Skip to main content
Northwestern University

Promotion for Tenure-Line Faculty


The information here is for candidates and chairs.  

For more details see:

Tenure Review Workflow

Tenure-Line Promotion Review Workflow

The Grant of Tenure

Northwestern’s policy with regard to tenure seeks to foster a faculty of unqualified excellence. It calls for application of the highest standards with respect to professional achievement and promise in research and teaching. Weinberg College of Arts and Sciences aims for the superlative, and each case is evaluated on its own merits. When making a positive recommendation for tenure, a department must feel able to affirm that the candidate in question is as good a permanent appointment in their area as Northwestern is capable of making, now or in the foreseeable future, given both accomplishments to date and reasonable expectations as to future achievements. Tenure is not awarded for competent service, solid research, and adequate teaching.

In most cases, professional achievement takes the form of research activity that results in scholarly publications or creative works that are published or publicly displayed. Departments – and subsequently ad hoc committees and the Weinberg College Committee on Tenure, acting with the advice of external referees – evaluate the quantity, but above all, the quality, creativity, importance, and influence of such work. They look for evidence of superior achievement relative to peer scholars, recognition of that achievement by senior colleagues both within and beyond the campus, and the promise of a career trajectory that will continue to affect the direction of their field and/or discipline. A positive recommendation to confer tenure should offer strong evidence supporting claims about the high quality of a candidate’s work, the distinctiveness of their voice, and the degree of influence on the field. Candidates for tenure are expected to have established national and international reputations through their research, writing, and/or creative work. In all regards, the standard is a high level of excellence.

The quality of a candidate’s teaching and their potential as a teacher are major factors affecting the decision to grant tenure to a faculty member. Teaching is defined broadly; it means not simply the ability to lecture, but also the faculty member’s role vis-a-vis students in various contexts, from seminars or independent study to advising. Advising undergraduate students is a significant part of teaching since conveying to students what may be the best academic course for them to follow, given their interests and goals, is to help educate them. Mentoring of graduate students and postdoctoral fellows (if relevant) is a highly significant part of teaching, as it involves nothing less than the preparation of the next generation’s intellectual leaders, both within and beyond the academy. An institution devoted to instruction must weigh the quality of teaching in all decisions regarding its faculty. 

Assistant professors, like other members of the tenure-line faculty, are expected to share in the duties of faculty governance. During the probationary period, the candidate may concentrate their university service at the department level. Departments should take care not to place overly heavy administrative duties on untenured faculty; nevertheless, the expectation is that assistant professors will contribute to the smooth functioning of the department.

Positive reviews or assessments during the probationary period do not commit the University to a positive decision on tenure. En route assessments are based on progress to date and are not a premature evaluation of the case for tenure. Indefinite tenure may be granted only after thorough review of the candidate's dossier of materials, beginning with the crucial vote of the candidate’s department, which draws on external assessments and internal discussions. If the department recommends the grant of tenure, additional authorities in the candidate's field, the candidate's ad hoc committee, the Weinberg College Committee on Tenure, and the Dean will all have had the opportunity to evaluate the record of achievement and promise of continuing excellence.

Senior members of the department are typically available to offer guidance and advice about publication strategy, allotment of time, and other matters pertaining to the development of a scholarly career, the improvement of teaching, the tenure process, and other matters. Some departments assign “mentors,” and some take a more informal approach. For scholars with an interdisciplinary bent, senior colleagues in a Center or Program may be sources of guidance. The Associate Dean for Faculty is also available to discuss professional concerns. It is the responsibility of the candidate to seek out such advice when needed. 

Assistant professors should consult the document Guidelines for Candidates for Tenure and Promotion, which highlights policies, procedures, and standards relating to the grant of tenure in the College, along with an outline of the stages and timing of the process.

Decisions about tenure need not be taken until the final year of the individual’s probationary term. Departments and candidates alike should view it as normal that an individual takes the full number of years available to establish the influence of their scholarship, and the excellence of their teaching and service. There must be no presumption that an early recommendation for promotion is necessary to prove a candidate’s strength. Tenure-track faculty should not be pressured to rush to a review that may prove to be premature. It is useful for the department chair to discuss any “early” reviews with the Associate Dean for Faculty to understand concerns that often arise in such circumstances.

When a faculty member has been granted an extension of the probationary period of one or more years, it is vital that the department think in terms of the number of probationary years the person has served rather than the number of calendar years. Thus, when a colleague is in their fifth probationary year, the department should not expect that person to come forward for a tenure decision even if it is the sixth year of appointment. To encourage or pressure an assistant professor to be reviewed for tenure before the sixth probationary year would cancel the equalizing effect that the extension policy is intended to achieve. Equally important, candidates with a year’s extension are expected to have achieved the same productivity as any other faculty member in the sixth probationary year and not meet some more stringent standard. The ad hoc committees and Committee on Tenure are also instructed to consider what has been achieved during the probationary period and not in “X number of years” since hiring or since the Ph.D. (Chairperson’s Handbook, subsection IV.A.3. (p. 69) and “Guidelines for Candidates for Tenure and Promotion,” p. 2.)

Promotion to the Full Professorship

While candidates can and should seek out advice about when to present themselves for consideration for promotion to the rank of full professor, the decision to initiate this process rests with the candidate. However, candidates should bear in mind that promotion to the rank of professor is appropriate when the faculty member has achieved a high level of distinction, supported by clear evidence of deep and broad influence in the field and the prospect of continued excellence. Such distinction may be based in part on the work that earned tenure, but it must also be grounded in significant, well-known scholarship (or equivalent activity) accomplished since that time. The department, Committee on Promotion, Dean, and Provost look for a demonstration that the candidate has fulfilled the promise seen at the time of the tenure decision.  Likewise, it is expected that through steady development of talents, the candidate has attained a level of excellence in classroom teaching, advising of undergraduates, and mentoring of graduate students and postdoctoral fellows (if relevant). The candidate should also have built a record of active and productive service to Weinberg College and University. Such accomplishments – not time served or minimal satisfaction of some quantitative norm – are the measure of readiness for promotion to full professor.

The candidate’s major work completed since tenure is the heart of the review of research or other professional achievement. Faculty members best present themselves for promotion after that work is published, unless the results of the post-tenure work have been widely disseminated and well received before actual publication. The Committee on Promotion raises questions about candidates whose new work has not yet had time to enter into debates in the field. A candidate who submits an unpublished manuscript as the centerpiece of their promotion case should bear in mind that the top scholars in the field who read this draft version may not later read the final version. Therefore, one should think carefully about the timing of one’s candidacy for promotion if the major work is still in manuscript.

If a candidate’s research program depends on extramural funding, there must be clear evidence that the candidate has secured such funding or is doing everything possible to do so in order to sustain a strong research program. (Chairperson’s Handbook, subsection IV.B. (pp. 69-71) and “Guidelines for Candidates for Tenure and Promotion,” pp. 3-4.)

The Review Process: Stages and Timing 

In the year before the promotion review, the department chair and candidate should settle on a timetable for submitting the various materials in the dossier. It may be necessary to present some items in the spring preceding the departmental vote so that the chair may solicit letters from external authorities over the summer. If a candidate’s field expects a book for promotion, ideally it should be published prior to the start of the review. If it is not, the final form of the manuscript should be accepted for publication by the time of the department vote; that is to say, the manuscript should at least be “in press” and readers’ reports should be available. Late submission almost always leads reviewers and committee members to wonder about the candidate’s productivity and their ability to bring future projects to completion. Such concerns are acute if press readers’ reports are absent from the dossier that is sent to the review committees. Also, a last-minute publication surge – particularly by candidates for tenure – is often viewed with skepticism since this may create the impression that they needed the “fire” of an impending tenure decision to bring work to completion.

The department conducts the initial review of the candidate. It calls upon external authorities for evaluation of the candidate’s work and standing, sending them the CV and offering copies of publications. No more than half of such referees may be named by the candidate. The referees should not be former advisors, post-doctoral supervisors, close personal friends, or others having a relationship with the candidate that might reduce objectivity. Individual members of the department may also provide formal assessments to their voting colleagues. In the fall, the department discusses the promotion, votes, and forwards its recommendation to the Dean. When that recommendation is positive, the department must also submit a dossier of materials, some of which are supplied by the candidate. These materials are due in the Dean’s Office in October (cases for tenure) or November (cases for promotion to full professor). The dossier should be assembled with care.

When the department votes not to recommend a candidate for tenure in their final probationary year, the department must submit to the Dean a letter explaining the basis of that evaluation and the nature of the departmental review. This letter focuses on a full statement of the department’s discussion of the candidate’s record in research, teaching, and service along with an indication of the procedures followed in the departmental review, including an account of the department vote. Strengths and weaknesses are presented, and minority opinions are represented either in the text of the letter or in a minority report. The department’s letter is accompanied by the candidate’s vita, personal statement, and the external referees’ letters collected by the department. The candidate wishing to appeal a negative recommendation by their department should promptly address a letter to the Dean outlining the case for promotion and discussing the departmental action.

During the review beyond the level of the department, the candidate may communicate with the Dean’s Office through the department chair and/or a senior colleague whom the candidate names as their representative. Likewise, the Dean’s Office will be in touch with both the chair and the designated representative if questions or requests arise in the review process.

The Dean sets up an ad hoc committee for each tenure candidate who has been recommended positively (ad hoc committees in promotions to full professor were discontinued in 2010). Such committees typically have three members. Committee members always come from outside the candidate’s department. They normally work in related fields or have special knowledge of the candidate’s field. The identities of the members remain confidential and the committee operates through the agency of the Dean’s Office. The committee reviews material submitted by the department and seeks the advice of authorities in the field and former students of the candidate. The committee selects the referees and determines how the candidate’s field should be described to referees. The evaluations gathered from external authorities are fundamentally important in the College’s assessment of the quality and influence of a candidate’s work and of the strength of their scholarly reputation. The ad hoc committee generally delivers its report and recommendation to the Dean in February, the department is informed of the recommendation, and senior members may read an edited version of the report. (The department does not see the letters collected by the ad hoc committee.)  If appropriate, the department may submit a response. For a full description of the ad hoc committee process, refer to the document Ad Hoc Review: Guidelines and Procedures.

In March and April (usually), the College’s elected Committee on Tenure and Committee on Promotion meet to examine all Weinberg College cases for tenure and for promotion to full professor, respectively. The charge of each Committee is to monitor the quality of recommendations made by departments and ad hoc committees and to ensure that consistent standards are applied across the College. The twelve members of the Committee on Tenure and the six members of the Committee on Promotion serve in equal numbers from the three Divisions; they are elected for staggered three-year terms. A Committee member does not participate in the discussion of candidates from their own department and does not review those files. Like the ad hoc committees, the Committee on Tenure and the Committee on Promotion see the materials submitted by the department. Members also read letters from external referees and letters from students. The Committee on Tenure reads redacted versions of the ad hoc report. In a large number of cases, the Committee has questions which are not answered by the dossier, and it will invite a delegation from the department to meet with it. The candidate’s representative is one member of the delegation. At the end of the deliberations, the appropriate Committee votes on each case, such votes serving as advice to the Dean. A positive vote requires two-thirds of voters to favor promotion. These votes are not reported to departments.

The Dean receives recommendations from the department, the ad hoc committee (in tenure cases), the Committee on Tenure or the Committee on Promotion in the form of votes and, more importantly, written and oral comments. All three bodies are advisory to the Dean; none enjoys primacy by virtue of sequence in the process or number of voters. The Dean reviews each file and decides whether to recommend promotion. The Dean then submits the positive recommendations to the Provost for approval and reports the names of those candidates whom he has decided not to promote. The Provost and President will likely respond in late May or early June, at which point each candidate is notified of the decision. Promotions usually take effect the following September 1st after ratification by the Board of Trustees.

The process is long and thorough.  Candidates should not feel anxious because of its length; the several stages – not difficulties in any case – dictate the timetable.  (For more information, please consult the Chairperson’s Handbook, subsection IV.E. (p. 71) and “Guidelines for Candidates for Tenure and Promotion,” pp. 4-7.)


The dossier submitted to the Dean’s Office contains (in general terms):

For a complete list of materials to be provided in the dossier, see either the document Required Materials for Promotion with Tenure or the document Required Materials for Promotion to Full Professor.

The candidate prepares their documents and submits them to the department; the chair will advise regarding department-level timetables and numbers of copies. So that the department may seek external letters, it may be necessary for the candidate to turn in key publications and a copy of the vita in the spring before the year of review.  In this way, external authorities can be polled over the summer. The candidate may then submit updated copies of these materials in the fall before the department’s vote.

For the Dean’s level review, beginning in 2020-2021, the review materials (except published books) should be uploaded to the College’s dedicated tenure or promotion review site, Faculty Folio RPT (Review, Promotion, and Tenure). Candidates will be uploading their portion of the dossier materials directly to Faculty Folio RPT, and departments will be uploading the department’s documents into the department section (the department section will be inaccessible to candidates). Information about this review site will be provided to candidates and departments by the Dean’s Office at the appropriate time.

Department letter

The letter, prepared by the chair and signed by several other members of the department, provides an evaluation of the candidate’s teaching, research, service, and standing in the field.  It also suggests the names of potential external referees and student referees. (Chairperson’s Handbook, subsection IV.L. (pp. 77-78) and “Guidelines for Candidates for Tenure and Promotion,” pp. 8-9.)

External referees

The department letter should name at least eight external referees who have not already been contacted by the department and to whom the ad hoc committee (in tenure cases) and the Dean (in promotion cases) may turn for advice. Because Weinberg College aims to grant tenure to faculty members of the highest quality and who would qualify for appointment at any school in the country, departments should name referees from top departments and universities (an exception may be necessary in the case of a recognized authority in a more specialized field who happens to be located at a less prestigious school). In addition, departments should try to avoid naming external referees from the same department (an exception may be necessary when two exceptional authorities are in the same department. However, such exceptions should be justified in writing).

In assembling the list of referees, the department may consult with the candidate, but the department is instructed that no more than half of the list be composed of authorities named by the candidate. The submitted list should include an indication of which, if any, names were provided by the candidate. Proposed referees must be known to have tenure or the equivalent status if they have appointments in countries without the tenure system; for a promotion to the rank of professor, the referees should be full professors. Care should be taken that their research interests are reasonably close to the candidate’s, although they should not all be in the same narrowly-defined subfield. External evaluators must be able to provide an objective evaluation of the work. They should not be former advisors, collaborators, post-doctoral supervisors, close personal friends, or others having a relationship with the candidate that might reduce objectivity. It is essential that those generating the list of prospective external referees ascertain the relationship of those individuals with the candidate so that letters will not be sought from persons who cannot provide an arm’s-length evaluation. The department must indicate why each person named is an appropriate referee and must note any special distinction of the individual or special relationship between the candidate and a suggested referee (a former colleague, dissertation adviser, etc.). On its list, the department should star those referees whom it regards as the most essential. In tenure cases, the ad hoc committee will be asked to take into account the department’s request but will make the final determination of which external referees are invited to write. In promotion cases, the Dean will ensure that the scholars starred by the department are solicited for an evaluation. Additionally, the department may flag those referees (up to 3-4) who should not be contacted. The Dean will ensure that these scholars are not solicited for an evaluation. The ad hoc committee (in tenure cases) and the Dean (in promotion cases) otherwise chooses to write to some or all of the suggested referees.  The ad hoc committee (in tenure cases) also consults qualified individuals who are not on the list. The identities of all external referees remain confidential, and no one in the department sees the letters collected by the ad hoc committee. (Chairperson’s Handbook, subsection IV.L.9. (pp. 81-82) and “Guidelines for Candidates for Tenure and Promotion,” pp. 8-9.)

Student referees

With the advice of the candidate, the department should provide the names and current email addresses (and, if known, the course number and title and the term in which the student was enrolled) of at least five former undergraduate or graduate students (the distribution to be determined by the academic focus of the department and candidate). If the department wishes to solicit letters from students before making its recommendation, those letters should be attached to the department letter, and other students named for the Dean’s Office list. The Dean usually writes to a randomly selected set of approximately twenty-five former students and advisees in addition to five to seven of those proposed by the department. (Chairperson’s Handbook, subsection IV.L.10. (pp. 82-83) and “Guidelines for Candidates for Tenure and Promotion,” p. 9.)


Following changes in the Provost’s policies, beginning in 2021-2022, the College no longer requires the identification of benchmarks. Instead, external evaluators may be asked to compare the candidate’s scholarly achievements with those of other scholars of similar rank whom they deem to be top scholars in the field. Normally, these comparisons should be made to scholars appointed in programs considered to be among the very best nationally in the discipline. (Chairperson’s Handbook, subsection IV.L.8. (p. 81) and “Guidelines for Candidates for Tenure and Promotion,” p 9.)

External letters collected by the department

The department forwards to the Dean’s Office copies of all external evaluations it has received. (Chairperson’s Handbook, subsection IV.G. (pp. 72-73) and IV.L.5. (p. 80) and “Guidelines for Candidates for Tenure and Promotion,” p 9.)

Curriculum vitae

The candidate should follow College guidelines for preparing the CV and submits an electronic version. (For the department-level review, some departments may require a paper version.) Our format calls for information about teaching and service which is not ordinarily included in a professional CV. The vita is sent to all external referees. For that reason, it should be prepared with care and checked for accuracy. Unrealistic publication dates for forthcoming work decrease the credibility of the candidate. The candidate should also be scrupulous in indicating which unpublished papers are “in preparation,” “submitted,” “under revision” and “accepted/forthcoming/in press.” Updates may be submitted during the course of the review for the use of the various committees and Dean. We do not send updated CVs to external referees. 

It is to the candidate’s advantage to include in the vita a short technical narrative describing current or forthcoming research plans as part of the vita. Many referees ask for information about the direction of the candidate’s work. It is also helpful to reviewers if the candidate identifies their dissertation mentor, postdoctoral adviser(s), and collaborators who are their students. (Chairperson’s Handbook, subsection IV.K.1. (p. 76) and “Guidelines for Candidates for Tenure and Promotion,” pp. 9-10 and pp. 13-15.)

Statement by the candidate

Whereas any narrative in the vita should be written for experts, a separate non-technical statement of self-assessment (approximately 5-10 pages, double-spaced) is needed for the faculty review committees within Weinberg College. This document gives the candidate an opportunity to make a case for their accomplishments in teaching, research, and service. Plans for the future should be discussed as well as past and present work. The statement should be addressed to a non-specialist audience: the ad hoc committee, the appropriate promotion committee, the Dean, and the Provost. Members of the various committees find clear, concise statements to be extraordinarily helpful in evaluating a case for promotion. Please see below for more information on the research, teaching, and service components of the candidate’s statement. (Chairperson’s Handbook, subsection IV.K.2. (p. 76) and “Guidelines for Candidates for Tenure and Promotion,” p. 10.)

Statement by the candidate - Research

Unlike a technical research description, the statement requires that the candidate lay out the content, originality, and significance of their work in terms accessible to an educated lay reader. Necessary technical descriptions should follow from this more general account. Included should be a definition of the candidate’s field and the candidate’s place in it. The candidate may want to discuss several of their most important publications or experiments, describing how this work has influenced the direction of the field. Current and planned research should be described in relation to what has already been accomplished. The focus of the review will be the work done since appointment to a faculty position or since the last promotion.

Please note that the letter to external referees asks about the candidates’ “contributions to [specified] field.” The ad hoc committee will specify the final wording of this sentence, and the candidate’s statement is helpful in guiding them. (“Guidelines for Candidates for Tenure and Promotion,” p. 10.)

Statement by the candidate - Teaching

The committees and Dean would particularly like to know about the candidate’s approach to education and goals in teaching. There is no simple formula for good teaching, but effective instructors are often described in terms of imagination, high standards, conscientiousness, clarity, a feel for what is important and original, and respect for students. The candidate may discuss in which ways their teaching has been most successful and, particularly in tenure cases, how that teaching may have improved over the previous four or five years. Curricular innovations should be discussed as well as diverse contributions to instruction (e.g. training of teaching assistants, advising). (“Guidelines for Candidates for Tenure and Promotion,” p. 10.)

Statement by the candidate - Service

The candidate should discuss significant service to the University or profession. (“Guidelines for Candidates for Tenure and Promotion,” p. 10.)

Special Issues

The faculty committees often ask about the candidate’s role in collaborations, the reason for continued collaborative work with graduate school or postdoctoral mentors, the difference between the dissertation and the book, low rates of publication in refereed journals, and the specific contingencies from a press if a manuscript is “under contract.” In the sciences and those social science fields where external support is needed for research, committees ask how candidates without such funding will be able to conduct research. Candidates may wish to address any such issues in the statement. (“Guidelines for Candidates for Tenure and Promotion,” p. 10.)

Supporting materials: publications or equivalent materials

Articles and books that have been completed – and have appeared in print, are in press, or have been submitted for publication – are preferred.  All publications should be included, not just those completed since the last promotion or review, and they should be numbered as on the vita. Work-in-progress should be included when it has reached a sufficient state of readiness to make evident its likely final form and importance to the candidate’s advancing research program. Please do not submit copies of papers that are not yet ready to be seen by outside readers.

Book reviews written by the candidate need generally not be supplied unless they are broad review articles. If the candidate has received patents for their work, information about those should be included with publications. (“Guidelines for Candidates for Tenure and Promotion,” pp. 10-11.)

Key publications: In both tenure and promotion cases, a candidate will select key publications for the Dean’s Office to send to external referees as part of the review packet. Candidates should take care in selecting these key publications: articles published in peer-reviewed journals are helpful, although it’s generally not useful to send an article that roughly duplicates the material in a major book project that is also included in the key publications. Published work that is part of a candidate’s next major project would be important to include since it points to how a candidate’s research program is advancing. (Please note that we recommend inclusion among the key publications sent to external reviewers no more than one unpublished shorter work, such as an article or book chapter that has been accepted for publication but has not yet appeared.) The suggested number of key publications, including books, is five or six. Candidates might consider consulting with a senior colleague or two about the selection of key publications. Referees will be sent other publications if they so request.

Candidates should check over their manuscripts carefully to make sure that all the pages are present and that the copies are legible. The Dean’s Office does not have time to check each candidate’s publications for errors before sending materials to referees. The version submitted to the Dean’s Office in October (for tenure cases) and in November (for promotion cases) is the version that will go out to referees. Revisions to a manuscript beyond this point cannot be considered in the review. Specific due dates may be found in Deadlines and Documents. (Chairperson’s Handbook, subsection IV.K.3. (pp. 76-77) and IV.M. (p. 83) and “Guidelines for Candidates for Tenure and Promotion,” p. 11.)

Supporting materials about teaching

Copies of CTEC course evaluations are required and will be submitted by the department. Course syllabi are provided by the candidate. (The recommended CTEC Instructor Reports are the administrator’s version with student comments pulled from CAESAR/Blue.) Evidence of awards; information about course development; course examinations; reports of classroom visits by senior faculty; letters from students to the instructor; descriptions of the role the candidate played in advising students; post-Northwestern affiliations of former advisees, etc., are also submitted as appropriate. (“Guidelines for Candidates for Tenure and Promotion,” p. 11.)

Materials about relative standing in the field and current research

Ad hoc committees and the Committee on Promotion and the Committee on Tenure interest themselves in all evaluative materials and in materials relating to the candidate’s current research. The bulleted items below are examples of such materials.

(“Guidelines for Candidates for Tenure and Promotion,” pp. 11-12.)

Additional materials; appropriate procedure

The candidate may supply materials not listed above but which bear on the evaluation of their work. Materials that become available during the review year (for example, vita updates, new publications, a reader’s report from a press) can be added to a dossier at any time. All such should be routed to the Dean’s Office through chairs and/or faculty representatives so that the department is also informed of changes in the dossier. Any inquiries about the process from candidates should similarly be routed through the department. (“Guidelines for Candidates for Tenure and Promotion,” p. 12.)

Budgetary Joint Appointments

A special protocol applies to the departmental review of a candidate with a budgetary joint appointment between two departments, two schools, or a department and a program.  A copy is available from the Dean’s Office. (Chairperson’s Handbook, subsection IV.D. (p. 71))


Promotion reviews are considered confidential. Departments are asked not to discuss the departmental deliberations beyond the pool of eligible voters. Departments and the Dean’s Office strive to maintain the confidentiality of referee letters to the extent legally possible. Candidates are likewise asked to observe the need for confidentiality and not, for example, attempt to contact referees to see if they have submitted letters, have been asked to submit letters, or to discuss any aspect of the department deliberations. If a candidate wishes to discuss matters related to the promotion with a colleague outside the department – for example a former adviser – the candidate should inform the department chair so that such a conversation does not interfere with the conduct of a full and confidential review beyond the department. Faculty members involved in the process who breach confidentiality may be subject to disciplinary action. (Chairperson’s Handbook, subsection IV.I. (pp. 74-75)

Back to top