Tips to Tenure

Panelists (l to r): Nicole Ruggiano, Eric Von Wettberg, and Daniel Bagner

This workshop was presented by the Faculty Mentor Program. One workshop was held, and four panelists presided with 28 faculty participating.

The panelists provided faculty with perspectives from a variety of viewpoints, including deans, chairs, senior faculty and recently tenured faculty. The presenters each gave advice on the tenure process, followed by an interactive question and answer format.

The panel included Anthony McGoron (CEC), Eric Bishop Von Wettberg (CASE), Nicole Ruggiano (RSCPHSW), and Daniel Bagner (CASE).

Overall, faculty found the Tips to Tenure workshop to be a "great workshop!" and "very informative." The panel was great with faculty coming from various fields and sharing targeted research expectations.

Moderator Anthony McGoron (cntr) and panelists give tips to tenure

Detailed Evaluation Results for Tips to Tenure Workshop

18 faculty (9 women, 8 men, 1 unknown) completed evaluations out of 28 total participants.

Questions & Responses

This Tips to Tenure session lived up to my expectations
N=18 Mean=4.17 SD=1.15 (strongly disagree)- 5 (strongly agree)

I gained clear and concrete guidelines for assistance with the Tenure process.
N=18 Mean=4.17 SD=1.04 (strongly disagree)- 5 (strongly agree)

I am glad I took the time to participate in the session.
N=18 Mean=4.28 SD=1.27 (strongly disagree)- 5 (strongly agree)

Questions & Answers:

Please give an example of at least one thing you learned from this workshop and will use in your Tenure process.

  • How to mentor students.
  • How to network in conferences for external review.
  • To think early on about external letters.
  • Using the electronic system when submitting tenure packet.
  • The importance of including letters from outside mentors.
  • How to form a unified research identity.
  • External review.
  • Valuable information regarding time, tenure, and promotion package and the template for C.V.
  • Specifics regarding the T & P process in terms of what and how to submit.
  • Organization of the T & P package & the option to include "friendly" letters.
  • Using innovative teaching techniques.

Is there anything that could have been improved about this session?

  • More information regarding 3rd year review.
  • More accurate process.
  • Perhaps the session could have had someone who just went through 3rd year review.
  • Could have provided examples of the 6th page (Research, Science, & Technology) component of packet.
  • Having concrete expectations from the different departments that are in attendance - maybe developing a binder or file that has information for new faculty.
  • Providing a template of an actual T & P packet would have been useful.
  • I was under the impression that this session would assist with promotion for instructors but it was focused on research. I left feeling unsure about how the process differs for non-tenured faculty.

General Comments about the session or overall workshop?

  • Very Good!
  • Great workshop!
  • Keep doing it!
  • Good format, nice discussion.