Guidelines for Preparing Review Materials


The guidelines that follow describe the items that should be included in the dossier. In addition to the guidelines presented here, candidates should also consult the handbook requirements for dossiers for each review.  Note that with the exceptions of items that are required by our handbook (indicated with an *), this listing is provided purely for informational purposes—an individual candidate might choose to submit materials not listed here, or not to submit some of the optional materials. We recommend that candidates under review consult with their more senior colleagues to get feedback on materials to include in the dossier

  1. *Curriculum vitae 
  2. *A self-evaluation (see guidelines below)
  3. *Copies of course syllabi (required for First, Tenure, and Promotion Reviews)
  4. Any additional materials that may be pertinent to interpretation of course response forms (e.g., copies of individual student comments received outside the CRFs).
  5. Pedagogical materials that may be useful in interpreting or understanding course syllabi
  6. *Scholarly publications, a dissertation, and/or appropriate evidence of scholarship or artistic activity (First Review), and achievement (Tenure Review, Review for Promotion to Professor).  Grant proposals/applications can be included as well, if those materials are important for identifying the pattern of scholarly activity.  Note that a dissertation should not normally be included in the dossier at the time of the tenure review.
  7. Materials for external referees (tenure review only)
    Please include at least three copies of any published books or monographs that should be sent to external reviewers. If you do not have additional copies, please let us know.

Curriculum Vitae

Each candidate must enter their teaching, scholarly accomplishments, and other relevant materials. Be sure to include information for the semesters included in the review. 

Other Notes:

1. Scholarship.  Categories of scholarship include:

     a. Peer-reviewed publications: Books, articles, artistic productions, and other scholarship that has been published, and was subject to peer review.

     b. Non-peer-reviewed publications: Other scholarship that has been published, but was not subject to peer review.

     c. Unpublished scholarship: Scholarship in this category should be clearly identified according to the following definitions (adapted from the American Historical Association);

          i. In press: all revisions and copy-editing are finished, and the manuscript is in the final stages of publication.

          ii. Forthcoming: the manuscript has been accepted by a journal or press, but has not yet entered the final stages of publication.  This would include, for example, manuscripts that have been accepted, but for which page proofs have not yet been issued or finalized.

          iii.  Under contract to: A contract has been signed, but the manuscript has not yet been submitted.

            iv. Submitted: A book/article has been submitted for consideration, but there is as yet no contract or agreement to publish.  This category would include manuscripts that have been revised and resubmitted.

     d. Concerts, performances, exhibitions, or other artistic achievements: include titles, dates, and locations of events/achievements

     e. Invited presentations: include date, title, location, and occasion.

     f. Other scholarly presentations: include date, title, location, occasion, and/or URL for digital scholarly presentations.

2. Miscellaneous. 


Handbook requirements for self-evaluations:

First Review: The Handbook description of the self-evaluation for the First Review can be found here. According to the Handbook, the self-evaluation for your first review should:

Tenure Review: The Handbook description of the self-evaluation for the Tenure Review can be found here. According to the Handbook, the self-evaluation for your tenure review should include all of the elements of the self-evaluation for your First Review, and should also include:

  • Discussion of your scholarly achievement,
  • Discussion of your service to the College community.

Review for Promotion to Professor: The Handbook description of the self-evaluation for the Review for Promotion to Professor can be found here. The self-evaluation for Promotion to Professor should include:

  • An updated CV,
  • Schedule of courses taught since the previous review,
  • Your assessment of your research, teaching, publications and/or artistic performances, and service,
  • A proposal for future professional development.
Guidelines for writing self-evaluations:

These guidelines are intended to be supplementary to the requirements identified in the Handbook.  They reflect the shared wisdom of several former members of the Reappointments and Promotions Committee.  They are intended only as guidelines, and should not be seen as prescriptive.

  • Self-evaluations should be relatively brief: 5-10 pages is a good target length. 
  • As you write your self-evaluation, keep in mind that the purpose of the self-evaluation is to tell the story that ties all of the other pieces of your dossier together.  Your self-evaluation is a piece of the entire dossier, and does not need to capture all of the details in the other pieces.  It should not repeat the information in those other pieces—it should not, for example, simply rehash the CV in narrative form--but rather should provide a perspective on your career that is not readily obtained elsewhere.
  • The self-evaluation should not be a moment-by-moment accounting of all of the details, but rather should provide a description of the birds-eye view of your career.  For example, when you talk about teaching, don’t feel that you must provide a course-by-course summary.  Instead, think about what you can say more generally about your teaching philosophy and pedagogical approaches.  When you discuss your scholarship, spend some time talking about how the different scholarly projects that you have undertaken fit together, or how your development as a scholar informs your teaching (and vice versa).
  • Your self-evaluation should address your strengths, but should also address problems or challenges that you have encountered.  What have been your success in your career at Middlebury? What lessons have you learned from failures in teaching or scholarship?
  • In addition to talking about the past, the self-evaluation should include components that are forward-looking—that describe your academic trajectory into the future.   What are the next steps in your research? What pedagogical challenges await?   The self-evaluation should describe your evolution as a teacher and a scholar- charting the course from your past scholarly activity to your future scholarly work, or from your past approaches to teaching to the challenges you anticipate taking on in the future.
  • Approach the explanation of your scholarly work with your audience in mind: a very interested, academic, but non-specialist audience.  To that end, consider having someone outside your department or field of expertise read a draft of your self-evaluation.
  • You can explain potential problems or difficulties pertinent to your review, but specific concerns about colleagues and circumstances are best left to your meeting with your liaison.
  • Don’t hesitate to communicate the excitement you feel for your work.  What excites you about your teaching or scholarly work? 
  • Finally, while you should feel free to ask to read the self-evaluations of your more senior colleagues and your peers, keep in mind that the self-evaluation should ultimately be the story of your career, and that there are a variety of ways to write an excellent self-evaluation.

Academic Administration
Old Chapel
Middlebury College
Middlebury, VT 05753