Mid-Probationary Review For Tenure-Track Faculty

The University of Texas at Austin is committed to providing faculty members with informative and meaningful feedback. It is especially important that tenure-track faculty undergo a comprehensive review midway through their probationary service in order to assess if the faculty member is on a reasonable trajectory toward promotion and tenure. The following are required areas for review, in accordance with the Handbook of Operating Procedures 2-2160:

  • Teaching, both undergraduate and graduate.
  • Research, creative activities, and other scholarly effort.
  • Advising, counseling, and other student services.
  • Administrative and committee service.
  • Public service to the nation, state and community.
  • Other evidence of merit or recognition, such as fellowships, grants, honors, and election to office in scholarly or professional organizations.

Each college and school has developed a mid-probationary review policy, and links to those can be found on this page (see Other Resources). Common elements of the policies include:

  • The review will be conducted between the fifth and seventh semester of probationary service (the review can be delayed in some situations).
  • The department chair (or dean in a non-departmentalized college) or department/college governance committee will assign an evaluation committee to oversee the review.
  • The focus of the review concerns the areas of review noted above and in HOP 2-2160. The nature of the review and written evaluation shall be both evaluative and developmental.
  • The tenure-track faculty member will receive written feedback.
  • The tenure-track faculty member has the right to respond in writing to the final report.
  • Copies of the review and written response will be forwarded to the appropriate individuals in the department, school, and college.
  • Unsuccessful reviews can form the basis of a non-renewal recommendation to the dean and provost in accordance with Regents’ Rule 31002.
  • The candidate or provost may request a review of the case by the Committee of Counsel on Academic Freedom and Responsibility (CCAFR). Such a review is limited to one or both of the following: 1) to determine whether, in its judgment, the procedures followed in the candidate’s case accorded with the college’s policy; and 2) whether or not the decision was based upon a violation of the faculty member’s academic freedom. CCAFR shall not review disputes about professional judgments on the merits of the faculty member’s record.