Sciences (the “Department”) for evaluating faculty performance for reappointment, promotion, and tenure of tenure-track faculty and promotion of professional faculty with professorial rank (e.g. Extension Assistant Professor). It is supplemental and consistent with NCSU POL05.20.01 – Appointment, Reappointment, Promotion and Permanent Tenure, NCSU REG 05.20.34 Professional Faculty Ranks and Appointments, and CALS Rule (NCSU RUL05.67.22). Standards for appointment and promotion on the Lecturer track are maintained at the department website.

The objective of reappointment, promotion, and tenure in the Department is to recognize and reward colleagues who have achieved distinction in their discipline and who show expectation of continued professional development and advancement. Distinction is characterized by excellence in conducting and directing teaching, research, and extension activities. Participation in service and University community activities are also recognized as important contributions to the mission and vitality of the Department and University.

Although promotion and tenure are designed to reward distinction in professional development, the gaining of promotion and tenure should not be an end unto itself. Rather, faculty should view such attainment as milestones in continued professional development throughout one’s career. While recognizing that the total effects of teaching, research, and extension may take years to surface, the Departmental Voting Faculty and administrators must make judgments on a faculty member’s professional development, and potential for continued development, within finite time frames. Because of the wide diversity of disciplines and activities resident within the Department, the faculty and administration also recognize that, although there must exist core expectations for distinction in one’s career, the standards must accommodate diversity that consider such factors as appointment and areas of expertise leading to differences in such things as experimentation lengths (short- vs- long-term). Nonetheless, the standards must be applied consistently.

The evaluation of professional faculty with professorial rank will emphasize the major responsibilities defined in their appointment (academics, research, extension, service, administration). In general, expectations of professional faculty with professorial rank (assistant, associate and full research professors; assistant, associate, and full teaching professors; assistant, associate, and full extension professors) are the same as those for tenured and tenure-track faculty. All professional faculty with professorial rank are expected to demonstrate accomplishments in their areas of faculty responsibility commensurate with expectations of tenured and tenure-track faculty members of similar rank as described in this rule. Professional faculty with professorial rank will be evaluated on an annual basis by the department head consistent with the annual evaluation of faculty.  Subsequent contracts at the same rank will be at the discretion of the department head and based upon successful completion of faculty responsibilities in the current appointment.


Faculty in the Department will have various combinations of responsibilities in the areas of teaching, research, extension and service, as identified in the appointment letter and further documented in the Statement of Faculty Responsibilities (SFR).


The Department recognizes the value of teaching and associated academic activities, and supports faculty efforts to contribute to and improve a robust educational climate on campus. Guidelines can be found in NCSU REG 05.20.10 Evaluation of Teaching.

2.1.1. Classroom Performance

Teaching effectiveness will be evaluated by student course evaluations (i.e., ClassEvals) and teaching evaluation by a two-person departmental peer review. Other review methods are allowed for special situations, as in the case of graduate-level courses with few students. Peer Review

Assistant Professors should have a minimum of three, two-person peer reviews before being considered for promotion and tenure, with one of them occurring before reappointment for tenure-track assistant professors.  Each of the two-person peer reviews must be conducted in separate academic semesters if the same course is being reviewed.  Two distinct courses may be reviewed in the same semester. Dual listed courses (e.g., CS 116/216, SSC 470/570, etc.) are not considered distinct courses.

Associate Professors and Professors should receive peer reviews of teaching, by a two-person peer review team, no less frequently than every five years; this aligns with the post tenure review schedule for tenured faculty. A minimum of two, two-person peer reviews is required for consideration of promotion to full Professor. Each of the reviews must be conducted in separate academic semesters. Two distinct courses may be reviewed in the same semester. Dual listed courses (e.g., CS 116/216, SSC 470/570, etc.) are not considered distinct courses.

2.1.2. Undergraduate Advising

Faculty who lead undergraduate concentrations (i.e., agroecology, agronomy, crop biotechnology, soils, and turf) are expected to advise undergraduate students. Faculty who lead the Ag Institute are expected to advise two-year students. The Director of Undergraduate Programs will assign undergraduate majors to their advisors.

2.1.3. Graduate Education and Training

The training of graduate students and collaboration with post-graduates is an important function of the department. Faculty on the teaching track whose SFRs include 90% in the teaching realm are expected to serve as committee members in order to participate in graduate student training.

2.1.4. Creativity, Innovation, and Scholarship

Creativity and innovation in course and curricula development are important evaluation standards. Scholarly contributions are defined more broadly than the publication of research. Publishing research in teaching is encouraged as a scholarly activity contributing to the field. Materials and methods developed and/or published as textbooks, laboratory manuals, audiovisuals, and computer-based educational programs are examples of activities, which will be included in the evaluation. Recognition by peers, including honors, awards, and invitations to participate in symposia, conferences, and workshops related to teaching are important considerations.

When the faculty member develops a new course or teaches an existing course, which they have not taught before, consideration will be given for the time, energy, and expertise required to initiate and implement such an addition to the Department’s academic offerings.

Similarly, oral or poster presentations of academic issues and concepts at professional meetings have considerable value to the individual, Department, and profession, and thus will also be considered as part of the evaluation.

2.1.5. Additional Evidence of Academic Effectiveness

The evaluation of teaching performance will also consider seeking and obtaining extramural funds for academic programs, teaching development, student recruiting, continued contact with graduates, and sensitivity to the needs and interests of a diverse student population both inside and outside the classroom, including club advising.


Faculty members with responsibilities in research are expected to develop and conduct independent, productive research programs directed toward the creation of new knowledge or the creative synthesis of existing knowledge. If required, they will prepare and have approved one or more North Carolina Agricultural Research Service (NCARS) project outlines according to the guidelines for development of a USDA-NIFA Hatch Project.

2.2.1. Graduate Education and Training

The training of graduate students and collaboration with post-graduates is an important function of the department. Tenured and tenure-track faculty with research appointments are expected to mentor graduate students as chair or co-chair and also serve as committee members in order to participate in graduate student training. Publication of graduate students’ and postdoctoral research contributes greatly to the strength and reputation of a faculty member’s program and, subsequently, the Department; thus it is expected.

2.2.2. Extramural Funding

Effort and success in attracting extramural funding is important to the development of a quality research program, and for the funding of graduate students.  The effort and success in obtaining funding will be considered during the tenure and promotion evaluation process. This funding may come through various methods, including direct grants, university mini-grants, memoranda of agreement, unrestricted gifts, and in-kind support. Funding must be sufficient to maintain a coherent research program that includes graduate student and/or post-doctoral support.

2.2.3. Reporting of Results (Publications)

Faculty having research responsibilities are expected to publish in refereed journals. There is no specific number of publications required as this will depend upon the nature of the research and the percent of research appointment. Both quantity and quality are of importance as an indicator of regular activity and contributions to new knowledge or interpretation in the field. There should be a regularity of publications such that there are not significant gaps in productivity. A sustained publication record is expected. Other activities that are indicators of scholarly research accomplishments are publications of review articles, Experiment Station publications (bulletins, etc.), presentation of papers at national professional meetings and symposiums, and invited seminars.

2.2.4. Potentially Patentable Research

Faculty who are working on developments that may have commercial application should familiarize themselves with the University Patent Policy. Faculty members who are involved in potentially patentable developments should consult with and keep the Department Head informed of such activities so that the Departmental Voting Faculty and administration can be made aware of the situation during the evaluation process for promotion and tenure.

2.2.5. Collaborative Efforts

Although independent work is the basis of most scholarly activities, recognition for participating in collaborative work has become essential. The department recognizes that collegiality and the ability to cooperate with other faculty, staff, and/or students are factors that can affect a faculty member’s ability to meet the standards for their ranks and realms of responsibility. While collegiality in and of itself is not a performance standard, a lack of collegiality may be acknowledged in an evaluation process to the extent that it served as a factor negatively affecting the faculty member’s productivity in their realms of responsibility.


2.3.1. Components of Successful Programs

Because of the numerous commodities, issues, and/or disciplines dealt with by Departmental extension faculty, the specific nature and objectives of programs and approaches used by individual specialists will vary. The SFR will describe the responsibilities of an individual faculty member. New faculty members are encouraged to discuss priorities and approaches to program development with the Department Head, Department Extension Leader, campus extension specialists, county extension agents, commodity leaders and advisory groups, and his/her mentor(s). In addition, attention to the following components of effective, successful extension programs will facilitate professional development and, therefore, the promotion and tenure process.

2.3.2. Program Delivery and Evaluation

Technology and information may be transferred by a multitude of traditional and new techniques depending on the nature and objectives of specific educational programs and clientele, which may include: in-service training (classroom and field); fee-for-service training (classroom and field); on-farm tests (applied research) and field demonstrations; newsletters; tours; short courses; press and media outlets, including social media activities; video and computer software development; extension/research publications; and meetings with county extension agents, state and federal agency and business personnel. Evaluation of programing will vary depending on the clientele but may include surveys, number of clients served, user impact, etc.  In the case of split appointments, use of appropriate extension delivery techniques, which complement individual responsibilities to departmental research or teaching functions, are encouraged (e.g., development of written and visual materials which can also be used for teaching or inclusion of treatments in replicated on-farm tests which complement experiments conducted on research stations).

2.3.3. Scholarly Activities

Extension publications and/or the use of other educational outlets such as those listed under “Program Delivery and Evaluation” are essential and demonstrate the effectiveness of extension programs. In addition, periodic publication in peer-reviewed journals or publications are necessary for promotion. Publication in such journals or other scientific publications, writing of books and/or book chapters.

2.3.4. Graduate Education and Training

The training of graduate students and collaboration with post-graduates is an important function of the department. Tenured and tenure-track faculty with extension appointments, who conduct applied research, are expected to mentor graduate students as chair or co-chair and also serve as committee members in order to participate in graduate student training. Publication of graduate students’ and postdoctoral research contributes greatly to the strength and reputation of a faculty member’s program and, subsequently, the Department; thus it is expected.

2.3.5. Program Support and Visibility

Individual or cooperative success in obtaining ongoing extramural funding is important and demonstrates that extension programs are pertinent and objectives are being achieved. Similarly, international experiences reflect program and professional maturity and are encouraged to the extent that programs and creativity are enhanced.

Most Departmental extension faculty maintain close, professional contacts with commodity, state agency, or trade organizations, or similar groups. These relationships can help develop statewide recognition of a program, make the specialist aware of clientele concerns, maintain contact with commodity and industry leaders, and, in some instances, serve as sources of financial support.


All faculty members, tenured, tenure-track, and professional faculty with professorial rank, are expected to become involved in the operation of the department, college, and university by serving in various capacities (e.g., on committees, boards, panels, task forces, and commissions). Faculty members are also expected to further their disciplines by providing service to their professional societies as officers or on committees, as editors and reviewers for professional journals or other professional publications, and through study and review panels for governmental agencies and funding organizations. Although there is a practical limit to the extent of involvement, it is reasonable for these tasks to average 10 to 15% of a faculty member’s time. Appointments requiring larger amounts of time should be approved in advance by the department head and reflected in the SFR.


Reputation among peers is important in evaluating faculty. Receipt of awards and honors provides a basis for quantifying recognition, as do invitations to participate in symposia or training workshops, to present seminars, to hold editorships, to contribute review papers and/or book chapters, etc. Nomination and election to positions of leadership in professional societies are also indicative of peer recognition. In short, any activity that reflects on the professional competence and reputation of the faculty member contributes to establishing distinction


In addition, the reappointment is an interim judgment about the faculty member’s probable suitability for being granted tenure. The individual is expected to show evidence that significant scholarly activity is in progress. Strengths and weakness should be identified, and standards for promotion and tenure that remain to be satisfied should be clearly articulated to the faculty member.

If the tenure-track assistant professor is reappointed, he or she will be expected to follow the written and oral guidance of the Department Head and the Dean, and meet the expectations stipulated in the review.


To merit promotion to Associate Professor, an individual faculty member must fulfill the standards as described in Section 2 commensurate with their SFR. The Departmental Voting Faculty must have a reasonable expectation that the candidate will continue to build a national and international reputation through continued contributions to the field.


To merit promotion to Professor, an individual faculty member will have met the standards described above for appointment or promotion to associate professor with tenure. Furthermore, the individual will have demonstrated a proven record of distinguished achievement in teaching, research, and extension commensurate with their SFR. For promotion to full professor, the department must be assured that the candidate has a national and international reputation for excellence in her/his field and that the candidate will maintain this reputation through significant contributions to the field.


It is the responsibility of the faculty member to be knowledgeable about NC State University policies and regulations on promotion and tenure and the college rule. The departmental rule augments these to provide faculty with knowledge of the general process and expectations used in evaluating faculty in the Department.  The Board of Trustees is the authority for final tenure approval.

It is expected that candidates for promotion and tenure or promotion will provide a seminar during the spring or summer.  The candidate should work with the seminar coordinator to schedule the presentation, preferably during the regular seminar time.

USDA scientists add significantly to the research capabilities of the Department, and are considered to be full members of the faculty. Consistent with university policy, the Department evaluates USDA personnel holding faculty rank for promotion on the same basis as tenured and tenure-track faculty.

6.1. Notification

Early January emails will be sent to all tenure-track and professional faculty to be considered for RPT in that calendar year by the Department Head (or their designee).  Additionally, in early January emails will be sent to all faculty to be considered for RPT in the next calendar year by the Department Head (or their designee) to remind them that they will need to go through the process in one year.

6.2. Internal Review

6.2.1 A complete dossier, including teaching evaluations and class reviews, must be sent to mentors by March 15. (Tenure-track and professional faculty with assistant professor rank should have two departmental mentors, one assigned and one selected by the candidate, whereas associate professors have one departmental mentor whom they select.) Mentors will review the full package and provide feedback to the candidate on both content and format by April 1. The candidate is expected to make edits and have the next draft ready by April 15.

6.2.2 The dossier should be transferred to the review committee (made up of faculty who have served on CALS P&T committee) by April 15. Each dossier will be reviewed by two committee members for format and content. Reviewed dossiers and comments will be returned to the candidate by May 15. Final dossier packages will be ready by May 30.

6.3. Letters of Solicitation

Early in April, names of potential External Evaluators are solicited from the tenured Associate and Full professors by the Department Head.  The final list of External Evaluators is selected by the Department Head no later than April 15.  If possible, four External Evaluators are selected from the candidates list and four are selected from the list submitted by tenured faculty members.

The Department Head (or their designee) contacts each prospective External Evaluator for their consent to participate in this process until they find five to six total reviewers, approximately half from the candidates list and half from the tenured faculty list. Once a positive confirmation is received from each External Evaluator, a packet containing the Provost’s letter of instruction and the candidate’s dossier is e-mailed to the reviewer by early June, with expectation that the outside review letters will be returned by the end of July. Once received, the External Evaluation letters are loaded to the NC State University RPT online tool by August 1 either by the Department Head or their designee; these letters are part of the promotion and tenure package that the DVF reviews.  The candidate is expected to load their dossier into the RPT system late August for Departmental review.  However, the timeline may vary and the Department Head will provide guidance yearly.

6.4. Department Voting Faculty Responsibilities

Copies of the candidate’s dossier including the letters written by the External Evaluators are made available to the Departmental Voting Faculty (DVF) to review prior to the RPT meeting, typically scheduled for the first faculty meeting in September or a date soon thereafter.  The candidate’s qualifications are summarized by two to three faculty: a faculty member (assigned the duty by the Department Head), and the candidate’s mentor(s).  The assigned faculty member will be selected with consideration given to the candidate’s scholarly expertise area and SFR assignment, will be at the rank of full professor, and will not have served as the candidate’s mentor.  The assigned faculty member will summarize the candidate’s qualifications prior to the DVF discussion.  In a confidential meeting, the DVF will then discuss the candidate’s credentials. The assigned faculty member will present a summarization (brief) of the candidate’s dossier and will write the DVF letter, with the mentor(s) providing notes and reviewing and concurring on the letter.   The DVF letter will be structured based on an example letter provided to the team by the associate department head and should include the full scope of the DVF discussion.  Votes of the DVF to grant or deny reappointment, promotion and tenure are submitted through secret ballots and counted jointly by the Department Head and a Department Advisory Committee member who is part of the DVF unless the Department determines to conduct an on-line meeting.  Electronic voting will be available for DVF unable to attend the in-person meeting or when in-person meetings are inadvisable.

6.5 Department Head Letter

Within five working days after the vote, the DVF summary letter is added to the dossier and then the Department Head prepares his/her summary letter that is added to the dossier.  The candidate has five working days to respond to the written comments of the faculty and the Department Head before the dossier is forwarded to the Dean of CALS, usually in mid-November.