Tenure and Promotion on the Charles River Campus

Note that all elements of the promotion process for salaried Lecturers and Senior Lecturers in the collective bargaining unit is governed by the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the University and the union, not by the Faculty Handbook. In 2019 the collective bargaining unit includes most of the salaried Lecturers in all Charles River Campus schools and colleges except the Questrom School of Business, the School of Law, the College of Engineering and Sargent College. The current contract for salaried Lecturers in the collective bargaining unit is available on the Office of Labor Relations website.

• Promotion Criteria:
  Promotion criteria for Lecturers and Senior Lecturers are determined by the Schools and Colleges and are reviewed by the Provost. In all cases, a sustained level of excellence in teaching is of primary importance. In general, Schools and Colleges also expect leadership activity related to teaching and/or contributions to curriculum design, student advising, and other activities that are centered on enhancing student learning. School- or College- specific guidelines are maintained in the Dean’s Office.
• Timeline for Promotion:
  In keeping with the Handbook definitions of Senior and Master Lecturer, normally Lecturers will have completed 5 full years of full-time service at Boston University before being eligible for consideration for promotion to Senior Lecturer, and Senior Lecturers will have completed 5 full years of full-time service at Boston University before being eligible for consideration for promotion to Master Lecturer. Earlier consideration is possible in exceptional cases, and a longer interval between promotions is also possible. In the event a former part-time Lecturer becomes a salaried, full-time Lecturer, credit for prior service will be calculated based on the current full-time teaching load for that Lecturer’s position. See example:

A Lecturer taught 3 courses per year on a part-time basis for 2 years. The Lecturer is then hired as a full-time Lecturer with a 6 course/year teaching load. The Lecturer receives one year of credit towards the full-time service requirement needed for promotion to Senior Lecturer.

Note that in all cases, the time in rank requirement is a minimal criterion for promotion, which is not granted on the basis of time in rank alone. Typically, the promotion process is formally initiated by the department Chair/unit Director in consultation with the faculty member, but may also be initiated at the request of the faculty member.

• Promotion Review Process:
  1. Each school or college has its own process and timeline for assembling the promotion materials needed for Lecturer promotions, and for conducting the promotion review. This information is available through the Dean’s office.
  2. The Dean typically notifies the Lecturer of the promotion decision by August 1.  In the event of a negative decision, the Lecturer is advised of the appeal process.
• Appeals Process for Lecturer Promotions:
  Promotion cases for Lecturers and Senior Lecturers progress to the Dean regardless of the votes at earlier levels. Lecturers and Senior Lecturers may appeal a negative promotion decision by following the process outlined in Section I (Appeals). The table below shows the appeal path for promotions of Lecturers and Senior Lecturers.

Appeal Reviewers for Promotions of Lecturers and Senior Lecturers:

This includes non-tenure track Assistant Professors, non-tenure track Associate Professors, and tenured Associate Professors.

• Promotion Criteria:
  A national reputation for excellence in scholarly and/or creative work is required for promotion from the rank of unmodified Assistant Professor to the rank of unmodified Associate Professor, and an international reputation for excellence in scholarly and/or creative work is normally required for promotion to the rank of unmodified Professor. Significant weight is normally placed on the strength of these activities since the last time the faculty member was appointed or promoted.
• Timeline for Promotion:
  While there is no rigid schedule for promotion,progress towards promotion should be a topic during each annual performance evaluation meeting between the faculty member and the department Chair.  Under normal circumstances, a non-tenure track Assistant Professor is ready to be considered for promotion to Associate Professor after serving 7 years in rank, and an Associate Professor, regardless of tenure status, is typically ready to be considered for promotion to Professor after serving 5-7 years in rank. Promotion after a shorter or longer time in rank is also possible. Typically, the promotion process is formally initiated by the Chair of the department in consultation with the faculty member, but the process may also be initiated at the request of the faculty member. A faculty member whose promotion has been denied may not apply for promotion again until a minimum of 2 academic years has passed since the academic year in which the dossier was submitted to the Dean for formal review. In exceptional circumstances, the Dean may seek the approval of the University Provost to waive the 2-year period.
• Promotion Review Process:
  1. Each School or College has its own process and timeline for assembling promotion dossiers. This information is available through the Dean’s office. The deadlines for central receipt of the completed dossiers, following all necessary reviews in the School or College, are as follows:
     • Promotions from Associate Professor to Professor – due in the Provost’s Office by November 15; decision to candidate by March 1.
     • Promotions from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor – due in the Provost’s Office by February 1; decision to candidate by May 15.
  2. The first level of promotion review takes place in the candidate’s department. This review is conducted by those members of the department holding rank at least as high as that for which the candidate is being considered. These faculty examine the candidate’s dossier, meet and discuss the candidate’s qualifications, and vote on whether or not to recommend promotion. The Chair of the department reports the result of the faculty review as well as the Chair’s own recommendation to the Dean. In the case of significant dissent, the Chair should strive to convey a sense of the arguments on each side.
  3. The faculty of each School or College, in accordance with procedures recommended by the faculty and approved by the Dean and the University Provost, select an Appointment, Promotion and Tenure Committee whose members are Associate or Full Professors. The Committee examines and discusses the candidate’s dossier including the recommendation of the faculty and of the Chair of the candidate’s department. A report embodying the substance of the discussion and the recommendation of the Committee is then furnished to the Dean of the School or College.
  4. The Dean makes a recommendation regarding promotion and so notifies the candidate. If the recommendation is positive, the Dean forwards the candidate’s dossier, including the Committee recommendation along with the Dean’s own recommendation and the reasons therefor to the University Provost. If the Dean’s recommendation is negative, the Dean informs the candidate and provides information about the appeals process (for Appeals see Section I).
  5. The University Provost forwards the case to the University Appointment, Promotion and Tenure Committee (UAPT), whose members shall be sixteen Associate or Full Professors selected by the Provost and the Chair of the Faculty Council by mutual agreement. The UAPT Committee reviews the case and votes. A report embodying the substance of the UAPT Committee’s discussions and recommendation is added to the dossier, and all materials to date are provided to the University Provost.
  6. The University Provost makes a recommendation regarding promotion. If the recommendation is positive, the Provost forwards the candidate’s dossier including the UAPT report and the Provost’s own recommendation to the President. If the Provost’s recommendation is negative, the Provost informs the candidate and provides information about the appeals process (for Appeals see Section I).
  7. The President notifies the candidate of the President’s decision.
  8. The candidate shall, upon request, be given copies of reports and rationales from each level of the promotion review process. To facilitate this procedure, reports and rationales are formulated and/or redacted in such a way as to preserve the anonymity of participants in the judgment to the extent that this is consistent with the communication of the basis of judgment at each level. The candidate is not given access to individual evaluation letters or direct quotations from evaluation letters, which are submitted in confidence.
  9. The candidate may withdraw a promotion application at any stage of the process.
• Appeals Process:
  On the Charles River Campus, promotion cases for non-tenure track Assistant Professors, non-tenure track Associate Professors, and tenured Associate Professors progress to the Dean, regardless of the votes at earlier levels. These faculty may appeal a negative promotion decision by following the process outlined in Section I (Appeals). The table below shows the appeal path for promotions of non-tenure track Assistant Professors, non-tenure track Associate Professors, and tenured Associate Professors.

Appeal Reviewers for Promotions of non-tenure track Assistant Professors, non-tenure track Associate Professors, and tenured Associate Professors:

Clinical faculty primarily provide undergraduate and graduate teaching, practical instruction, and are experts in the application of practical knowledge, while maintaining a strong record of scholarly or creative work appropriate for their field of practical expertise. On the Charles River Campus, the title describes faculty whose disciplines span the basic sciences, humanities, creative arts and professional fields. Faculty with professorial titles modified by “Clinical” are not eligible for tenure. Please see the section on faculty Appointments and Reappointments for information about appointment and reappointment of faculty with modified titles, including Clinical faculty.

• Promotion Criteria:
  The general criteria for promotion for Clinical faculty are a strong record of a) teaching, b) scholarly or creative work, and c) University and professional service. Promotion on the Clinical track normally requires substantive contributions to the School or College’s teaching program while exhibiting a high degree of teaching proficiency, as well as a national and/or international reputation for scholarship or educational pedagogy in the field of practical expertise. Candidates are normally expected to provide service to the profession nationally and/or internationally, as appropriate for promotion to Clinical Associate Professor and Clinical Professor, respectively.
• Timeline for Promotion:
  While there is no rigid schedule for promotion,progress towards promotion should be a topic during each annual performance evaluation meeting between the Clinical faculty member and the department Chair. Under normal circumstances, Clinical professorial faculty are eligible to be considered for promotion after completing a minimum of five or six years in rank. Consideration may occur outside this timeframe, depending on individual circumstances, as specified by the School or College in which the Clinical faculty member holds an appointment. Typically, the promotion process is formally initiated by the department Chair in consultation with the faculty member, but may also be initiated at the request of the faculty member. A faculty member whose promotion has been denied may not apply for promotion again until a minimum of 2 academic years has passed since the academic year in which the dossier was submitted to the Dean for formal review. In exceptional circumstances, the Dean may seek the approval of the University Provost to waive the 2-year period.
• Promotion Review Process:
  1. The formal, written procedures for required promotion materials are available through the Dean’s Office or on the School or College web site. These documents provide information on the promotion criteria and process, as well as timeline and guidelines for compiling the faculty’s section of the dossier. Early in the academic year, the candidate for promotion should begin to assemble a dossier that includes a complete CV listing teaching, scholarship, and service, as well as a personal statement describing teaching activities and scholarly work. The dossier is then completed by the addition of at least six external letters of evaluation solicited by the Dean, often in consultation with the department Chair. At least 50% of the external letters must be written by arm’s length evaluators, who have no formal professional or close personal relationship with the candidate. Teaching evaluations, peer observations of teaching, and any additional school-specific required material are collected and added to the dossier by the Dean’s Office.
  2. The first level of review takes place in the candidate’s department. Normally, this review is conducted by those faculty members in the department holding a rank at least as high as that for which the candidate is being considered. These reviewers may hold modified and/or unmodified professorial titles. In the event that there are fewer than three eligible voting faculty at the department level, the Dean may augment the reviewers with additional faculty after consultation with the eligible voting members of the department. Ideally, at least one Clinical faculty member should be included among the reviewers for the promotion of a Clinical faculty member. These faculty examine the candidate’s dossier, meet and discuss the candidate’s qualifications, and vote on whether or not to recommend promotion. The Chair of the department reports the result of the faculty vote and the Chair’s evaluation and recommendation to the school- or college-level promotions committee.
  3. The school- or college-level promotions committee examines and discusses the candidate’s dossier, including the recommendations of the faculty and Chair of the candidate’s department. In some schools and colleges, this committee is the Appointment, Promotion and Tenure committee, in other units a separate school-wide standing committee reviews promotions for faculty with modified titles. The Committee’s report embodying the substance of the discussion, Committee vote, and the recommendation of the Committee is furnished to the Dean of the School or College.
  4. If the Dean’s recommendation is positive, the candidate is notified and the dossier, including the Dean’s letter, is furnished to the Provost’s Office no later than June 1. In the case of a negative decision, the Dean notifies the candidate of the decision and the appeals process.
  5. The final step of the review process for Clinical faculty lies with the University Provost, who reviews the candidate’s dossier and the recommendations of the department and Chair, the school- or college-wide committee, and the Dean. The Provost notifies the candidate of the Provost’s decision, typically by August 1, and the appeals process if the decision is negative.
  6. The candidate shall, upon request, be given copies of reports and rationales from each level of the promotion review process. To facilitate this procedure, reports and rationales are redacted in such a way as to preserve the anonymity of participants in the judgment to the extent that this is consistent with the communication of the basis of judgment at each level. The candidate is not given access to individual evaluation letters or direct quotations from evaluation letters, which are submitted in confidence.
  7. The candidate may withdraw a promotion application at any stage of the process.
• Appeals Process:
  On the Charles River Campus, the promotion case for a Clinical faculty member progresses to the Dean, regardless of the votes at earlier levels. Clinical Assistant Professors and Clinical Associate Professors may appeal a negative promotion decision by following the process outlined in Section I (Appeals). The table below shows the appeal path for promotions of Clinical faculty:Appeal

Reviewers for Promotions of Professorial Faculty with Titles Modified by Clinical:

Research faculty primarily work for the University on research supported by external grants and contracts. Duties may include teaching and service by mutual agreement between the research faculty member and the Dean, but this is not normally expected, nor are these activities of primary importance in consideration for promotion. Faculty with professorial titles modified by “Research” are not eligible for tenure. Please see the section on faculty Appointments and Reappointments for information about appointment and reappointment of faculty with modified titles, including research faculty.

• Promotion Criteria:
  The most important criterion for promotion for Research faculty is outstanding scholarly or creative work. A national reputation for excellence in scholarly and/or creative work is required for promotion to the rank of Research Associate Professor and an international reputation for excellence in scholarly and/or creative work is normally required for promotion to the rank of Research Professor. Supporting evidence includes the record of publication, externally sponsored activities (e.g. grants, fellowships), presentations, and service to the profession. Although Research faculty commonly work as part of collaborative teams, promotion on the Research track usually requires significant evidence of leadership and independence, such as lead or corresponding authorship on publications and serving as the principal investigator on sponsored research grants. Significant weight is normally placed on the strength of these activities since the last time the faculty member was appointed or promoted.
• Timeline for Promotion:
  While there is no rigid timeline for promotion, progress towards promotion should be a topic during each annual performance evaluation meeting between the research faculty member and the Chair or supervisor. Under normal circumstances, research faculty are eligible to be considered for promotion after serving 3-7 years in rank.  Consideration may occur outside this timeframe, depending on individual circumstances. Typically, the promotion process is formally initiated by the department Chair in consultation with the faculty member, but may also be initiated by the faculty member. A faculty member whose promotion has been denied may not apply for promotion again until a minimum of 2 academic years has passed since the academic year in which the dossier was submitted to the Dean for formal review. In exceptional circumstances, the Dean may seek the approval of the University Provost to waive the 2-year period.
• Promotion Review Process:
  1. The formal, written procedures for required promotion materials are available through the Dean’s Office or on the School or College web site. These documents provide information on the promotion criteria and process, as well as a timeline and guidelines for compiling the faculty’s section of the dossier. Early in the academic year, the candidate for promotion should begin to assemble a dossier that includes, at a minimum, a complete CV and a research statement. The candidate should also provide examples or links to examples of pertinent scholarly work since the last appointment or promotion. The dossier is then completed by the addition of at least six external letters of evaluation solicited by the Dean, often in consultation with the department Chair. At least 50% of the external letters must be written by arm’s length evaluators, who have no formal professional or close personal relationship with the candidate. In the event that teaching has been one of the Research faculty member’s activities, the Dean’s Office adds student teaching evaluations and peer observations, as well as any additional school-specific material to the dossier.
  2. The first level of review takes place in the candidate’s department. Normally, this review is conducted by those faculty members in the department holding a rank at least as high as that for which the candidate is being considered. These reviewers may hold modified and/or unmodified professorial titles. In the event there are fewer than three eligible voting faculty at the department level, the Dean may augment the reviewers with additional faculty after consultation with the eligible voting members of the department. Ideally, at least one Research faculty member should be included among the reviewers for the promotion of a Research faculty member. These faculty examine the candidate’s dossier, meet and discuss the candidate’s qualifications, and vote on whether or not to recommend promotion. The Chair of the department reports the result of the faculty vote and the Chair’s evaluation and recommendation to the school- or college-level promotions committee. . In the unusual event that the Research faculty member does not have an appointment in a department, the faculty member’s program or center director will serve in the Chair’s role and there is no departmental consideration of the case.
  3. The school- or college-level promotions committee examines and discusses the candidate’s dossier including the recommendations of the faculty and Chair of the candidate’s department. In some schools and colleges, this committee is the Appointment, Promotion and Tenure committee, in other units a separate school-wide standing committee reviews promotions for faculty with modified titles. The Committee’s report embodying the substance of the discussion, Committee vote and the recommendation of the Committee is then furnished to the Dean of the School or College.
  4. If the Dean’s recommendation is positive, the candidate is notified and the dossier, including the Dean’s letter, is furnished to the Provost’s Office no later than June 1. In the case of a negative decision, the Dean notifies the candidate of the decision and the appeals process.
  5. The final step of the review process for Research faculty lies with the University Provost, who reviews the candidate’s dossier and the recommendations of the department and Chair, the school- or college-wide committee, and the Dean. The Provost notifies the candidate of the Provost’s decision, typically by August 1, and the appeals process if the decision is negative.
  6. The candidate shall, upon request, be given copies of reports and rationales from each level of the promotion review process. To facilitate this procedure, reports and rationales are redacted in such a way as to preserve the anonymity of participants in the judgment to the extent that this is consistent with the communication of the basis of judgment at each level. The candidate is not given access to individual evaluation letters or direct quotations from evaluation letters, which are submitted in confidence.
  7. The candidate may withdraw a promotion application at any stage of the process.
• Appeals Process:
  On the Charles River Campus, the promotion case for a Research faculty member progresses to the Dean, regardless of the votes at earlier levels. Research Assistant Professors and Research Associate Professors may appeal a negative promotion decision by following the process outlined in Section I (Appeals). The table below shows the appeal path for promotions of Research professorial faculty:

Appeal Reviewers for Promotions of Professorial Faculty with Titles Modified by Research:

Associate Professors of the Practice and Professors of the Practice are distinguished practitioners who primarily provide undergraduate and graduate teaching, service and mentoring, informed by their experience as working professionals in the fields from which they have been recruited to join the University. Faculty with professorial titles modified by “of the Practice” are not eligible for tenure. Please see the section on faculty Appointments and Reappointments for information about appointment and reappointment of faculty with modified titles, including of the Practice faculty. Note that only two of the Practice ranks are used, so only one promotion step is possible, from Associate Professor of the Practice to Professor of the Practice.

• Promotion Criteria:
  The criteria for promotion to Professor of the Practice includes excellence in teaching, which usually is supported by strong teaching evaluations, peer observations, and leadership in course or curricular design.  The candidate should also have a strong record of mentoring students with interests in the profession represented by the candidate; service to the School or College, University and the profession; and significant continuing achievement in professional activities, advancement of professional standing, and/or relevant professional experience leading to an international or, as appropriate, national reputation in the candidate’s field.
• Timeline for Promotion:
  While there is no rigid timeline for promotion, progress towards promotion should be a topic during each annual performance evaluation meeting between Associate Professors of the Practice and the Chair. Under normal circumstances, Associate Professors of the Practice are eligible for promotion after serving 5-7 years in rank. Consideration may occur outside this timeframe, depending on individual circumstances. Typically, the promotion process is formally initiated by the department Chair in consultation with the faculty member, but may also be initiated by the faculty member. A faculty member whose promotion has been denied may not apply for promotion again until a minimum of 2 academic years has passed since the academic year in which the dossier was submitted to the Dean for formal review. In exceptional circumstances, the Dean may seek the approval of the University Provost to waive the 2-year period.
• Promotion Review Process:
  1. The formal, written procedures for required promotion materials are available through the Dean’s Office or on the School or College web site. These documents provide information on the promotion criteria and process, as well as a timeline and guidelines for compiling the faculty’s section of the dossier. Early in the academic year, the candidate for promotion should begin to assemble a dossier that includes, at a minimum, a complete CV, as well as a statement on teaching, mentoring, administrative and professional service, and professional activities. The candidate should also provide examples or links to examples of pertinent professional work (e.g., innovative course syllabi, published works, professional or service products). The dossier is then completed by the addition of at least six external letters of evaluation solicited by the Dean, often in consultation with the department Chair, as well as teaching evaluations, peer observations of teaching, and any additional school-specific required material. At least 50% of the external letters must be written by arm’s length evaluators, who have no formal professional or close personal relationship with the candidate.
  2. The first level of review takes place in the candidate’s department. Normally, this review is conducted by those faculty members in the department holding full professor rank, with or without a modified title. In the event that there are fewer than three eligible voting faculty at the department level, the Dean may augment the reviewers with additional faculty after consultation with the eligible voting members of the department. Ideally, at least one full Professor of the Practice should be included among the reviewers for the promotion of an Associate Professor of the Practice.  These faculty examine the candidate’s dossier, meet and discuss the candidate’s qualifications, and vote on whether or not to recommend promotion. The Chair of the department reports the result of the faculty vote and the Chair’s evaluation and recommendation to the school- or college-level promotions committee.
  3. The school- or college-level promotions committee examines and discusses the candidate’s dossier including the recommendations of the faculty and Chair of the candidate’s department. In some schools and colleges, this committee is the Appointment, Promotion and Tenure committee, in other units a separate school-wide standing committee reviews promotions for faculty with modified titles. The Committee’s report embodying the substance of the discussion, Committee vote and the recommendation of the Committee is then furnished to the Dean of the School or College.
  4. If the Dean’s recommendation is positive, the candidate is notified and the dossier, including the Dean’s letter, is furnished to the Provost’s Office no later than June 1. In the case of a negative decision, the Dean notifies the candidate of the decision and the appeals process.
  5. The final step of the review process for of the Practice faculty lies with the University Provost, who reviews the candidate’s dossier and the recommendations of the department and Chair, the school- or college-wide committee, and the Dean. The Provost notifies the candidate of the Provost’s decision, typically by August 1, and the appeals process if the decision is negative.
  6. The candidate shall, upon request, be given copies of reports and rationales from each level of the promotion review process. To facilitate this procedure, reports and rationales are redacted in such a way as to preserve the anonymity of participants in the judgment to the extent that this is consistent with the communication of the basis of judgment at each level. The candidate is not given access to individual evaluation letters or direct quotations from evaluation letters, which are submitted in confidence.
  7. The candidate may withdraw a promotion application at any stage of the process.
• Appeals Process:
  The promotion case for an Associate Professor of the Practice progresses to the Dean, regardless of the votes at earlier levels. Associate Professors of the Practice may appeal a negative promotion decision by following the process outlined in Section I (Appeals). The table below shows the appeal path for promotions of Associate Professors of the Practice:

Appeal Reviewers for Promotions of Associate Professors of the Practice: