Guidelines for Writing Colleague Letters
Tenured members of departments and programs play a critically important role in reviews: writing letters that speak to the candidate’s teaching, scholarship, and service.
This document is intended to supplement the Handbook’s procedures by providing guidance for letter-writing that will help tenured colleagues write informative letters that assist the members of the COR in arriving at their final recommendations.
For exact language from the handbook, see Section II.C.3.3.a.vi (Tenured Department Faculty Members).
Best Practices
First and foremost, evaluators must adhere to all applicable Handbook procedures. Faculty writing letters should review the criteria for evaluating teaching, scholarship, and service prior to writing a letter. The relevant Handbook sections include:
Faculty writing letters should review the standards for the particular review prior to writing a letter.
All letters and materials pertaining to a review should be kept confidential. Individual should avoid sharing their letters or individual recommendations with candidates under review.
Evaluators should review carefully all materials that the candidate makes available, and letters should clearly state the basis on which the writer is making their judgment (e.g., the specific materials that were considered, course visits that were undertaken).
- Anecdotal information (e.g., comments from students overheard in the hallway, portions of a class that were overheard from the letter writer’s office) should not be used as the basis for a review letter.
- In cases where a candidate has a choice in which materials to provide, evaluators should avoid making judgments about a candidate’s particular choices. For example, if a candidate chooses not to share course response forms with senior colleagues, it would be inappropriate for a letter writer to draw inferences about teaching based on the candidate’s decision not to share CRFs. Similarly, if a candidate chooses not to invite all tenured colleagues to visit a class, it would be in appropriate for an evaluator to draw inferences about the quality of teaching from the absence of an invitation to visit a class.
The standards for tenure or promotion are the same for all candidates, irrespective of whether they received extensions on their tenure clock (as is automatically the case for a parental leave, for example) or (as is the case sometimes when a person is hired with extensive teaching experience) are on an accelerated tenure clock.
Each evaluator should arrive at their own conclusion as to the individual’s candidacy. The department letter will reflect the collective sense of the department, but each tenured colleague’s letter should reflect their independent judgment. Letters should arrive at a clear recommendation about reappointment or promotion, and the contents of the letter should provide evidence/observations that support the recommendation provided.
Additional Information
Letters should speak only to aspects of the candidate’s work that are relevant to the review criteria.
- Personal issues such as family or health issues must not be considered or discussed when making recommendations about reappointment or promotion.
- Personal characteristics such as race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion, disability, or any other characteristic identified in Middlebury’s Nondiscrimination statement must not be considered or discussed when making recommendations about reappointment or promotion.