Skip to page content

Faculty Hiring, Reviews, and Tenure

Learn about faculty hiring, promotion and tenure, post-tenure review procedures, and more.# Employment Resources for Faculty

Faculty Searches

Visit the UGA Human Resources Website

Faculty Hiring Information

If you have general questions, the general resources for faculty affairs is a good place to start. All newly-hired employees will receive an email to visit the UGA Onboarding System, with links to the OneUSG Connect HCM System, Ethics training, and contract dates (PDF). For new employees, the College has a pre-formatted welcome letter (PDF) and UGA offers a website to get to know Athens.

Other faculty hiring information and resources include:

Do you have a question about a specific appointment? Find information about:

For part-time faculty, download a policy manual, as well as a letter of agreement and a Summer letter of agreement template.

Promotion and Tenure Information

Find full details about appointment and promotion guidelines on the UGA Provost’s Office website. The College also offers its own appointment and promotion guidelines for tenure-track faculty (PDF) and clinical faculty (PDF), as well as a voting matrix for appointments (PDF).

In any year, a department head/dean may determine not to extend a contract to a non-tenured faculty member. This determination may be made following a recommendation to the head by the unit faculty, consistent with the department and the PTU’s written criteria.

General Points of Career Reflection and Evaluation

For the typical tenure-track faculty member, it’s important to stay proactive and be aware of the various points along your career path for reflection and evaluation. These steps are:

  1. Application and appointment to faculty: As a new faculty member, it’s important to keep these guidelines in mind as you begin your career at UGA:

    • Get a mentor or two
    • Seek viewpoints from departmental faculty and those outside your unit
    • Ask for specific and direct feedback
    • Ask senior faculty for help on becoming active in national organizations, letting people know you want to review articles or plan professional meetings
    • Talk to your department head or the associate dean for faculty and staff services
    • You are responsible for your own success; advocate for yourself
  2. Appointment upon hiring to graduate faculty (a three-year appointment); read details about graduate faculty status below

  3. Third-year review: The third-year review is an opportunity for faculty members to know how they are developing given department expectations, understand how they are progressing toward promotion and tenure, and relocate early in their career if there is not a good fit with UGA given their emerging career goals.

    In a third-year review, evaluators consider:

    • Quality of work (peer and student evaluations considered)
    • Balance across areas
    • Productivity relative to budgeted time
    • Continuity or integration of work
    • Focus

    The third-year review, a formative process, occurs at the end of the third year of appointment for assistant professors. If an assistant professor comes to the University of Georgia with 2 or 3 years prior credit toward tenure and requests to be considered for promotion and/or tenure in the third year of appointment at UGA, preliminary consideration for promotion and/or tenure will replace the third-year review. Faculty members undergoing third-year review will prepare their dossiers in collaboration with the PTU head detailing their achievements and performance in their assigned area(s) of responsibility. This dossier should take the form of Sections 4 and 5 of the promotion and tenure dossier.

    The head of the PTU will appoint a faculty committee, in accordance with the appointment unit bylaws, to provide a thorough review of the individual’s dossier. This committee will contain no fewer than three eligible faculty members. The review will be substantive and will provide the faculty member with critical feedback about his/her progress toward promotion and/or tenure.

    The third-year review committee will report its findings to the PTU, and the eligible faculty, including the PTU head, will vote to recommend whether progress toward promotion and tenure is sufficient. The PTU head is not obligated to reveal his/her vote. The committee will then report its recommendations, along with the vote, to the PTU head. The PTU head will provide the faculty member under review with a written report regarding his/her progress toward promotion and/or tenure. The candidate may reply in writing to the report within 30 days and any reply becomes part of the report.

    The PTU head/s letter, and any response by the candidate, will be included in the promotion and/or tenure dossier when it is developed.

  4. Graduate faculty reappointment (takes place every seven years)

  5. Promotion (eligible during the fourth year as an assistant, must go up to the sixth year)

    In general, faculty will be recommended to the rank of associate professor after five years as an assistant professor and recommended to the rank of professor after five years as an associate professor.

    Faculty who are performing significantly above the expectations for their current rank may be considered for “early” promotion in their fourth year. Strong justification in the PTU head’s cover letter is required for any early promotion recommendation.

    The tenure probationary period is five years; only associate professors and professors are eligible for tenure. A maximum of seven years may be served without the award of tenure (if the initial rank is INST, the maximum time served without tenure is 10 years). You can find full guidelines for requesting an extension of the tenure probationary period due to an FMLA event on the Provost’s website.

    Non-tenured faculty in their sixth probationary year and who have not been turned down for tenure in their fifth year must be reviewed for tenure unless they request in writing not to be reviewed. Such requests should be submitted with the department head and dean approval to the provost, via the Office of Faculty Affairs, by May of the fifth year in rank.

    To calculate your rank, it depends on your type of contract. Faculty on academic-year contracts must be appointed on or before the beginning of Fall semester for that academic year to count toward your year in rank. Faculty on fiscal year contracts must be appointed on or before the beginning of the Spring semester for that year to count toward your year in rank. If you were appointed in the middle of an academic year prior to the 2015-2016 year, please contact the Office of Faculty Affairs.

  6. Tenure (eligible during the fifth year at UGA; three years of service credit can be given)

  7. Post-tenure review (PTR)

  8. Role changes or additions (graduate coordinator, department head, director of a special project, broader administrative role)

  9. Retirement (PDF)

Promotion and Tenure: Criteria for Academic Rank (tenure-track) Faculty

The University of Georgia Guidelines for Appointment, Promotion, and Tenure (p. 9) require that each appointment unit develop its own discipline-specific criteria and procedures for promotion and tenure in order to supplement the UGA Guidelines. A unit’s own discipline-specific criteria and procedures must be accepted by the faculty within the appointment unit and must be reviewed and approved by the dean of the school/college and by the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost. The Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost must also be notified of and approve any amendments to a unit’s promotion and tenure criteria.

Department Discipline-Specific Criteria


Promotion and Tenure: Formatting Your CV

As an effort to produce a more uniform reporting procedure, particularly as it affects publications, the curriculum vitae should be prepared in the following outline form and included in the dossier in the section indicated in the guidelines for preparing both the promotion and tenure dossiers.

  1. Academic history
    • Name
    • Present rank, recommended rank, proportion time assignments
    • Tenure status
    • Administrative title (if any)
    • Graduate faculty status
    • Highest degree, the institution, the date
    • List of academic positions in chronological order with titles and inclusive dates
    • Other professional employment (current and previous), dates
    • Post-graduate awards (fellowships, lectureships, etc.)
    • Resident instruction and continuing education narrative summary of facts (e.g., courses of instruction, enrollments, academic advising, etc.)
  2. Scholarly activities
    • Publications (include all categories listed below; if there are no entries for a particular category, state “none”; indicate the number of pages for books or chapters)
    • Books authored or co-authored (in print or accepted); distinguish original editions and revisions
    • Books edited and co-edited (in print or accepted); distinguish original editions and revisions
      • Chapters in books (in print or accepted)
      • Monographs (longer than articles, in print or accepted)
      • Journal articles (in print or accepted)
      • Abstracts (in print or accepted)
      • Book reviews (in print or accepted)
      • works submitted but not yet accepted
      • Any other (e.g., popular articles)
    • Creative contributions other than formal publications
    • Grants received (dates, amounts, principal investigator or co-principal investigator)
    • Recognitions and outstanding achievements (prizes, fellowships, etc.)
    • Areas in which research is done
    • Supervision of student research (including the number of theses and dissertations supervised)
    • Editorship or editorial board member of journals or other learned publications
    • Convention papers

Note: Mark with an asterisk those publications that have gone through stringent editorial review; mark with a double asterisk those publications that were invited and carry prestige and recognition)

Note: Mark with an asterisk those that have a published counterpart; mark with a double asterisk those papers that were specially invited, i.e. keynote papers

  1. Public services performed: Extension, international programs, local community services, and relations, and to governmental and non-governmental agencies
  2. Other services: This would include, for example, service on departmental, college, or university committees and special administrative assignments; service to student groups and organizations and to support units such as libraries, computing services, and health services

Each of the above categories should have a heading entry and, as will be the case, if there are no entries to be made in the categories, enter “none.” This will assure that each category is attended to and that there is a common mode of presenting the information.

The UGA Libraries has a handy citation tracking guide to help with this process.

Promotion and Tenure: The Process

  1. The faculty member “will prepare their dossiers detailing their achievements and performance in their areas(s) of responsibility.” This dossier should include:
    • Current vita (use VPAA format)
    • Statement of main accomplishments to date (2 pages)
    • Detailed description of achievements to date (12 pages)
  2. Department head appoints a committee to review materials & prepare a written report. This report includes general evaluation, vote, a brief discussion of strengths, a brief discussion of weaknesses (if any), and specific recommendations for the next few years.
  3. Committee reports to PTU faculty and all eligible faculty vote on whether progress is sufficient (“Guidelines for Appointment, Promotion, and Tenure”). The written report with the faculty vote is given to the department head.
  4. The department head reviews the report with the faculty member in a face-to-face meeting.
  5. The faculty member may prepare a written reply to the departmental report, which becomes a part of the report. A written response is recommended if there are inaccuracies or misunderstandings in the departmental report. No written response is required if the faculty member agrees with the report.
  6. The departmental third-year review report and any written faculty response become a section in the promotion dossier. SAVE A COPY FOR YOURSELF.

Note: This process may vary by department, including what materials the faculty member must prepare for a third-year review beyond the vita, their main accomplishments, and discussion of achievements; the committee composition; the timeline for completing the process; or expectations.

Promotion and Tenure: Keeping Records

Documentation is imperative on your career track journey. It’s recommended that every faculty member keep a file folder for every year (hard copy or electronic), a file of all publications (hard copy or electronic), and files for types of records kept across years (course comments, unsolicited letters, etc.)

Specifically, faculty should retain the following records:

  • Vita in VPAA format updated at least annually
  • Teaching evaluations with numerical data and student comments for every course
  • Evaluative data collected on your supervision (field placements, directed readings)
  • Unsolicited letters (e-mails) from students on your teaching, advising, or mentoring
  • Number of students advised at each degree level per year
  • Number of student committees on which you serve (as chair and as a member)
  • Information on what your graduates are doing
  • A list of guest lectures done in classes especial those outside your department
  • A copy of each of your publications
  • A copy of papers presented at conferences
  • A list of journals where you review & approximate number of reviews done each year
  • Unsolicited letters (e-mails) regarding your research
  • Grant proposals
  • Citations of your work
  • Media that you develop
  • Performance videos
  • Written reviews of any of your books articles, media or instructional material
  • Activities for state and national professional organizations committee member reviewer of papers, programs, nominations elected offices held
  • List of service activities
  • Unsolicited letters regarding your service activities
  • A copy of your annual faculty activity report and written faculty review

UGA Elements

All annual evaluations of faculty performance must be supported by an annual activity report from UGA Elements.

Need to log scholarship, creative works, or other professional activities? Log in to Elements to get started.

Visit UGA Elements

Graduate Faculty Status

A. Qualifications for Membership

Graduate program faculty are entrusted with upholding the research and advanced practice of the professional missions of the university.

Membership centers on three intellectual criteria:

  1. An earned doctorate from an accredited institution; an earned terminal degree from an accredited institution, when the terminal degree in the faculty member’s discipline is other than a doctorate; or an earned professional degree in the faculty member’s area of research or professional practice.
  2. Proficiency in conducting scholarly research and/or in the active practice of the profession. Through their own current research productivity and/or their own current professional and instructional practices, members of the Graduate Program Faculty have established themselves as leaders in their disciplines. Evidence of demonstrated proficiency includes, but is not limited to either of the following:
    • Active research agenda as indicated by the publication of scholarly books, articles in refereed journals, refereed conference presentations, grants and contracts received, patents, and creative activities appropriate to the various disciplines; recognition of research and creative contributions by awards, prizes, and fellowships; and editorial work, such as service on editorial boards of scholarly journals and university presses, editing of scholarly books, and the professional review of manuscripts for scholarly journals and presses.
    • Active practice of the profession, as indicated by the scholarship of practice, consultations, performances, contracts, awards, prizes, licensures, and other certifications. In the College of Education, we further define “proficiency in the practice of the profession” to include related work experiences in the field, professional licensure and certifications, or other demonstrated competencies and achievements contributing to effective teaching and student learning outcomes (Southern Association of Colleges and Schools faculty credentials (PDF)).
  3. Proficiency in supervising scholarly research or practice of the profession. Members of the Graduate Program Faculty bear primary responsibility for teaching and preparing future generations of researchers, scholars, and practitioners. Evidence of demonstrated proficiency in supervision includes one or more of the following:
    • Prior supervision of student research, professional skills development, or service as a major professor/advisor or committee member for applied projects, theses, and dissertations.
    • Prior supervision of practitioners in academic or non-academic settings.
    • Demonstrated potential to successfully direct masters, specialist, or doctoral candidates to degree completion.

In addition to the three intellectual criteria listed above, the university also must ensure that faculty directing research and teaching advanced courses provide the type of sustained support, commitment, and access necessary to ensure students with whom they have been entrusted receive the mentoring, practical, professional, and research training appropriate for a university of our stature.

B. Responsibilities and Rights of the Graduate Program Faculty Members

Responsibilities of a member of the graduate program faculty include teaching graduate students effectively, in a civil, professionally appropriate manner; conducting scholarly research and creative work of high quality, or remaining active in the practice of the profession; and directing the research or professional development of graduate students so that they progress toward graduation in a timely manner appropriate to the field.

Only graduate program faculty members may:

  • Serve as major professor for doctoral students
  • Serve as major professor for master of arts and master of science students
  • Teach 8000- and 9000-level courses
  • Serve on the Graduate Council
  • Vote for members of the Graduate Council
  • Vote for appointment/reappointment/revocation of graduate program faculty status for faculty members in their department

Although part-time and external adjunct faculty members may hold Graduate Program Faculty status, they are not eligible to serve as major professors for doctoral students or master’s degree students writing a thesis. Retired faculty or faculty who leave the university may continue to support doctoral students as major professors per Graduate School guidelines.

C. Procedures for Appointment and Reappointment

Faculty procedures outlined below apply to all faculty members including tenure-track, career-track, external adjunct, and retired faculty. The term “program” is considered synonymous with “department” in the College of Education.

Initial Appointment

Newly Hired Faculty Members

A newly hired faculty member may be considered for graduate program faculty status at the time of hire if they have earned the terminal degree. To be eligible for graduate program faculty status upon appointment, the College’s Office of Faculty and Staff Services must receive notification of the faculty decision with the hiring proposal.

Current Faculty Members

A faculty member who does not hold graduate program faculty status may be considered for appointment during a regularly scheduled review as noted below or may request consideration during the Fall or Spring semester by making a written request to the department head and supplying a current curriculum vita. If the Office of Faculty and Staff Services receives notification of the faculty decision by Dec. 1, graduate program faculty status will be effective Jan. 1. If notification is received by May 1, graduate program faculty status will be effective June 1.


Review and reappointment of current graduate program faculty members will be part of the regularly scheduled reviews of faculty, including:

  • Third-year review
  • Promotion
  • Post-tenure review for tenured faculty members; every 5 years following promotion for career-track faculty members; and every 5 years following appointment for retired and external adjunct faculty members.

Consistent with the university’s appointment and promotion policies, deference to decisions of colleagues closest to the discipline will be employed in determining Graduate Program Faculty status. Successful review at the department level at any of these career points will result in an appointment or reappointment to the Graduate Program Faculty. The COE Office of Faculty and Staff Services should be notified of these outcomes by May 1 of each year.

If, at the time of retirement or departure from the university, a faculty member holds graduate program faculty status, they continue to hold that status until a five-year review is needed. These faculty members may be reappointed following a successful five-year review if they have maintained an uninterrupted proficiency in supervising scholarly research or practice of the profession."

The outcome of all such periodic reviews for reappointment to graduate program faculty will be sent to the dean of the Graduate School by the Office of Faculty and Staff Services. The office will maintain a list of graduate program faculty members and will notify department heads of faculty members who are due for a five-year review by Sept. 1 of each academic year.

Appeals Process

If a candidate does not concur with the vote of the departmental graduate program faculty, the candidate may make a written request for reconsideration to the dean within 10 days of receipt of the program faculty’s decision. The reconsideration must specify the basis for the request (e.g., the introduction of new information, explanation of the information in the original materials).

The dean will notify the department head that an appeal has been filed, and the department head will have 10 business days to supply materials in support of the department’s decision. If the department head voted with the minority of faculty members, a faculty member who voted with the majority should provide the materials from the department.

The dean will appoint an ad-hoc appeals committee consisting of five members from the graduate program faculty within the College of Education but outside the home department of the candidate; members may not have a conflict of interest with the candidate. The recommendation of the ad-hoc appeals committee is advisory to the dean. The appeals committee will meet within 15 business days of receipt of the department materials to consider all materials submitted by the candidate and the Department. At the conclusion of its deliberations, the committee will take a vote by written secret ballot about whether or not to support the department vote. A faculty member who votes with the majority will write the appeal committee’s recommendation letter to the dean, reporting the numeric vote and outlining the substance of the discussion. This recommendation letter will be delivered to the dean, the candidate, and the department head within 10 business days of the committee’s vote.

The dean will have 10 business days to consider the material submitted by the candidate, the department, and the appeals committee. The dean shall notify the candidate, department head, and members of the appeals committee in writing of the final decision. The dean is the final level of approval within the College.

If the candidate does not concur with the dean’s decision, the candidate may appeal to the appeals committee of the Graduate Council as specified in Section V, Item 7 of the Graduate School’s procedures. Such an appeal must be made within 15 business days of the date on the dean’s decision letter.

D. Revocation of Graduate Program Faculty Status

Approved by the Graduate Council on January 16, 2019.

The responsibilities of graduate faculty can be found in the rationale section of the Policies and Procedures for Appointment and Reappointment to the Graduate Faculty. A member of the graduate faculty of the University of Georgia may have their status removed if they fail to meet any or all of the expectations outlined above, as assessed during the periodic review process. Procedures for the periodic review of graduate faculty are in the Procedures for Appointment and Reappointment of the Graduate Faculty section of the policy document referred to above.

It is also possible for a member of the graduate faculty to have their graduate faculty status revoked by the dean of their college or school, the dean of the Graduate School, the provost, or the president outside the periodic review process. Revocation may occur for egregious acts or when a faculty member fails to fulfill the responsibilities of a member of the graduate faculty to teach graduate student(s) effectively, in a civil, professionally appropriate manner, to do scholarly research and creative work of high quality or remain active in the practice of the profession, and to direct the research/professional development of graduate student(s) so that they progress toward graduation in a timely manner appropriate to the field. Failure to teach graduate students effectively and/or to direct the research and professional development of graduate student(s) also includes any acts covered by the UGA Non-Discrimination and Anti-Harassment Policy.


  1. When a graduate student or faculty member has a complaint about the performance or behavior of a faculty member directly related to their responsibilities as a graduate faculty member, the first course of action should be to try to resolve the complaint directly with the faculty member.
  2. If the student/faculty member is unable to resolve the complaint with the graduate faculty member, then an oral or written complaint should be delivered to the unit head and/or the departmental graduate coordinator.
  3. The unit head and/or graduate coordinator must investigate the complaint and work with the student/faculty member making the complaint (complainant) and the graduate faculty member.
  4. The unit head and/or graduate coordinator must provide a written summary to the complainant and to the graduate faculty member against whom the complaint was made of the outcome of their investigation of the complaint and of the recommendations made to resolve the issue. A copy of this letter will be placed in the personnel file of the graduate faculty member.
  5. If the unit head and/or graduate coordinator are unable to resolve the issue, then they must appoint a committee to investigate the complaint. The committee will consist of three graduate faculty members, at least one of whom must be from outside the unit. OR If the complainant is not satisfied with the resolutions provided by the unit head and/or the graduate coordinator, then they can make a written request to the unit head and/or graduate coordinator for the formation of a committee to investigate the complaint. A committee consisting of three graduate faculty members (at least one of whom must be from outside the unit) must be appointed in response to this request.
  6. The appointed committee must convene to review the complaint and to meet with all affected parties and provide a written assessment to the unit head and/or graduate coordinator with recommendations for necessary action. A copy of this letter will also be provided to the complainant and the graduate faculty member against whom the complaint has been made, and a copy will be placed in the personnel file of the graduate faculty member.
  7. In response to the recommendation from the committee, the unit head and/or graduate coordinator may initiate procedures for a re-evaluation of the graduate faculty status of the faculty member against whom the complaint has been made.
  8. Faculty in the academic unit will review and vote on the graduate faculty status of the faculty member and shall follow Appointment and Reappointment procedures for recommendation to the graduate faculty including consideration of all documentation associated with the recommendation.
  9. The outcome of the graduate faculty vote together with a letter from the unit head and/or graduate coordinator and all documentation associated with the recommendation will be forwarded to the dean of the college/school.
  10. The dean of the college/school will forward this information together with a letter of recommendation to the dean of the Graduate School.
  11. The dean of the Graduate School will forward the information or review to the Appeals Committee of the Graduate Council. The committee will provide a recommendation to the dean, who will render a decision and notify all parties as to the resolution of the matter. If the decision results in revocation of graduate faculty status, then the dean will work with the academic unit to develop a plan of action that will allow the faculty member to reapply for graduate faculty status.
  12. If graduate faculty status is revoked, the faculty member has the right to make an appeal against the decision to the provost. This appeal must be made in writing within 14 days of the dean of the Graduate School providing notification of the removal of graduate faculty status. The provost is the final arbiter of the decision to revoke graduate faculty status.

All investigations into complaints against graduate faculty must be dealt with expeditiously. Normally, there should be no more than 30 days between the presentation of the complaint and resolution of a complaint or, if necessary, a vote by the graduate faculty in the academic unit on the status of the faculty member against whom the complaint was made. If efforts are ongoing to informally resolve the complaint, the unit head and/or graduate coordinator may extend the time for a formal review of the complaint.

Both the faculty member and the complainant have the right to seek the advice of an attorney, but attorneys are not authorized to participate in the dispute resolution process.

Students and faculty members who, in good faith, report what they believe to be a valid complaint, or who cooperate in any investigation, will not be subjected to retaliation. Any student or faculty member who believes he or she has been the victim of retaliation for making a complaint or cooperating in an investigation should immediately contact the unit head and/or graduate coordinator. Any person found to have retaliated against a person who has cooperated in an investigation will be in violation of this policy and will be subject to disciplinary action.

E. Participation of Retired Faculty in Graduate Programs

Membership on the Graduate Program Faculty terminates at the time of retirement. The policy of the Graduate School concerning the participation of retired faculty in graduate programs is:

  1. The chair of a doctoral student’s advisory committee, who is retired, may continue in that capacity if the student has been admitted to candidacy for the degree and if the student and department wish for the relationship to continue. If the student has not been admitted to candidacy at the time of the chair’s retirement, another chair must be selected following regular procedures.
  2. A retired professor will not assume the role of chair of an advisory committee for a student.
  3. A retired professor may retain Graduate Program Faculty status and continue to serve as a member of a doctoral committee provided that the student has been admitted to candidacy and provided that the student and department wish for the relationship to continue and the professor is in a position to perform the required services. If the student has not been admitted to candidacy at the time of the member’s retirement, another member must be selected following regular procedures.
  4. A retired professor may be appointed to serve on a doctoral committee as a non-Graduate Program Faculty member following regular procedures.
  5. A retired professor may continue to serve as a student’s major professor for a master’s degree providing that the program of study has been received by the Graduate school prior to his/her retirement. Consideration will be given to a request to waive any of the above policies upon petition from the graduate coordinator of the academic unit to the dean of the Graduate School.

Post-Tenure Review Procedures and Checklists

The procedures described in this document for conducting the post-tenure review (PTR) have been agreed upon by all departments in the College of Education. The procedures were designed to (a) be flexible enough to meet the needs of all faculty, (b) protect the rights of the individual faculty member being reviewed, and (c) not require materials needed to conduct the review that are not already available. Each department is expected to follow these procedures and is not to revise them at the department level. Section VI (Revision of Procedures) outlines how changes to the College of Education unified set of procedures can be made.

Read the UGA Policy

The regular font in the document represents policy approved by the University Council (January 1997).

The bold italicized font in the document indicates the College of Education’s unified procedures to implement the University policy (approved 5/21/97).

Clarifying amendments approved by the College Faculty Senate (2/3/99) are shown in the italicized font.

Each promotion/tenure unit shall establish written criteria and procedures governing the periodic review of each tenured faculty member. Because faculty hold tenure in departments, the promotion/tenure unit referred to in this document is the department.

Supporting Documents for Post-Tenure Review

Download a PDF of the Timeline (PDF)

Download a Faculty Member Checklist (PDF)

Download a Department Head Checklist (PDF)

Download a Post-Tenure Review Committee Checklist (PDF)


The purpose of the review will be to examine, recognize, develop, and enhance the performance of tenured faculty members at the University of Georgia.

The College views PTR as a faculty development activity and, as such, PTR fits into the College’s pervasive agenda for focusing on development which has been operating for Assistant and Associate Professors over the last few years.

To ensure these goals, the College expects the PTR to be conducted in a consistent manner across and within departments. Furthermore, the reviews should be fair, objective, defensible, clear, as well as rigorous. In the end, the PTR process will help to improve who we are and what we do.


The criteria should reflect the overall mission of the promotion/tenure unit and should be sufficiently flexible to accommodate faculty with differing responsibilities and particular strengths who contribute to the mission of the institution in distinct ways.

In an attempt to coordinate each of the PTR Committees operating within each of the departments, the Department Head will meet with each committee (separately or jointly) to be sure the committee: (a) is familiar with the COE PTR procedures, (b) knows what the report should contain, and (c) provides information to the committee as to the departmental expectations of the faculty member(s) under review.

The question for PTR is: Has the faculty member’s performance been satisfactory or not over the last five years, given their assigned responsibilities and the mission of their department/unit?

The general criteria cited in The University of Georgia Guidelines for Appointment, Promotion, and Tenure, Revised May 1995 (pp. 4-11) will serve as the initial baseline of indicators in considering whether a faculty member continues to demonstrate satisfactory performance. The department interprets how these criteria apply to their respective discipline(s).

Department heads should engage in a discussion with faculty to see if the criteria in the P&T Guidelines are sufficient to cover the varied activities of their faculty. However, one does not have to be outstanding in two of three areas, nor does one have to show a national or international reputation. These are promotion criteria, not those for sustaining tenure.

The (PTR) process must recognize the responsibilities of tenured faculty may change over time (e.g., they may become focused in certain areas or become broader). Thus, the PTR Committee must assess the impact of a candidate’s performance in meeting his/her assigned responsibilities along with the department’s or College’s mission and goals during the period under review.

It is possible to receive a positive PTR, yet be turned down for promotion since different criteria (and interpretations of the criteria) are involved in each review.

The promotion/tenure unit, as defined in the Guidelines for Appointment, Promotion and Tenure shall ensure that the criteria governing faculty review do not infringe on the accepted standards of academic freedom of faculty, including the freedom to pursue novel, unpopular, or unfashionable lines of inquiry. The review shall be carried out free of bias or prejudice by factors such as race, religion, sex, color, national origin, sexual orientation, ethnicity, age, disability, political affiliation, or veteran status.


Reviews shall occur once every five years after tenure or promotion has been granted unless delayed because the faculty member is on leave or because his or her review for promotion to professor is approved by the faculty of the promotion/tenure unit for the following year. These reviews may be combined with other reviews, including (but not limited to) nominations for chaired professorships, major teaching awards, graduate faculty appointments, national professional honors or awards. In the case of combined reviews, the Post-Tenure Review Committee may require supplementary documentation from the faculty member, which meets the criteria of C-1 below.

A timeline for conducting reviews in the College is provided in Appendix A.

If a faculty member is scheduled for PTR for a given year, but in the year just preceding his/her review they received a positive vote for promotion from the department faculty and his/her promotion was approved by the Board of Regents, his/her PTR will be rescheduled five years hence.

A successful application for graduate faculty appointment will not replace or suffice for a PTR. These are two separate reviews.

Each promotion/tenure unit shall develop the policy by which the Post-Tenure Review Committee shall be selected. Such procedures to establish the committee may include (but are not limited to) election, lottery, or a committee of the whole but cannot include appointment by the promotion/tenure unit head. The committee shall consist of a minimum of three tenured faculty members and may include faculty from other promotion/tenure units, contingent upon their willingness and availability to serve. The faculty member under review may formally object to the service of a faculty member in a review capacity. Up to five such objections will be honored if made to the promotion/tenure unit head unless guidelines established within the promotion/tenure unit provide for a greater number. Every effort will be made to keep these formal objections confidential and the formal objections will not be released by the University, except as required by law. However, the peer-review committee shall include at least one member from the individual’s home promotion/tenure unit.

The dean and associate dean have been removed from any list of faculty eligible to serve on PTR committees (decision made 8/4/97, reaffirmed 5/15/98). The reason for this action is that these administrators may be called on later to decide upon resources for a faculty member with an unsatisfactory PTR. Even though these administrators will not be serving on a PTR committee, they will still to undergo PTR.

Eligible committee members include all tenured faculty who hold the rank of Associate Professor or above in their department, or other unit(s) (as needed). The Department Head is not eligible to serve on a PTR committee for faculty in his/her department, but is eligible to serve on PTR committees in other departments.

The rank of those selected to be on a PTR committee is not related to the rank of the faculty member being reviewed. That is, for the review of anyone at the Professor or Associate Professor rank, the committee can be composed of Associate Professors or Professors.

Due to the nature of faculty members’ work over the past five years, it may be that those best able to review their work are from units other than the department. Faculty in this situation may request an expanded pool be created to include tenured faculty from one or more units. The request, which identifies the other unit(s), must be put in writing to the department head by Friday of the first full week of the Fall term.

For those faculty members who elect to use the expanded pool option for forming their PTR committee, only units on The University of Georgia (Athens campus) may be selected.

The maximum number of units to draw from outside one’s own department is four. Persons drawn from these units must be tenured faculty.

For faculty members who are assigned to some unit other than the one in which they hold tenure, they might wish to use the expanded pool option in creating their PTR committee (III-B.4). This will ensure that someone from their “home” unit is familiar with their current work assignments.

The pool of eligible faculty to form the PTR committee can be obtained in one of two ways:

  1. If the candidate does not submit a written request as specified in #2, the Department Head randomly selects ten names from the eligible faculty in the department. If there are too few eligible faculty from the departmental pool, the Department Head randomly selects the additional names needed from the eligible faculty. The list of ten names must include at least one name (two if there is a sufficient number of faculty) from the candidate’s department.

  2. If the candidate has submitted a written request for the pool of eligible faculty be expanded to include other unit(s), the Department Head randomly selects six names from the eligible faculty in the department. If there are too few eligible faculty from the departmental pool, the Department Head randomly selects the additional names needed from the eligible faculty in the School. Then the Department Head (in consultation with the Department/Unit Head of the other unit(s) identified in #2) randomly selects four names from the pool of eligible faculty from the other unit(s). The list of ten names must include at least one name (two if there is a sufficient number of faculty) from the candidate’s department.

The Department Head presents the list of ten names to the candidate being reviewed. Each faculty being reviewed is allowed a maximum of five objections from this list. At least one name from the candidate’s department must remain on the list (two if there is a sufficient number of faculty).

Faculty are ineligible to serve on a PTR Committee when a conflict of interest arises with the candidate being reviewed. The policy adopted in The University of Georgia Guidelines for Appointment, Promotion, and Tenure, Revised May 1995 (p. 3, paragraph 5) defines what constitutes a conflict of interest. A conflict of interest may exist for either the faculty member being reviewed or the faculty member selected to be on a PTR Committee. In either case, the conflict of interest must be identified in writing to the Department Head. If a conflict of interest arises with the candidate and any of the individuals on the list obtained from Step 4, the name(s) must be removed from the list and another name(s) randomly selected from the pool in Step 3a or 3b.

Three individuals are selected for the PTR Committee from the names remaining on the list (from Step 4) according to the following procedures: one name is randomly selected from the candidate’s department; if the candidate requested representation from one or more units outside the department, one name is randomly selected from the unit or set of units; the remaining name(s) is(are) randomly selected from among the names remaining on the list.

The Department Head obtains agreement from the selected faculty to serve on the PTR Committee. Before the review begins, the Department Head informs the candidate of the names of the faculty who are serving on the PTR Committee.

A faculty member may be randomly selected to serve on more than one PTR committee. In this case, it is up to the faculty member as to whether he/she is willing to serve on more than one PTR committee in any one year.

A faculty member does not select who is on his/her PTR committee, and alternatively, a faculty member cannot choose the PTR committee on which he/she will serve. This is to be a random process within the bounds described in the COE procedures document (IIIB).

If two or more faculty members are being reviewed from the same department, in the same year, they cannot serve on each other’s PTR committee.

Each PTR Committee can set its own operating schedule given the timeline for completion of the review (see Appendix). However, all PTR Committees must abide by the following rules: (a) each committee selects its own chair, (b) each committee votes by secret ballot, and (c) the chair of the committee drafts the report, which must include the results of the vote.

Once the PTR committee(s) is(are) formed in each department, the Faculty Administrator for Faculty Services is to be informed as to who is chairing each PTR committee for purposes of communication. This should be done as soon as the person is either elected or chosen by members of the PTR committee.

Review procedures shall include:

A review of qualitative and quantitative evidence of the faculty member’s performance over at least the previous five-year period. The evidence should include annual reviews by the promotion/tenure unit head, a current curriculum vitae, materials providing documentation of the faculty member’s accomplishments and contributions that the peer review committee or the faculty member judge to be relevant to the review. The faculty member should provide the Post-Tenure Review Committee with a concise summary of accomplishments and future plans not to exceed two pages in length.

The vita is to be inclusive and not confined to the last five years.

The candidate’s assigned departmental or College responsibilities (e.g. assigned time, budgeted time, or some other mechanism) are to be included in one of the required pieces of evidence described in III-C.1.

It is the responsibility of each faculty member up for PTR to compile the set of materials that is turned over to his/her PTR committee. The set of materials is to cover only the previous five year period (with the exception of the vita - see III-C.1a above). If a faculty member refuses to turn in materials, their refusal alone is a cause for a non-satisfactory review.

The department head is not to supply any information (professional or personal) to the PTR committee with the exception of providing an overview of the departmental expectations of the faculty member (see II-A.1) unless the faculty member fails to comply with III-C.1c above.

Merit salary ratings and annual salary increases are not a part of the data provided to the PTR committee.

For faculty who are serving in an administrative role (e.g., Dean, Associate Dean, and Department Head), the following materials (in addition to what is listed in III-C.1) should be included, but are not limited to:

  • Job description/assigned responsibilities
  • Annual written review by the administrator’s immediate supervisor (see Appendix B)

Discussion with the faculty member about his or her contributions to the profession, the promotion/tenure unit and the University, if either the Post-Tenure Review Committee or the faculty member so desire.

During the review, if a meeting is desired by either party, the request for the meeting must be in writing. A written summary of information obtained during the meeting is to be included as part of the PTR report.

Appropriate consideration of a faculty member’s contributions to interdisciplinary programs, governance, administration, and other programs outside the promotion/tenure unit.

The Post-Tenure Review Committee shall provide the faculty member with a concise, written summary of the review and a conclusion as to whether his/her performance is deemed satisfactory. The faculty member shall have the opportunity to prepare a written response to the summary. A copy of the summary and any written response to it shall be placed in the personnel file of the faculty member. If the faculty member’s performance is deemed not satisfactory, the Post-Tenure Review Committee shall provide a report identifying the areas of weakness and suggest actions that might strengthen the faculty member’s performance.

A satisfactory or unsatisfactory performance review will be determined by a majority vote of the PTR Committee. There can be no abstentions from voting.

A minority report may be incorporated into the PTR report by summarizing the rationale for the vote.

The promotion/tenure unit head shall also maintain in the faculty member’s personnel file all documents that played a substantive role in the review (other than documents such as publications that are readily available elsewhere), and a record of any action taken as a result of the review.

A faculty member may request a reconsideration of the post-tenure review recommendation of the Post-Tenure Review Committee by submitting a letter and additional documentation to the promotion/tenure unit head within fifteen days of receipt of the written review.

The request for reconsideration (letter and additional documentation) will be reviewed by the same PTR Committee who initially reviewed the candidate.

A reconsideration is for a situation where the PTR committee perhaps did not understand the evidence/material provided, or some new material/evidence has come in that will have a bearing on the decision.

A faculty member may appeal in writing a Post-Tenure Review Committee action or decision within fifteen days of the final action of the Post-Tenure Review Committee. The appeal will go to the Faculty Post-Tenure Review Appeals Committee. The Faculty Post-Tenure Review Appeals Committee would be a seven-member faculty committee elected by the University Council for two-year staggered terms. The Executive Committee of the University Council shall nominate faculty members at the rank of professor with tenure from within and outside the University Council as candidates for the election of the Faculty Post-Tenure Review Appeals Committee. No more than two members shall be from any one college. The committee shall elect its chair annually. The Faculty Records Office of the Office of the Vice President for Academic Affairs will provide staff assistance.

The role of the department head in the case of PTR reconsiderations/appeals will be similar to the role he/she currently plays in other reviews such as Graduate Faculty or Promotion/Tenure. The department head may or may not choose to join in and support the reconsideration/appeal.


Copies of the promotion/tenure unit’s post-tenure review policies and procedures shall be filed with the appropriate dean.

Promotion/tenure unit heads shall maintain a record of reviews completed, including the names of all reviewers.

At the end of each academic year, the appropriate dean shall receive a report from the promotion-tenure unit head, listing the names of faculty members reviewed during that academic year and summarizing the outcomes of those reviews.

Any exceptions to this review process must be approved by the Faculty Affairs Committee of the University Council.

The periodic review of each promotion/tenure unit shall include a review of the post-tenure process of the unit.

If a faculty member’s performance is deemed not satisfactory in the review, once all requests for reconsideration and appeals have been exhausted, the promotion-tenure unit head, the faculty member, and the chair of the Post-tenure Review Committee must establish a formal plan of faculty development. This plan must be approved by the Faculty Post-Tenure Review Committee.

The plan should: (a) define specific goals or outcomes to be achieved; (b) outline activities that will be undertaken to achieve the goals or outcomes; (c) set appropriate times within which the goals or outcomes should be accomplished; and (d) indicate appropriate criteria by which the faculty member will monitor progress. The promotion/tenure unit head will be responsible for forwarding the formal faculty development plan to the dean. The promotion/Tenure unit head, the dean, and the appropriate vice president are jointly responsible for arranging suitable resources for the development plan if required.

For faculty whose PTR decision is unsatisfactory, the question about resources to assist the faculty member will first be decided among the department head and dean before vice presidents are involved.

The promotion/tenure unit head will meet with each faculty member whose performance was deemed unsatisfactory at the time of the annual evaluation to review progress toward achieving the goals or outcomes of the development plan. A progress report, which will be included in the annual review, will be forwarded each year to the appropriate administration officer at least one level above the faculty member’s promotion/tenure unit.

It will be the responsibility of the promotion/tenure unit head and a peer review committee (selected as III B) to determine if, after three years, the faculty member, whose performance was deemed not satisfactory, has been successful in the completion of the faculty development plan. The promotion/tenure unit head will report that finding to the appropriate administrative officer at least one level above the faculty member’s promotion/tenure unit, who will proceed in accordance with University and Board of Regents’ policies.

The candidate being reviewed may add a response to the review. The review and response then comprise the progress report. The progress report is forwarded to the school director and the dean.


The promotion/tenure unit shall prepare a plan for scheduling reviews of tenured faculty. The five-year cycle of reviews should begin during the 1997-98 academic year.

The faculty within a department who have been tenured the longest will be the first to be reviewed. Starting with the first tenured, 20% of tenured faculty will be reviewed each year, starting in 1997-98.

A faculty member’s PTR clock starts the year he or she is tenured (See III-A 2 for exception).

Faculty to be reviewed for any given academic year must be notified by their department head in writing by the first Monday in May of the academic year preceding their PTR. The exception to this procedure is for the initial year 1997-98, due to the procedures not being finalized until May 21, 1997.

Each year as promotion and tenure decisions become official, the Faculty Administrator for Faculty Services is to notify each department head for purposes of updating the eligible pool of faculty to serve on PTR committees and for those faculty whose PTR cycle might be affected. Since final decisions are made in the Spring for the following Fall, this information will be provided to each department head by May each year.

The Faculty Administrator for Faculty Services will remind each department head annually (in May) who is scheduled for PTR in the following academic year. This is similar to the service provided by the Graduate School for those who are up for reappointment to the Graduate Faculty.

For those faculty members who are scheduled for PTR, but plan to retire in the next year, they must submit a formal letter indicating the planned date of retirement. The department head is to acknowledge this retirement notice in writing, and also inform the faculty member that if he/she does not retire as stated in their initial letter, he/she will undergo PTR the next year. This cycle will not be permitted to be repeated as a means to forestall PTR.

Care should be taken to evenly distribute the number of tenured faculty in the department to be reviewed each year.

For faculty who received an unsatisfactory review, their next five-year review cycle will begin upon satisfactory completion of the development plan, or no later than three years after the initial unsatisfactory review.

In all cases in which the unit head is the person being reviewed under this policy, an administrative officer one level above the unit head shall assume the unit head’s function in this review.

In the College of Education, the administrative officer one level above the Department Head is the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs.

The procedure for notifying and committee selection for the PTR of administrators (e.g., Department Heads, Associate Dean, and Dean) is described in Appendix C.

Revision of Procedures

The College of Education will review, and change when necessary, the procedures for implementing the University’s PTR policy.

During the first year of implementation, the Ad Hoc PTR Advisory Committee members will discuss with their faculty how well the procedures operated within their department. A meeting of the PTR Advisory Committee will be held during the Spring term of 1998 to discuss any needed changes to the procedures. If changes in the procedures are called for, the revised procedures will be presented to the College of Education Faculty Senate for discussion in the Senate and within each department. The approval of any revisions to the College of Education procedures for implementing the PTR policy will require a majority vote of the Faculty Senate.

After the first year of operation, the PTR Advisory Committee will be discharged and changes to the College of Education’s PTR procedures will be handle through the Faculty Senate.

Checklists based on the activities in the College’s PTR procedures are available from the Faculty Administrator for Faculty Services. Three checklists are available which list the activities of the department head, the faculty member being reviewed, and the PTR committee. Contact the Faculty Administrator for a copy.

Revised 10/17/03

End-of-Employment Documents

Download a Separation Notice and Instructions (PDF)

Download a Faculty and Staff Separation Checklist (PDF)

If you or your employee are transferring to another UGA department, use the transfer checklist (PDF).

Emeritus Status

UGA’s president may, at his or her discretion, confer the title of emeritus/a on any retired faculty member or administrative officer who, at the time of retirement, had 10 or more years of honorable and distinguished service to the University System.

Download the Emeritus Status Recommendation Form (PDF)