A.
Opening
The
letter should imply a neutral and objective review. For
example, "Prof. X is under review (or consideration) for appointment
at (or promotion to) the rank of Y." Statements such as "we
are eager to" or "Prof. X has kindly agreed to join us at the
rank of ..." should be avoided.
B.
Main issues
There
are three issues that play very important roles. In the passage
that requests the evaluation, it might be helpful to specify
the need for:
(1)
careful analysis of the main scholarship/research contributions
and their impact,
(ii) comparison with other prominent scholars in similar stages
of their careers, and
(iii) indication of whether the overall record (quality, quantity,
and impact) meets the standards of the proposed rank at the
letter writer's institution.
If
the record contains a significant amount of collaborative research,
the solicitation letter should request commentary on the candidate's
contributions to such work. If the appointment includes significant
pedagogic or administrative duties, analysis of the candidate's
abilities in these areas should be solicited.
C.
UC features
For
promotion to Prof VI and Above Scale, it is important that a
suitable number of people familiar with these ranks be consulted
(e.g., current and former senior UC faculty). For others, a
brief description of the expectations of the rank could be provided.
In all cases, explicit mention of the proposed rank helps
clarify the issue. Also, it might be useful for the letter
writers to be informed that in our University, in addition to
the reviews conducted by the department, Chair, and the Dean,
appointments and promotions include review by a campus-wide
faculty committee as well as by the central administration.
D.
Independence of letter writers
Where
pertinent information can be provided, letters should be solicited
from thesis advisors, post-doc mentors, research collaborators,
and co-editors, but a reasonable number of letter writers
should be wholly independent from the candidate. The exception
might be for assistant professor appointments for candidates
with recent PhD's, where strong letters from thesis advisors,
members of the dissertation committee, or post-doc mentors might
suffice.
E.
Accelerated promotion
When
promotion associated with an acceleration is being contemplated,
it would be helpful if the letter identifies the proposed acceleration
and states that such an advancement needs to be justified. Recall
that the Academic Personnel Procedures Manual identifies
two mechanisms for this justification: extraordinary achievements
in the period of review or evidence of under-appreciation within
the faculty ranks (APP
3-40-B.3).
