Authority: Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost
History: First Issued: March 24, 2010. Last Revised: August 1, 2016.
UNC Policy 400.3.3 – Performance Review of Tenured Faculty
NCSU POL05.20.01 – Appointment, Reappointment, Promotion and Permanent Tenure
NCSU REG05.20.04 – Post Tenure Review of Faculty
NCSU REG05.20.27 – Statement of Faculty Responsibilities
Post Tenure Review Policy UNC School of Medicine
Contact Info: Department Head (919-515-0724 or 919-966-2291)
This rule describes standards and procedures of the Department of Biomedical Engineering for post tenure review of faculty. This rule clarifies and makes consistent NC State University’s Academic Tenure Policy and Regulation on Post Tenure Review of Faculty and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine’s Post Tenure Review Policy with respect to the review of faculty in the Department of Biomedical Engineering. The Department Head is responsible for assuring that the procedures as set forth in NC State’s REG 05.20.04, UNC’s Policy 400.3.3.1, and this Rule are followed.
- POST TENURE REVIEW COMMITTEE (PTRC)
2.1.1 The PTRC shall consist of four tenured professors. Two of these committee members will be selected by the BME Department Head in consultation with the Chair of the SOM PTRC from basic science faculty members serving on the UNC School of Medicine Post-Tenure Review Committee. The remaining two committee members will be selected by the Department Head from the NC State College of Engineering faculty. PTRC members will serve one-year terms. If a PTRC member leaves the committee prior to end of term, the BME Department Head in consultation with the Chair of the SOM PTRC or the Dean from the NC State College of Engineering will appoint a replacement based on the vacant PTRC position.
2.1.2 The School of Medicine Post-Tenure Review Committee is formed at the beginning of each academic year, when each UNC Department Head selects one faculty member from the Department to serve for one year as set forth in UNC SOM’s Post-Tenure Review Policy. This member may not be selected to serve on the Departmental PTRC (see 2.1.1.) but at the Department Head’s discretion can provide guidance to the Departmental PTRC.
2.1.3 The Department Head will select the chair of the PTRC committee annually. The PTRC Chair should familiarize himself or herself with the applicable policies and regulations and this rule.
2.2 Meeting Schedule
The PTRC Chair will meet with the Department Head early in the fall semester to learn who will be reviewed during that year and what the schedule will be. The main review will be held in the spring after the Department has assembled the required materials from each faculty member to be reviewed, as set forth in section 5.2 of NCSU REG 05.20.04 or UNC SOM’s Post-Tenure Review Policy as applicable.
The PTRC Chair will schedule all meetings, coordinate with the Department Head, and prepare and transmit reports from the committee to the Head and to the faculty members reviewed.
- DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED TO THE PTRC
The documentation and documentation format provided to the PTRC will be that of the university at which the faculty member has his/her primary appointment and are set forth in section 5.2 of NCSU REG 05.20.04 or UNC SOM’s Post-Tenure Review Policy Attachment A.
- ADDITIONAL PROCEDURES REQUIRED BY DEPARTMENT
4.1 Faculty Ratings by the PTRC
The committee shall rate the overall performance of each faculty member according to the rating scale specified below. The committee will report to the BME Department Head and/or the Chair of the SOM PTRC, a rating of “Acceptable” (for A-C) or “Development Plan Recommended”. The latter is equivalent to NC State’s “does not meet” expectations. For individual faculty members with a rating of “Development Plan Recommended”, the university to which the faculty member has his/her primary appointment will be responsible for tracking progress on the development plan. The development plan will be developed by the department chair in consultation with the faculty member.
BME Departmental PTRC Faculty Performance Rating Scale:
- A) Outstanding (equivalent to NC State’s “exceeds expectations”)
B) Commendable (translates to NC State’s “meets expectations”)
C) Productive (translates to NC State’s “meets expectations”)
D) Development Plan Recommended (equivalent to NC State’s “does not meet”)
Faculty members who have a joint appointment with the Department will be reviewed in their majority home department. If their appointment is equally distributed, the faculty member will choose which department will conduct the review.
- PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
5.1 Standards for Associate Professor
Associate Professors are to be evaluated to determine if they are performing the realms of responsibility set forth in their Statement of Faculty Responsibilities at the Associate Professor standard as set forth in the Department’s Rule on Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure Standards and Procedures. To meet expectations (commendable/productive), they must present evidence that they are maintaining the standards for promotion to associate professor as set forth in the Academic Tenure Policy and college and departmental reappointment, promotion and tenure rules.
5.2 Standards for Professor
Professors are to be evaluated to determine if they are performing the realms of responsibility set forth in their Statement of Faculty Responsibilities at the standard set forth in the Department’s Rule on Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure Standards and Procedures. To meet expectations (commendable/productive), they must present evidence that they are maintaining the standards for promotion to full professor as set forth in the Academic Tenure Policy and college and departmental reappointment, promotion and tenure rules.
5.3 Standards for Exceeds Expectations or Outstanding at All Professorial Levels
Expectations of faculty in the Department of Biomedical Engineering are extremely high and difficult to exceed. It is expected that over the course of a career, faculty will achieve national and international recognition for their scholarship and leadership. Such recognition could, for example, be in the form of highly prestigious awards from professional societies or journals. Given these expectations, a finding of exceeds expectations will require a truly extraordinary accomplishment such as election to the National Academy of Engineering.