Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure (RPT) Process
The reappointment, promotion and tenure (RPT) process at CMU is a formal procedure through which faculty members are evaluated for continued employment, career advancement and permanent status (i.e., tenure). This process ensures that faculty members are held to high standards of academic achievement and integrity while offering a clear pathway for career development at our institution. This page includes forms and documents to support the RPT process.
College and School RPT Policies
College of Engineering
College of Fine Arts
Dietrich College of Humanities and Social Sciences
Heinz College of Information Systems and Public Policy
Mellon College of Science
School of Computer Science
Tepper School of Business
University Libraries
Guidance on Faculty Feedback
The following are three ways in which faculty members receive feedback in connection with the RPT process.
This feedback should be provided directly by the dean and department head. For faculty with joint appointments, colleges and departments should coordinate their feedback to ensure a unified decision.
While candidates may be allowed to submit a written response to feedback, it is not required or necessarily recommended. Offer this option only if you believe it will be a genuinely helpful exercise for the candidate or for your own understanding.
For all appointment and tenure decisions, the faculty member shall be notified promptly in writing of the departmental recommendation by the department head and of the dean's recommendation by the dean. Upon the written request of the faculty member, the department head or the dean, as the case may be, shall provide a written statement of the reasons for the recommendation, provided the faculty member agrees in writing that the statement is confidential and may be used for no other purpose than to discuss the reasons with the department head, the dean, the provost or the president, if the faculty member so chooses, or to submit the statement to the Faculty Review Committee in support of a grievance arising eventually out of a negative recommendation by the president to the Board of Trustees.
For difficult cases where there are concerns that need to be communicated to the candidate, please contact the Office of the Vice Provost for Faculty and the Office of General Counsel who can advise further and review draft memos.
Written Notice During the Process
The Appointment and Tenure Policy requires the department head, dean, provost and president to give written notice to the candidate of their intended recommendation on the case before the case proceeds to the next level.
Please use the positive case template or the negative case template accordingly.
For negative recommendations, the template clarifies that if the faculty member signs an agreement to use the information for only limited purposes, they are entitled to a written statement of reasons. If you receive such a request, consult with the OVPF and OGC before issuing the statement.
Discussion During the Process
In addition to the required written notice, department heads and deans are strongly encouraged to meet with the candidates to discuss their recommendations and reasoning behind them. This is particularly important for negative recommendations, where a meeting allows for direct explanation.
Providing feedback at each step of the process allows candidates to withdraw an unpromising case early, if they choose, before it advances.
Written Notice at Conclusion
Following each reappointment or promotion evaluation, the unit head should provide written feedback to the candidate. This feedback should:
- Highlight the candidate’s strengths and weaknesses
- State the expected timing of the next reappointment or promotion evaluation, if any.
- Serve as a basis for interim meetings with the candidate to provide additional feedback on their progress toward the next milestone and their progress in overcoming any weaknesses.
This feedback should be in writing so that there are no questions about the messaging to the candidate. Please use the positive case template or the negative case template accordingly, and access the teaching and tenure track samples for additional guidance.
Additional Feedback Guidance
Guidance should be detailed and constructive enough to be helpful, but not so explicit as to appear to offer a formula for promotion (e.g., the candidate must improve collegiality, we expect an improvement in teaching performance, especially in undergraduate classes, thus far research productivity is below expectations and we would like to see an improvement). It is important to allow intellectual freedom, and yet a bit of guidance can be given (e.g., the successful candidate will demonstrate leadership in an area, and this could be achieved by focusing on a narrower range of topics and making deeper contributions). It is reasonable to say that papers published in high-ranking venues receive more credit than less prestigious outlets, but refrain from saying things like, “We expect to see a paper in journal X.”
Broadly, written feedback should also include details about what was observed, including supporting data. For example, the number of doctoral students advised, key papers published and amount of funding secured. More qualitative data is also appropriate, such as, “student letters indicate an increase/decrease in ability to mentor effectively.”
It is best to express negative feedback in ways that are objective and specific to relevant review criteria (e.g., teaching, research, citizenship, etc.)
When giving advice on how to prepare for the next review, it can be useful to ask the candidate how the college can assist them in making the necessary improvements.
Some things to consider in giving feedback based on RPT:
- Maintain confidentiality of the process, including committee members, internal/external reviewers and students.
- Only provide a summary highlighting strengths and weaknesses. The feedback is not intended to capture all points made or perspectives.
- You should include a statement making it clear that the feedback is intended as guidance, not a guarantee of a particular outcome at the next review. A few samples are provided below.
Sample One
The information above is intended only to provide you with a general sense of the committee's discussion of your case so that you may address the highlighted issues. In preparing for future reviews, you should be guided by the full standards set forth in University and College faculty policies, and not just these general themes. Reappointment or promotion at future milestones will be based on a full review of your case based on all relevant criteria from the applicable faculty policies.
Sample Two
While the common themes highlighted above provide a general sense of the committee's discussion, the scope of faculty reviews involves a holistic assessment of candidates against the standards set forth in university and college faculty policies. Hence, looking forward, you should focus on all criteria set forth in the applicable policies, not just those issues highlighted above.