- You are here:
- GT Home
The following is an overview of the promotion process for Academic Professional and the list of documentation required to be considered for promotion. This is based on “Section 3.2.2 Non-Tenure Track Academic Faculty Members: Hiring and Promotion Guidelines” of the Georgia Tech Faculty Handbook.
Eligibility for Promotion – Associate Academic Professionals, Academic Professionals, Senior Academic Professionals who are appointed as full time and have been in rank at least the minimum time as specified in the faculty handbook. Time in rank does not guarantee promotion.
Minimum expectations in all Academic Professional ranks are listed below. The candidate does not need to demonstrate noteworthy achievement in all five (5) of the following areas, but must do so in number one (effective administration) and two of the others.
1. effectively carrying out assigned administrative duties within unit;
2. superior teaching, if applicable;
3. outstanding service to the Institute (Georgia Tech), and/or community
4. outstanding research, scholarship, creative activity, or academic achievement, as defined by role; and professional growth and development.
How the Promotion Process Works
- Supervisor and faculty member meet to discuss eligibility and readiness for promotion.
- Faculty member prepares the following dossier
- Biosketch - 100 word biosketch in a 12 point or larger font that describes the candidate’s tenure at Georgia Tech, current duties, and any significant awards or honors.
- Position Description – provided with input from the supervisor and if the promotion will include a change in responsibilities. This should be updated and indicate percent time the unit expects the individual to devote to each major activity.
- Personal Statement - (5 pages max with one-inch margins, standard single-spaced and 10-point minimum font) – The statement is the candidate’s “voice” in the promotion process and should provide perspective on and context for the candidate’s accomplishments at Georgia Tech with regard to the five criteria for Academic Professionals. Academic Professionals should clearly label the three areas of superior performance in their statement and consolidate information relevant to them under those labels. This statement should reference the three (3) to five (5) examples of relevant best work and indicate how these relevant works are related to the areas of superior performance. The narrative should be written in the third person, with a three- page minimum and five-page maximum limit with one inch margins, standard single- spaced, and 10-point minimum font.
- Curriculum Vitae - Summarizes biographical, personal, and professional data. The modified CoE institute standard resume for non-tenure track promotions should be used as a template and candidates should delete any categories/headings that are not relevant to them. Specifically, candidates should list journal publications separately from conference presentations. However, the initial page should include the standard education and work history. Professional contributions beyond those of the position description should be included, as should any awards, recognition, grants, artistic installation/presentation, etc.
- Three (3) to Five (5) examples of relevant best work – Work that represents the candidate’s contributions in administration, service, and/or the candidate’s field. These may include reports, published papers, books, software, patents, art productions, or other relevant examples that reflect their superior performance and will be recognized by their peers as such.
- CIOS Table with Normative Data– If the candidate has teaching responsibilities, the candidate should provide their own table of student evaluation scores from the Course Instructor Opinion Survey (CIOS). The table should include the scores from the question: “Is the instructor an effective teacher?” Normative data from the candidate’s college and teaching subject area (i.e., school), if applicable, should be included. Other evidence of effective teaching may be provided with the guidance of the supervisor.
- Reviewer List with bios - Names of potential reviewers with one paragraph bios for each potential reviewer. The candidate should provide the names of at least three (3) reviewers, external to Georgia Tech, who are in a position to evaluate the dossier for promotion. This list should not include individuals who recently left Georgia Tech and know the candidate primarily from on-campus contact. There should be a period of at least four years separation from their position at Georgia Tech to consider the person as an external reviewer. The reviewers should reflect high quality institutions as appropriate to the field or area of work of the candidate. If the external reviewer is the candidate’s mentor, supervisor, or dissertation advisor, a special justification should be included for using that person as a reviewer. Depending upon the nature of the candidate’s responsibilities, these letters may be national, regional, or local. This list should be developed jointly between the supervisor/school chair and the candidate. Candidate has the right to request that certain individuals not be contacted as a reviewer. It is the supervisor/school chair’s final decision as to who is solicited for a reference letter.
- Statement of Completeness – Statement indicating materials submitted are accurate and complete. Signed and dated with the same date as the CV.
- Waiver – Statement indicating whether or not candidate waives rights to see the identity of external letter writers or content of their letters.
- External Reference Letters - Supervisor or School Chair (the person conducting the unit-level evaluation) will solicit external reference letters from the reviewers. These references must be external to Georgia Tech and not include individuals who recently left Georgia Tech and know the candidate primarily from on-campus contact. There should be a period of at least four years separation from their position at Georgia Tech to consider the person as an external reviewer. The reviewers should reflect high quality institutions as appropriate to the field or area of work of the candidate. If the external reviewer is the candidate’s mentor, supervisor, or dissertation advisor, a special justification should be included for using that person as a reviewer.
- Supervisor or School Chair Letter - Supervisor or School Chair will provide a letter of evaluation addressed to the Dean. For appointments at the school level, it should be the direct supervisor, a tenured faculty member, or the School Chair who provides the letter. For appointments at the college level, the direct supervisor, a tenured faculty member, should provide the letter. This letter should provide an analysis of the candidate’s experience and performance using the relevant criteria related to their position, a summary of the external letters, and a recommendation for or against promotion. If the promotion also includes a change in or additional professional responsibilities or percentage time allocation among different activities, the change should be described.
- College Committee Letter –The Dean will convene a committee of 5 or more tenured full professors or principal academic professionals to review the candidate’s materials. The committee will vote on the promotion and write a letter of recommendation describing the rationale of the vote for or against promotion.
- Dean Letter – The Dean will write a letter to the Provost summarizing the main strengths and/or weaknesses of the case and whether he/she recommends promotion or not. In a case in which the supervisor is the Dean, the Dean may provide the committee with written guidance that describes the candidate’s accomplishments, the quality of the candidate’s work, and expertise which warrants promotion at this time. If the promotion also includes a change in or additional professional responsibilities, the change should be described.
- Institute Committee – One representative from each college, the library, and professional education (8 members total) will convene and review all cases for promotion and vote for or against promotion.
- Provost – After review by the Institute Committee, the Provost will review the package and communicate the final outcome to the Dean, who in turn communicates the decision to the faculty member, completing the process.
Decisions for Promotion
The effective date of promotion is July 1 for faculty members on a fiscal year contract and August 15 for faculty members on an academic year contract. A positive decision grants promotion to the candidate; a negative outcome means the candidate has not met expectations for promotion at Georgia Tech.