Expectations Regarding Tenure and Promotion
Expectations Regarding Tenure and Promotion
Department of Mathematics and Statistics
Faculty of Science and Engineering
(Approved by Departmental Council Nov. 28, 2006, and amended Apr. 24, 2007. Revised Sept. 21, 2008. Revised Nov. 14, 2008. Amended by Departmental Council Feb. 17, 2009 and May 22, 2012. Amended by Departmental Council by evote February 2016 and recorded in the minutes of May 24, 2016)
Contents
1. General Departmental expectations applying to all ranks and sections
Professional Contribution and Standing (Scholarship) Page 2
Teaching Page 3
Service Page 5
2. Expectations specific to the Section of Pure Mathematics
Research in Pure Mathematics Page 7
Minimum standards for promotion to Associate Professor Page 7
3. Expectations specific to the Section of Applied Mathematics
Research in Applied Mathematics Page 8
Minimum standards for promotion to Associate Professor Page 10
4. Expectations specific to the Section of Statistics
Research in Statistics Page 11
Minimum standards for promotion to Associate Professor Page 11
5. Minimum standards for promotion to Professor Page 12
Teaching / Service / Scholarship Page 13
6. Procedures
Tenure and Promotion Coordinator (T&P Coordinator) Page 14
File Preparation Committees (FPCs) Page 15
Adjudicating Committees (ACs) Page 15
7. Departmental expectations for candidates in the Alternate Stream
General expectations Page 15
Expectations for promotion to Associate Lecturer Page 16
Expectations for promotion to Senior Lecturer Page 16
Procedures Page 17
8. Advancement to Candidacy (Procedures) Page 18
1. General Departmental Expectations Applying to All Ranks and Sections
York University’s Tenure & Promotions policy states that:
An Associate Professor is a matured scholar whose achievements at York and/or elsewhere have earned his or her colleagues’ respect as an individual of superior qualities and achievements. A normal expectation of promotion to Associate Professor would be between three to six years of service in the rank of Assistant Professor.
1.1 Professional Contribution and Standing (Scholarship)
York University’s Tenure & Promotions policy describes scholarship in the following terms:
In most cases distinction within a profession arises from the communication of knowledge or skills through public service, scholarly publication, or the production of works of art. Although publication and performance are not in themselves a guarantee of excellence, one recognises that these kinds of professional activity are addressed to communities larger than York University and that, therefore, they must be judged in this larger professional context. In certain cases a distinguished public expression constitutes prima facie evidence that the quality of the work has been assessed and found to be of a high standard; in other cases it may be necessary to solicit assessments from specialists in the same field.
When the candidate has written or produced a work as part of a team or group in a research project, the nature of his or her contribution must be assessed.
Intellectual achievement may also be manifested by studies or activities that have been commissioned by governments or by private institutions. Contributions of this kind are significant, but they can be uneven and should always be evaluated by a recognised authority in the same field.
Generally, the quality of a candidate’s scholarship will be evaluated in the light of judgements by reputable scholars; in cases where there may be division within a discipline, the File Preparation Committee should describe the nature of the conflict among schools of thought and present the Adjudicating Committee with a wider range of professional opinion. Where the candidate is relatively junior, judgement should point not only to immediate achievement, but to the promise or lack of promise for further development.
The work performed by members of faculty for public and private institutions is indeed an integral part of the relationship between the University and the community. Communication with the general public in a variety of forms and media will be a continuing necessity for the modern university, and outstanding contributions of faculty in this area must be recognised. Service in an advisory capacity to various public agencies, presentation of lectures and talks to other than professional audiences, performances with radio and television networks — all such activity should be documented as evidence of any special capacity to enhance the intellectual relationship between the University and the community.
These activities must not be separated from the other criteria; they will be weighed in relation to the central core of responsibility which belongs to every member of faculty not only to transmit but to extend the boundaries of perception, understanding and knowledge.
The pattern of dissemination of research, as well as the milestones of scholarly achievement, are somewhat different in mathematics and statistics from those in many other disciplines. Monographs and published books are not as highly regarded as indicators of achievement as they are in the humanities and social sciences. Most mathematicians prefer to publish their research, as it is done, in articles in scholarly journals rather than to wait to publish a large body of work as a monograph. Even in the publication of articles, conventions in mathematics and statistics do not agree with those of other fields. Order of authorship, for example, is often alphabetical and may have no bearing on the relative contributions of each author, unlike the conventions that have evolved in many of the physical and biological sciences.
It is expected that candidates will carry out high quality research, will publish it in highly reputable, peer-reviewed journals, and will disseminate it further through presentations at internationally recognized conferences. Non-refereed conference proceedings are not given the same weight as refereed journal publication, while refereed conference proceedings lie somewhere in between. In evaluating published work, referees always ask if a submission is correct and well written. But the key question is always whether the work is interesting. What is valued is the introduction of new ideas ¾ ideas that change how we think about a subject or a class of mathematical objects, or which allow problems to be solved that were previously thought to be intractable.
Novelty that is merely formal or purely technical is not valued so highly. Rather it is criteria like originality, depth, and impact that are primary. This is hard to judge for people outside the specialized areas of investigation, so great weight is placed in the tenure and promotion process on the evaluations by external referees, who should be recognized experts in the field, and as far as possible, at arm’s length from the candidate.
Among the expectations of the department is that its members compete for external funding. One indication, though by no means perfect, of a mathematician’s or statistician’s professional standing has been provided by the size of their NSERC discovery grant. Since NSERC evaluation groups consists of experienced researchers from across the country, who rely on the opinions of selected referees as well as their own experience, their opinions have usually been considered reliable. A tenure and promotion file will normally compare the candidate’s grant with other grants from the same evaluation group. This is typically (but not always) Evaluation group 1508 – “Mathematics and Statistics”. Note that comparisons between different evaluation groups are inappropriate, because of differences in research costs between disciplines. NSERC’s adoption of formal rankings and bins open the door to making comparisons based on those factors rather than simply funding levels (which are more sensitive to budgetary fluctuations). It should be noted that, while NSERC funding is the norm in this department, other sources of research funding may be appropriate benchmarks in the cases of certain researchers. See also the paragraph on “supervision of graduate students” in Section 1.2.
1.2 Teaching
York University’s Tenure & Promotions policy describes teaching in the following terms:
Members of faculty perform many functions, but all are teachers. At the level of the university, teaching is itself an expression of scholarship. In an age of intense specialisation generating an information explosion, the scholar who can take information and synthesise it into coherent structures of knowledge is performing an essential and sophisticated task. To be able to create an intelligible and intelligent university course is a very significant accomplishment. The facile distinction between teachers and researchers comes from another era when a graduate education conferred upon the teacher a long-lasting competence in a single field. Today disciplines interpenetrate to such a degree that the researcher cannot rest tranquilly secure in his or her area of expertise, and the teacher cannot rest secure that a gentle summer’s preparation will be sufficient scholarship for a good introductory course.
To assess the quality of a candidate’s teaching, there are certain standards which can and should be applied within the University. The content of the teaching must be evaluated — whether it is conventional and routine, or whether scholarship is revealed through research, analysis, reflection, synthesis and the expression of original work. The effectiveness of communication must also be considered, since communication is the essence of good teaching. The performance of the candidate must be assessed in terms of specific situations — i.e., with undergraduate or with graduate students, in groups and tutorials, in the laboratory or in the field, in small or large lectures. A candidate may be more effective in one situation than in others. While no one situation should be given a premium value to the detriment of others, a candidate should be superior in at least one area of teaching.
The judgement of colleagues must be brought to bear on the assessment of teaching performance; reliance on mere hearsay should be avoided. The direct expression of students’ evaluation of teachers should be solicited. Without a concrete, highly specific and well-supported evaluation of a teacher’s performance, the Senate Review Committee will return a dossier with a request for more information.
Mathematics and Statistics courses are expected to have substantial academic content, striking a balance between challenging the students to excel and setting goals that are reasonable and appropriate for the level of the students in the course.
Most courses in the department are delivered in lecture format. In such courses it is particularly important that the presentation be clear and well organized, that concepts be well motivated, that examples be relevant to course material, that the instructor speak clearly, and use instructional aids such as the blackboard, transparencies, or presentation software effectively. The pace should be set so that students can reasonably absorb material in class. Material should be presented in a way that engages and stimulate the students.
Evaluation (e.g. tests, quizzes, assignments, projects) should be set at an appropriate level. Students should have sufficient evaluation to help them learn the material, and to allow them to fairly judge their progress in the course. Students should receive sufficient feedback about their work (e.g. through the availability of either graded assignments or solutions) to allow them to evaluate how well they are mastering the course material. Assignments and tests should be challenging. At the same time, most students should have a reasonable expectation of decent performance on tests, given sufficient preparation. Tests should be of a length that students are not under unreasonable time pressure. Test questions should have a range of difficulty, to allow all students to demonstrate their level of understanding.
Instructors should endeavour to create an atmosphere in the classroom that fosters learning. Active participation should be fostered, with students encouraged to raise issues of concern, and to both ask and respond to questions. Within reason, instructors must be accessible to student questions and inquiries, via questions in class, office hours and, if appropriate, by e-mail. Students should feel welcome to approach the instructor in these ways.
Instructors should be sensitive to the level and background of the students in a class. The approach appropriate for an advanced departmental honours class will differ from that appropriate for a large introductory service course, to students with modest mathematical training. Instructors should be sensitive to the diversity of students within the classroom, and to the differences in learning styles between students. Students should be treated in a professional, respectful, and nonintimidating manner.
Course directors must supervise course TAs to ensure that their work is both correct, and that they deal with students in a professional and helpful manner. The course infrastructure must be well organized, with adequate information available to students about the syllabus, references, and adequate notice of assignments and tests.
Supervision of graduate students is a valued part of a faculty member’s duties. A fresh PhD graduate could not reasonably be expected to be a principal thesis supervisor though, so it is recognized that supervisory duties would not necessarily figure into a candidate’s early activities at York. After a candidate has been at York for a number of years, they would be expected to demonstrate willingness and interest in supervising PhD students, and in being engaged in the activities of the graduate program.
Candidates should demonstrate willingness to participate in activities outside the classroom that support teaching. These may include, but are not limited to: supervision of graduate student seminars or projects, participation in comprehensive examinations or thesis examining committees, supervision of undergraduate research projects, offering reading courses as the need arises, mentoring and advising students, mentoring postdoctoral fellows and junior faculty in teaching activities, maintaining and improving the departmental curriculum, and engaging in pedagogical development or workshops.
Teaching will be evaluated by comparing a candidate’s teaching evaluation scores with departmental courses generally, and in courses similar to those taught by the candidate, when such comparative scores are available. If a teaching dossier is available, it will be assessed. Letters will be solicited from students commenting on teaching performance. Colleagues will attend selected lectures and will write letters commenting on teaching performance. These letters may also review/assess course webpages, outlines, assignments, and handouts, and may assess a teaching dossier, if the candidate provides one. Where the candidate is also teaching in another unit or faculty, comparisons will be drawn with the relevant means and practices of the other unit.
For tenure and promotion to associate professor: