| Guidelines for the
solicitation of external letters |
Vice Provost for Academic Affairs
22 August 2005 |
|
|
|
|
|
To improve the quality of letters: |
| Letter writers should be solicited with a letter describing clearly
the action under consideration and specifying the types of information
sought. |
| Letters should be solicited from persons who are demonstrably in a
position to respond knowledgably to the specific evaluative task we put
before them. |
| Letters for tenured appointments and promotion to tenure should
request specifically that the letter writer provide cohort comparison. For now, it will be the responsibility of
department chairs and the deans of schools to identify appropriate cohorts
for the consideration of letter writers. In the course of 2005-06 the role of deans
in vetting the names identified by department chairs should be discussed. |
|
To insure the proper use of
external letters: |
| Deans and chairs should engage their colleagues in a dialogue to
increase awareness of the limited reliability of external letters. Outside
evaluators do not necessarily know enough to perform the tasks we desire, do
not necessarily know whom they are addressing, and do not necessarily have
our institutional interests at heart. In short, letter writers are not always
expert in the relevant field or disinterested in the outcome. In addition, even when they are
knowledgeable and objective, they face strong incentives to be less than
candid in their assessments. External
letters should be no more than a supplement to a department's
assessment of academic worth. |
|
To reduce the number of letters solicited: |
| In tenure reviews, the current guideline is to solicit 10-12 external
letter writers, no more than half of whom are proposed by the candidate. This
practice should be maintained. |
| For other reviews - appointment to tenured positions, promotion to
professor and advancement to above scale status - chairs should aim to
acquire a smaller number of letters /Tom scholars who are in a
position to understand Berkeley’s standards and who can comment directly
on the quality of the candidate's work and its influence. Six to eight
letters of high quality should suffice for appointment cases and promotions
to Professor. In the case of above scale advancement, four letters from
leading scholars themselves of "above-scale standing" should be
adequate. Quality is more important than quantity. |
| To reduce the number of academic personnel actions that
require letters: |
| In 2005-06 the Academic Senate
will be asked its opinion on a proposal to make optional the solicitation of
external letters for Step VI merit reviews. At present,
there appears to be nothing in the APM requiring external letters for Step VI
reviews. The proposal to make such
letters optional does not alter the standard for Step VI advancement. The proposed change will provide departments
and schools the option of omitting external letters when they believe a clear
and compelling case for this advancement can be made without external
letters. If campus-level review cannot
be completed without additional information, such letters may be requested. Departments and schools should continue to
solicit letters in cases where the evidence for "highly distinguished
scholarship" and "great distinction, recognized nationally or
internationally, in scholarship or creative achievement or in teaching"
is not sufficiently clear from sources available within the campus. This revision to current policy will be
introduced after senate review. |
| Sample solicitation letters: |
| Step VI |
| Prof. XXX is being considered for
advancement to Professor, Step VI in the University of California's salary
scale. Please note that Professor XXX
already holds the rank of Professor, having been promoted to this rank in
[year]. Steps VI and above (there are nine in all) on the University's salary
scale are reserved for faculty who have attained "great distinction,
recognized nationally or internationally, in scholarship or teaching." We hope you can provide us with a brief
evaluation of Professor XXX's achievements, especially on the quality of his
/her scholarship and its influence. A
comparison with other prominent scholars at his/her career stage would also
be helpful. |
| Above Scale |
| Professor XXX is being considered
for a special advancement, to a salary that exceeds the highest step of the
University of California's salary scale. Advancement to this "above-scale"
status is reserved for scholars and teachers of the highest distinction whose
work has been recognized and acclaimed internationally and whose teaching
performance is excellent. We hope you
can provide us with a brief evaluation of Professor XXX's achievements and
his/her scholarly influence. A
comparison with other senior scholars in his/her discipline would also be
helpful. |
Last Updated September 20, 2007