In the first week in January, I turned in a vita and accompanying statement for calendar year 2007...so essentially for the first 4 months of my faculty appointment. The materials have now been reviewed by a group of senior faculty in my department and a letter has been sent to the chair. The chair is looking things over and then will write his own letter. All of these things will go in my "permanent file." This annual review process is also used to provide a ranking of faculty members in the department and the ranked list is used to determine raises.
Sometime soon, I'll be getting a copy of the letters and then a few days later I'll be meeting with the chair to discuss my progress. What should I know going into my annual review meeting? Does the discussion focus on the past or is it more geared toward the future? Are there things I should or shouldn't bring up? Is it good form to take notes and send a follow-up email or is that overkill?
- Log in to post comments
I would say that the meeting will be a chance to both look backwards and look forwards. If you see any factual errors in the chair's letter, you should make sure they are corrected. If there are problems... well, this is the place to discuss how things can change. If the letter says everything is swell, then you should talk about expectations for the coming year (and beyond). This is a chance to make sure you understand how your department expects your teaching and research to progress, so I would recommend making the most of it, without promising to achieve particular things.
I don't know if a follow-up e-mail is useful. My sense is that if things go bad, you don't tend to have much recourse - if a department or institution wants to get rid of a junior faculty member, they can find a legally justifiable reason to do so. But maybe an e-mail will help them remember what they told you, and might help you decide what to say in your file next year.
As quickly as you can, you need to figure out how your department/university merit system works. Then do your own thing in such a way as to be meritorious. It is always an advantage to know the rules of the game you are playing. Also, keep paying attention, because such rules can change with time.
Ah yes the renewal, promotion and tenure "game".
I am in my second year of this "game". Being a science educator this is perhaps a different game than in the actual sciences. Because I work helping teacher candidates become good science teachers this implies and requires modelling excellent teaching. Alas research, research, research is the siren call even in a faculty focused on teaching and preparing those who will teach. There is a dilemma here for me since I spent many years as a high school science teacher and know the practical requirements, which my teacher candidates are always wishing to know. Yet I feel the pressure for research which of course is as it should be. However, to teach well requires a significant time allotment for preparation and even if I use this as an opportunity for research, ignoring perhaps how incestuous this maybe, this doesn't always work out. What is frustrating is the lack of recognition of the value of teaching, even as my university (and others I suppose) demand excellence in teaching. More balance would be desirable yet research remains overwhelmingly the measure of if one progresses or not. This leaves me to wonder how long I will last in this academic environment for my students learning is a strong focus for me, if for no other reason than they pay large sums of money and spend significant amounts of time completing their degrees.
Time will tell I guess.
regards, tm