Tenured associate professors will have a third-year review in the third year following promotion and every three years thereafter until promotion to full professor. They will not be required to complete a third-year review in a year when they are seeking a promotion to full professor. Following promotion, full professors will have alternating third-year reviews and major sixth-year post-tenure reviews. The primary function of post-tenure review is to foster continued faculty professional growth. If a review is not successful, a development plan may be established.

Post-tenure reviews are required for all tenured faculty except those who hold full-time administrative appointments or who have had approve leaves without pay for reasons not related to their own research. Faculty on yearlong sabbatical may delay the post-tenure review until the following academic year; however, faculty on a one-or two-term sabbatical will undergo review in the scheduled year during a non-sabbatical term.

Criteria for post-tenure reviews, modified in light of any written agreement with the faculty member, are: 1) the quality of teaching, 2) the quality of research, creative and artistic achievement, and 3) the quality of service. Specific expectations and criteria for post-tenure review should be included in unit promotion and tenure policies.

Third-Year Post-Tenure Review

The primary purpose of the third-year post-tenure review is to provide an appraisal of the faculty member’s scholarship, teaching, and service during the review period. For associate professors, the third-year post-tenure review offers feedback on progress toward promotion to full professor. The third-year post-tenure review represents an important development opportunity for all tenured faculty members.  

Third-year post-tenure reviews will be conducted by the department or unit head with the faculty member. Review materials will typically consist of a curriculum vitae (CV), a brief personal statement accounting for anything not clear from their CV (or merely an annotated CV), materials for evaluation of teaching (when applicable), and a sabbatical report (if sabbatical occurred during the review period). The department head will then prepare a concise statement that includes an evaluation of whether the faculty member is meeting or not meeting expectations under their unit level policy. The department head will share the statement with the candidate, who will have 14 days to respond in writing. The dossier is then sent to the dean for review. The dossier is then sent to the Office of the Provost for review and approval by April 1, 2026. If in the process of preparing or approving the review, the department head or dean determine, or the Office of the Provost determines, that a development plan is necessary to meet expectations in a subsequent major review, the faculty member will be notified by the Office of the Provost by July 1, 2026. The department head and faculty member will develop the plan in consultation with the dean to be approved by the Office of the Provost. Development plans for AY24-25 reviews are due to the Office of the Provost by October 20, 2025.

Specific Guidelines Regarding Third-Year Post-Tenure Review

To initiate the third-year post-tenure review process, the unit head will contact the faculty member during the fall or early winter term of the third year and request the following:  

• A comprehensive, current curriculum vitae. An annotated CV can suffice (a separate statement is optional) – see the Office of the Provost’s Guides, Forms, and Templates for the Faculty Candidate Report form. 
• Sabbatical report, if applicable.  

The faculty member is responsible for preparing these documents and submitting them to the unit head by a mutually agreed-upon date.   

Additional Materials

The academic unit will add the following additional materials related to teaching quality into the dossier:   

• Peer Review of Teaching: At least one peer review of teaching, conducted during the review period. For more information, see the Materials for Evaluation of Teaching webpage.  
• Student Experiences of Teaching Report: This report includes a list of all courses taught during the review period. The report can be accessed by academic unit support staff through cognos.uoregon.edu.   
• Instructor Reflection Report(s) (optional):  The instructor reflection report can be accessed through cognos.uoregon.edu.

When the dossier is complete, the unit head will: 

• Review the dossier in conformity with unit policy and practice. In the case of associate professors, the report should specifically appraise the faculty member’s progress toward a successful review for promotion to full professor. 
• If a faculty member has undergone an earlier post-tenure review that resulted in the creation of a development plan, the faculty member’s progress in addressing concerns should be discussed.  

Sixth-Year Post-Tenure Review
Full Professors Only

To initiate the sixth-year post-tenure review process, the unit head will contact the faculty member during fall term of the sixth year and request the following (see the notification letter template on Guides, Forms and Templates):  

• Election of criteria: The criteria the bargaining unit faculty member chooses to be reviewed under, if there has been a change in criteria during the preceding six years. 
• CV: A comprehensive and current curriculum vitae that includes the faculty member’s current research, scholarly, and creative activities and accomplishments, including publications, appointments, presentations, and other activities. 
• Personal statement: A 3-6-page personal statement developed by the faculty member explaining how their provided material relates to the applicable unit-level criteria for post-tenure review. The personal statement should address the subjects of teaching; scholarship, research, and creative activity; and service contributions to the academic unit, center or institute, school or college, university, profession, and the community. The statement should also include discussion of contributions to institutional equity and inclusion, as appropriate. 
• Sabbatical report, if applicable. 

The faculty member is responsible for preparing these documents and submitting them to the unit head by a mutually agreed-upon date.  

Additional Materials

The academic unit will add the following additional materials related to teaching quality into the dossier:   

• Peer Review of Teaching: At least two peer reviews of teaching, conducted during the review period.   
• Student Experiences of Teaching Report: This report includes a list of all courses taught during the review period. The report can be accessed by academic unit managers through cognos.uoregon.edu.   
• Instructor Reflection Report(s) (optional): The instructor reflection report can be accessed through cognos.uoregon.edu.

When the dossier is complete, the unit head will: 

• Establish a committee of full professors and provide them with access to the documents and information. 
• Obtain a report and recommendation from the faculty committee assessing the faculty member’s performance. 
• Prepare their own written evaluation of the faculty member’s performance. 
• Provide the unit head’s report to the candidate and allow them 14 days to provide a written response, which shall be included in the dossier when it moves forward. (If a unit has or develops a policy or practice of providing the report of the faculty committee to the faculty member, the unit head shall do so.) 
• Submit the dossier to the dean.  

The dean will review the dossier and prepare a separate report and recommendation. The dean will share their report and recommendation with the candidate and allow them 14 days to provide a written response, which shall be included in the dossier when it moves forward. The dean will then submit the complete dossier to the Office of the Provost by June 1, 2026.  

Submitting the File

6PTR review dossiers are to be submitted to OtP using a VPAA-provided OneDrive “Request for Files” link, which will be sent to the personnel staff at the start of winter term. If you are unfamiliar with OneDrive or have questions about its use, please contact your IT staff. To upload the candidate’s file using the “Request for Files” link:   

1. Save completed review dossiers using the following naming convention: Candidate’s Last Name, First Name-School/College – Dossier type – Review type AYXX-XY. E.g. Doe, Jane – CAS History – 6PTR- AY26-27.
2. Select the “Request for Files” link from the VPAA email you were sent or “Request for Files” document you were provided. 
3. You can upload all candidate files for each major review in your school/college using the appropriate “Request for Files” links provided. 
   1. Microsoft Office “Request for Files” will notify the VPAA email account automatically when candidate files are dropped into the online repository. There is no need to email when you complete this process. 
   2. Candidates may add material to their files at any time up to the Provost’s decision.  Addenda must be signed and dated and will advance with the file but will not cause the file to be returned to a prior level of review.    

Revised dossiers may be submitted up until the file is reviewed by the Provost. To submit a revised dossier, email vpaa@uoregon.edu directly with the dossier linked or attached with the following information:

1. Candidate’s Last Name, First Name-School/College – Dossier type – Review type AYXX-XY- Revised + Date. E.g. Doe, Jane – CAS History – 6PTR - AY26-27 – Revised 4.1.2027.   
2. Provide details in the email about how this revised dossier differs from the original review dossier.  

Questions about the preparation of the review dossier can be sent to vpaa@uoregon.edu. The provost or designee will consider the cumulative evaluations received from the faculty committee (if applicable), the unit head, and the dean. In the case of full professors, if the provost or designee concludes that the faculty member’s performance meets expectations on all criteria, then the bargaining unit faculty member will receive a raise consistent with the guidelines included in the collective bargaining agreement (Article 26). If the provost or designee concludes that the faculty member’s performance is unsatisfactory, the dean and the unit head shall consult with the faculty member and recommend to the provost a development plan. The development plan should be implemented no later than the first term of the academic year following the review. The development plan’s goal is for the faculty member to meet expectations in all criteria by the next scheduled third-year post-tenure review.  

If a sixth-year post-tenure review results in the creation of a development plan, future post-tenure reviews for the faculty member must include consideration of the extent to which the terms of the development plan have been met. However, progress toward meeting the goals of such a development plan need not and should not be evaluated solely within the context of the post-tenure review process. Failure to make substantial progress toward meeting the goals of a development plan may be evidence of inadequate performance.  

All materials and reports associated with post-tenure reviews should be placed in the faculty member’s personnel file maintained at the unit level and also submitted to Human Resources for inclusion in the permanent personnel file.