Policy for Appointment and Promotion of Non-tenure-line Faculty

July 1, 2025

The University has created the following categories for appointing and promoting non-tenure-line faculty members within all Colleges and Units. Three promotional ranks (steps) exist within each faculty category (Faculty with a Terminal Degree and Faculty without a Terminal Degree).

Faculty with a terminal degree (eg. Ph.D., D.V.M, ED. D.)

Faculty without a terminal degree (eg. M.S.)

Appointments to any rank will be made by the hiring department in accordance with definitions found in AC-21, with this guideline, and with departmental standards.

It is recognized that many non-tenure-line faculty in the College have duties and responsibilities across multiple areas/tracks and these do not necessarily reflect funding sources. Therefore, these descriptions are intended to serve only as general guidelines for determining the most appropriate track in which an individual should be placed. An individual's current job description and responsibilities within a given track should be clearly specified by the candidate and unit leader and are ultimately what the individual will be evaluated against for both annual reviews and promotions. It is strongly encouraged that the unit leader uses the annual evaluation meeting to make sure that the faculty member's work responsibilities are aligned with the expectations.

Because non-tenure-line faculty members usually have specific assignments, it is important that promotion decisions be based on the performance of each candidate relative to their duties and responsibilities. Duties and responsibilities are to be described in detail by the unit leader in the "position description" section. This description must clearly state the teaching, research, extension, and clinical scholarship responsibilities that are unique to each candidate. The description must guide evaluators to establish benchmarks against which each case is assessed. Since the non-tenure-line faculty population covers a very diverse group, given the variations of their original positions, funding circumstances, and units in which they are embedded, evaluators must recognize this variation as a contextual factor, utilizing the individual position descriptions, and make their promotion decisions accordingly.

The purpose of this section is to define the procedure for the review of recommendations for the promotion of non-tenure-line faculty members. Faculty members in all ranks are required to prepare an annual Faculty Activity Report, and unit leaders, in accordance with AC-40, "Evaluation of Faculty Performance," should ensure that all non-tenure-line faculty members receive an annual written performance evaluation. It is expected that faculty will use Activity Insight to list their accomplishments for the reviews. Promotion shall be based on recognized performance and achievement in one or several areas, as appropriate to the particular responsibilities assigned to the faculty member. Dossiers are to be generated in Activity Insight using the tenure track dossier forms. Peer evaluation of teaching, as appropriate, must be done according to the "College Guidelines for Peer Review of Teaching", which is part of our P&T document. The guidelines for the reviewing student feedback is listed in Appendix I.

Composition of the Non-tenure-line Faculty Promotion Committee (NTFPC)

A college-wide Non-Tenure Line Faculty Promotion Committee (NTFPC) shall be established, comprised of seven faculty members who have non-tenure-line appointments within the college. Five of these members shall be elected by their peers and serve three-year terms. Two members shall be appointed by the Dean, who will select appropriately ranked individuals to help ensure adequate representation of categories, units, and ranks on the NTFPC. These individuals will normally also serve three-year terms.

Rank I faculty cannot serve on the NTFPC. At least 5 of the members shall possess a terminal degree, and at least 5 of the members shall be at the Rank III level. Exceptions may be necessary until sufficient numbers of non-tenure-line faculty are in the Rank III level. The committee is charged by the Senior Associate Dean prior to the annual evaluation of promotion cases.

Appointment to a Rank

As part of the hiring/offer process, a decision shall be made as to which rank an individual shall be placed. Under normal circumstances, initial appointments in the College of Agricultural Sciences at The Pennsylvania State University shall be made in Rank I or Rank II. Only under exceptional circumstances, and with documented evidence, shall an individual be appointed directly into Rank III. In situations where there is a desire to appoint an individual at the Rank III level upon hiring, the NTFPC shall review the dossier of the individual. The NTFPC shall make a recommendation to the Dean as to the merits of the individual, and if, in the committee's opinion, the individual is meritorious of being appointed at the Rank III level.

Individuals may make a lateral move to the category requiring a terminal degree retaining the same rank if such degree is earned. Lateral moves of individuals at the rank I and rank II level are made following a petition by the unit leader, and approval by the Dean. Individuals who receive a lateral appointment as a result of obtaining a terminal degree will be eligible for a salary increase.

The following information is provided to serve as examples of the types of activities generally associated with each category and rank. An individual does not need to meet all listed responsibilities to earn appointment to a specific rank. This list is a guide for evaluating the diverse individual cases of non- tenure-line faculty in the College.

Rank I

Teaching

• Use instructional techniques and strategies that foster learning by students
• Construct fair instruments for evaluation of student learning and/or academic performance or accomplishments
• Contribute to the professional development and growth of students by formal advising
• Provide service to students related to high impact educational practices/experiential learning
• Demonstrate exceptional ability to help students and other audiences learn as evidenced through evaluations from students, peers, and clientele.
• Develop and assess extension and non-formal educational programs based on impact/research results
• Evaluate and analyze problems and program needs of clientele
• Conduct effective in-service training programs for county-based extension staff and other professionals related to their subject matter

Research

• Develop scientific hypotheses
• Properly design and conduct research in appropriate areas
• Interpret and/or publish research results
• Demonstrate understanding of the discipline(s) Clinical Service
• Provide diagnostic and interpretive services for clientele
• Respond promptly and professionally to clients
• Demonstrate understanding of relevant discipline(s)

Rank II (in addition to those in Rank I)

Teaching

• Coordinate teaching grants and logistics
• Coordinate college-level initiatives and programs
• Coordinate public relations/digital presence for students
• Lead programs related to teaching and advising
• Assess course/program content and make modifications as changing needs and/or priorities arise
• Exhibit originality and creative ability in designing high quality level extension and non-formal programs, materials, and products
• Serving on graduate supervisory or exam committees Research
• Conduct independent and collaborative research
• Apply for and obtain externally funded grants and contracts
• Independently publish research results
• Obtain reputation among peers in professional societies Clinical Service
• Publish diagnostic case reports
• Demonstrate growth in professional and technical competence
• Mentor undergraduate and/or graduate students

Rank III (in addition to those in Rank II)

Teaching

• Obtain a proven record of effectiveness in credit and/or not for credit education
• Develop instructional techniques, resources, and/or educational materials
• Publish in educational journals and/or present in professional meetings
• Receive professional and/or honorary awards for teaching/advising excellence
• Engage clientele/outside customers to align with industry needs and
• Establish outstanding recognition and reputation for an effective education program with documented impact

Research

• Documented evidence of contributions to, and excellence in research
• Sustained extramural funding
• Outstanding reputation within the discipline(s)
• Conduct and publish research independently (scholarship may also be evidenced by patents, innovations, and commercialization)
• Editorships, invited presentations, awards, honors
• Leadership in research centers Clinical Service
• Demonstrate evidence of contributions to, and excellence in diagnostics
• Document impact of clinical service on clientele/industry
• Outstanding reputation
• Editorships, invited presentations, awards, honors
• Manage service providing units

Ranks I, II, and III

Service

• Participation in departmental, College, or University committees
• Special academic and/or administrative service assignments
• Outreach service to the public
• Professional assistance and consultation to agricultural groups, public organizations, government, and private citizens
• Service on state, national, or international committees
• Participation and/or leadership in professional societies

Promotion from Rank I to Rank II

Individuals wishing to be promoted within rank I or from rank I to rank II should have at least 5 years at the rank I level. They shall prepare a dossier to reflect their accomplishments since their appointment. Per AC 21, candidates are permitted to submit their dossier in year 5. The process shall occur according to a timetable developed by the College each year, with promotions occurring on July 1. The dossier shall be prepared in consultation with the unit leader. The dossier is submitted along with the individual's job description/expectations and letters of support from the unit leader for consideration to the college's NTFPC.

The NTFPC members shall individually review each submission and evaluate the merits thereof. The whole committee shall then collectively review each dossier. The dossier, committee vote, along with the recommendation of the NTFPC and the letter of support from the unit leader, shall be forwarded to the Dean. The Dean shall then make the final determination as to whether or not the individual should be promoted. Faculty promoted from rank I to rank II will be eligible for an increase in salary.

Promotion from Rank II to Rank III

An individual wishing to be promoted from rank II to rank III shall prepare a dossier to reflect their accomplishments since the last promotion. There is no fixed time period for promotion to the third rank, however, typically it would take a minimum of 5 years to accumulate the record of scholarship required for promotion. For The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning and The Service and the Scholarship of Service to the University, Society and the Profession the dossier should only contain accomplishments since the last promotion. For The Scholarship of Research and Creative Accomplishments, the dossier should contain outputs for the candidate's entire career. However, the promotion review for all areas of scholarship will focus on accomplishments since the last promotion. Special emphasis must be placed on excellence in the candidate's specific area. This shall occur according to a timetable developed by the College each year, with promotions occurring on July 1. Candidates must be recommended by their unit leader in order to submit their dossier for promotion. The dossier shall be prepared in consultation with the unit leader. The dossier is submitted along with the individual's job description/expectations and letters of support from the unit leader for consideration to the college's NTFPC. The unit leader will also solicit letters of evaluation and recommendation from at least three individuals who can serve as ad hoc reviewers. The letters may be internal or external and shall also accompany the dossier. These ad hoc reviewers should be at a Level III rank and may not be current members of the college NTFPC. Ad hoc reviewers should not be close collaborators with the candidate. If external reviewers are utilized for this review, they have to be at reasonably comparable institutions and appropriate academic ranks. The material to be sent out to external reviewers should follow the same rules as those for tenure and promotion evaluations.

The Rank III members of the NTFPC shall then individually review each submission, the reviewers' letters, and evaluate the merits of the application. (That is, rank II level members of the committee will be recused from evaluating for promotion the dossiers of their rank peers.) The dossier, along with the vote and recommendation letter of the NTFPC shall be forwarded to the Dean.

The Dean shall then make the final determination as to whether or not the individual should be promoted to rank III. Faculty promoted from rank II to rank III will be eligible for an increase in salary.

Failure of Promotion

If an individual applies unsuccessfully for promotion, they shall remain at the rank at which they are currently. After a period of normally at least 2 years, the individual may elect to re-apply for promotion.

Revisions

2/27/2018: Removed B.S. as example rank in table on pg. 1. AC-21 requires an MS for faculty ranks; deleted example of lateral move upon obtaining a terminal degree for Rank III (only terminal degree holders are eligible to hold Rank III appointments, therefore, there is no possibility for a lateral move to a III upon obtaining a terminal degree); Under Promotion from Rank I to Rank II (pg. 5), revised wording to reflect inclusion of both Instructors and Assistant professors in rank I (promoted within rank I or from rank I to rank II should have at least 5 years).

5/10/2018: Revised process for obtaining ad hoc evaluations.

7/6/2018: Revised lateral move procedures upon earning of terminal degree.

9/17/2020: Revised Level III research scholarship to include patents, innovations, and entrepreneurship; revised section on promotion to Level III to indicate ad hoc reviewers should not be close collaborators with the candidate.

2/14/2022: Clarified what information should be included in dossier when seeking promotion from level II to level III.

8/1/2022: Revised Composition of the Non-tenure-line Faculty Promotion Committee (NTFPC) to indicate that Rank I faculty cannot serve on the NTFPC Committee and that request for exceptions should be submitted to the Senior Associate Dean. Revised the Composition of Departmental Non-tenure-line Faculty Promotion Committees (DNTFPC) to indicate that this committee should be composed of Level II and Level III NTT Faculty. Revised to include that the Scholarship of Administration should be outlined in the Narrative and in the Scholarship of Service section of the dossier. Recommendations for recording scholarship in Activity Insights. Revised the Criteria for Promotion to include responsibilities for instruction and or administrative assessment and removed the necessity for consulting with the academic unit committee to submit dossier for promotion. Revised that all recommendations of the NTFPC Committee for promotion, regardless of whether a majority is supportive, should be sent to the Dean indicating the Committee's vote. Revised Level II to III to indicate that it typically takes a minimum of 5 years to accumulate the record of scholarship required for promotion and that teaching, and service accomplishments should only be included since the last promotion and that although The Scholarship of Research and Creative Accomplishments should contain outputs for the candidate's entire career, the promotion review for all areas of scholarship will focus on accomplishments since the last promotion.

9/21/2022: Included types of activities associated with administrative service for each rank. Highlighted that NTT dossiers should be generated in Activity Insight using the tenure track dossier forms.

9/29/2023: Removed references to departmental committees. Clarified the importance of noting the uniqueness of NTT positions. Removed the restrictions on terms.

7/1/2025: Removed Scholarship of Administration. Resident Education and Extension categories were combined to reflect The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning dossier category in Activity Insight.

Appendix I.

Beginning July 1, 2025, the university established a new mechanism to review student feedback. This replaces the summary of quantitative and qualitative student feedback on teaching effectiveness in formal promotion and/or tenure review materials. See Changes to the Assessment of Teaching Effectiveness | Faculty Affairs for details.

Extension appointments do not have their separate evaluation protocols in university level systems and policies. Thus, for the purposes of promotion, the College of Agricultural Sciences recognizes extension effort as either teaching or research, based on the specific activity. Extension activities that are listed in the teaching section of the dossier are considered teaching for this review purpose. Since SRTE/SEEQ protocols do not apply when evaluating extension activities, faculty must provide appropriate evaluations for these so that the feedback could be summarized. The word "student" in this section refers to clients when it comes to activities in extension teaching scholarship.

For reviews starting AY 2025-26, departments identify two individuals to serve as student feedback reviewers, consistent with the following criteria. Non-tenure line faculty going up for promotion will provide the department head with a list of two or more Penn State faculty members to serve as a reviewer. The department head will select one of these individuals and the senior associate dean will select one member of the college non-tenure promotion committee to serve as student feedback reviewers.

Unit level staff will generate the raw SRTE/SEEQ reports to be used in this process. Reviewers will receive raw SRTE/SEEQ responses for courses taught during the review period and will conduct a review of student feedback considering quantitative and qualitative data. Only responses A1 through A4, from SEEQ evaluations, are to be provided and used in the analysis. All SRTE responses from the review period, both quantitative and qualitative, must be included as part of the review.

The review committee will develop a report of no more than 750 words (about one single-space page) evaluating the candidate's teaching effectiveness derived from the student feedback across the courses taught during the review period. All reviewers must sign the final report. This report will be sent to the unit leader and will be included in the dossier or promotion materials reviewed by the candidate. If a candidate perceives that the report inadequately represents teaching effectiveness based on student feedback, candidates may revise their narrative to address the perceived discrepancy.

SRTE/SEEQ quantitative scores will be included in an appendix to the dossier. The delivery mode of the course and the distribution, mode, and median for SRTE/SEEQ items will be provided for each course. All candidates have the option of including raw student data and feedback from SRTE/SEEQ reports in their supplemental material.