Information on the School of Science's standards and processes for faculty promotions and tenure
This document contains information that is important for all MIT SoS faculty. It describes the processes that we use for faculty promotions and outlines the roles and responsibilities of the candidate and faculty members who are involved in the evaluation process. If you have questions that are not answered below, please talk to the department head.
Promotion Types
For faculty hired as Assistant Professors at MIT, there are three promotion steps. Each promotion is based on research/scholarship, teaching, mentorship, and service contributions, but differs somewhat in focus and goal:
Associate Professor without Tenure (AWOT) – the goal is to determine the progress that the candidate is making as an independent investigator and provide them with a summary of things they are doing well, areas that could benefit from improvement, and their prospects for promotion to tenure.
Associate Professor with Tenure (AWIT) – At MIT the standard for tenure is research accomplishments that establish them as a leader in the field, both nationally and internationally, along with excellence in teaching, mentorship, and service.
Full Professor (FP) considers research/scholarship, teaching, and mentorship, and emphasizes the candidate’s service contributions at MIT.
Each of these promotions is governed by MIT policies and procedures and you are encouraged to read the relevant section 3.
We have prepared this document to provide helpful information, but MIT Policies and Procedures provide the final, definitive policies and guidelines.
Back to top
Promotion Timing
The promotion schedule/tenure clock is tied to MIT’s academic calendar. The academic year starts July 1st. For a faculty member with an appointment start date in year X (anytime between January and December), their "tenure clock" normally starts July 1 of year X.
MIT policies and procedures include two key rules that govern the timing of promotion:
Section 3.1: Assistant and associate professors without tenure may be appointed for a term of not more than five years. They may receive a series of appointments, each of a definite term, that, when taken together, are no more than the eight years that normally constitute the pre-tenure period plus any tenure clock extensions. Tenure track faculty may be reappointed to a current rank or promoted to a higher rank. If neither of these actions occur, their Institute appointment terminates at the end of the current appointment.
The review of an assistant professor in connection with the expiration of the faculty member’s second appointment considers whether promotion to the rank of associate professor without tenure is merited. This review should occur when the department concludes that a significant basis for promotion exists, but not later than one year prior to the faculty member’s mandatory tenure date.
Section 3.2: "Assistant professors and non-tenured associate professors with a total of eight years of service and no tenure clock extensions must receive tenure in order to continue in a faculty position."
Normally AWOT and AWIT appointments in SoS, and MIT more broadly, occur on a regular schedule in which AWOT promotions are considered during academic year 5 (after someone has completed the 4th year of their MIT tenure clock) and AWIT cases in year 7 (after someone has completed 6 years). If a candidate is on this schedule and is not promoted to a tenured appointment, they will receive this news before the end of year 7 and be eligible for one additional year of employment as a faculty member at MIT (year 8), allowing time to plan a transition.
Special circumstances can lead to variations in the timing of promotions. Situations that can lead to extensions include childbearing/adoption and approved leaves of absence, as described in Policies and Procedures section 3.2.1, as well as institute-wide disruptions.
On occasion, promotion to AWOT and/or AWIT can occur ahead of the schedule indicated above. This decision is made on a case-by-case basis. An early promotion may be appropriate for faculty members who make unusually rapid progress in establishing their careers. An early AWOT promotion does not shorten the tenure clock; the candidate is still eligible for 8 years of service at MIT without a tenured appointment and may go up for their AWIT promotion at any time prior to that (or later if extensions are granted).
While there is no set deadline for the final promotion to FP, the School of Science normally initiates the FP promotion 4 years after promotion to AWIT.
Given the possibility of variations, faculty should discuss the timing of their promotions with the DH well ahead of the anticipated schedule.
For all AWOT, AWIT, and FP cases considered on the regular schedule, candidates will be informed before the start of the term in which they are being put forward for promotion, to allow time to prepare the necessary materials (as described below).
Back to top
Promotion Processes
The process for considering a promotion is very thorough; it goes through many stages as summarized below, and takes a full academic year to complete. Briefly, the process is initiated by the department, which puts together the promotion case. The case is then evaluated by the department and subsequently by the School of Science (SoS) and then Academic Council. For AWIT cases, additional approval is required from the Executive Committee of the MIT Corporation. At any of these stages, a decision can be made to not move a case ahead. If this happens, the candidate will be informed of the decision and the DH will meet with them to discuss possible next steps. If a case is progressing positively, there will be no official communication until after approval by Academic Council for AWOT and FP (typically around February), or by the Executive Committee of the MIT Corporation for AWIT (typically around May). A formal letter will follow a month or so after that, and the new rank will become official on July 1st.
The rest of this document provides information on the steps of the process that are undertaken by the department when developing and reviewing promotion cases. Most of the procedures are the same for all three promotions, which all require information about research/scholarship, teaching, mentorship, and service.
CANDIDATE MATERIALS
The candidate provides materials that summarize their contributions in research/scholarship, teaching, mentorship, and service. Most of these materials are prescribed by the SoS including:
An up-to-date CV in the MIT-required format. The CV should include standard education and training, honors and awards, a publication list, and a list of invited talks, as well as:
Teaching and educational achievements
Mentorship: Undergraduate and graduate students supervised and postdoctoral associates and fellows supervised with information about where these trainees are now employed.
When applicable: Research contracts and grants; patents; other published research outputs such as openly shared datasets, reusable code, etc.
Service, both internal and external
A 2-4 page statement of current and future research interests. The statement should be accessible to faculty peers in the department and discipline. It should communicate:
The broad problem domain and the importance of the area of research.
The candidate’s most important contributions and the impact and significance of these contributions.
A 1-2 page statement of teaching, mentoring, and service contributions. This should elaborate on material in the CV and describe practices, contributions, innovations, or accomplishments, highlighting things of which the candidate is particularly proud.
Up to five reprints or preprints.
A 1-page "Scientific American" style summary of research for a general, non-technical audience.
A list of potential letter writers (numbers for specific promotions described below) and any letter writers you request not be included.
To simplify preparation for promotion, candidates are recommended to maintain an up-to-date comprehensive CV in the MIT-required format starting from their first year on the faculty. The department will provide incoming assistant professors with a sample CV template. It is advisable to draft materials well before the deadline to allow for iterative review and revision.
REFERENCE LETTERS
Reference letters from senior scientists in the candidate’s research area are a critical part of the promotion case. Information about the reviewers, including a brief synopsis of their qualifications and expertise, is included in the case documents. The identity of the letter writers is not disclosed to the candidate.
External referees are important to the evaluation process; their letters are weighed heavily in the assessment of scholarship. The number of required outside letters varies, depending on the promotion, and is noted below. Letter writers must be tenured faculty members (or equivalent) and should be internationally recognized members of the candidate’s research field(s). Diversity is also important, with respect to the referees’ nationality, host institution, and gender. Former mentors (graduate and postdoctoral) are typically included. Collaborators and co-authors are appropriate referees. Scientists beyond the candidate’s immediate circle of mentors/collaborators must also be included in the final list of letter writers.
The candidate will be asked to suggest referees. In the final list, only a subset of the referees are candidate-selected; the case document will indicate whether each referee was suggested by the candidate and/or department. The department will approach some, but not necessarily all, of these people.
Candidates should propose up to 4-6 individuals who can write knowledgeably about their scientific contributions. Ideally, these will be people who have read and/or heard a presentation of the scholarship and had discussions with the candidate. Mentors can help candidates refine their referee list. We recommend that these conversations begin well in advance of the promotion process because mentors can help candidates strategize how to develop relationships that can lead to strong reference letters, e.g., by attending conferences, giving departmental seminars, or hosting speakers.
Candidates can also provide names of people who they believe would not provide a fair letter of evaluation, e.g., due to a conflict of interest or a personal disagreement. Outside of the promotion process, mentors or other colleagues may have good advice on how to handle potential conflicts, if candidates would like input on these issues.
Internal referees are tenured MIT faculty members who are knowledgeable about the research, teaching, and/or mentorship relevant to the candidate’s progress. If a candidate believes that an MIT tenured faculty member has a conflict of interest in their case, they should notify the DH.
EVALUATION OF MENTORSHIP
Evaluation of mentorship has always been part of the MIT promotion process. Starting in the 2023-2024 academic year, the School of Science rolled out new procedures for mentoring evaluations to provide more uniformity and substance including soliciting input from trainees.
Beginning Fall 2023: Assistant professors who have not yet been promoted will participate in this new process for AWOT, and subsequently for AWIT. Associate professors who were not subject to this process for AWOT will not participate for AWIT. Instead, we will follow the procedure used for their AWOT case, which involves the evaluation of mentorship by referees. Notably, all FP promotions will use the new mentorship evaluation process, regardless of whether it was used for the candidate’s AWIT case.
One to five designated senior faculty members in each department conduct a mentorship evaluation for all cases. The candidate will be informed that this review is taking place. The invited trainees will comprise all graduate students and postdocs who are currently in the lab or have left within the last 2 years. Others with first-hand knowledge of mentoring (e.g. techs, research scientists, or UROPs) can also be included, and may be necessary to achieve the 5 or more trainees required by the SoS. The trainees will receive an e-mail requesting their input on the candidate’s mentorship of research and career development. The trainees can provide input in writing or in person. The Mentorship Evaluation Committee member will write a letter that aggregates and anonymizes this information, focusing on general patterns and not on isolated incidents or opinions. Additional information about the candidate’s mentorship (such as awards they may have received and/or the achievements of their trainees) can also be included. This letter will be one of the internal letters in the promotion case.
PROMOTION COMMITTEE
Each case is overseen by a department promotion committee comprised of tenured faculty members, one of whom serves as the chair. The composition and selection of the committee varies by department. As noted above, candidates should alert the DH if they believe that any MIT faculty member has a conflict of interest such that they should not serve on the promotion committee.
STEPS IN PROMOTION EVALUATION
The committee’s role is advisory to the DH, and the DH makes a promotion recommendation to the dean. Typically, the steps taken by the promotion committee, department, DH, science council, and dean are as follows:
The committee reviews the promotion materials submitted by the candidate and develops a list of suggested reviewers, which includes at least some of the candidate’s suggestions.
The committee provides the suggested referee list to the DH, who is responsible for selecting the final list.
The DH writes to referees, providing the candidate’s materials and requesting a letter of evaluation. Some SoS departments include a list of peer comparisons in the external letter solicitations and some do not. See examples of requests sent to external and internal referees.
Once letters are received, the promotion committee reviews all of the materials. The committee chair writes a letter that summarizes the committee’s view of the case, including strengths and weaknesses and a recommendation of whether or not to promote.
The DH reviews the case prepared by the committee and decides whether or not to move it forward to department faculty review.
If the decision is not to advance the case at this stage, the DH informs the dean, who also reviews the case. The DH then meets with the candidate, explaining the rationale for the decision and providing information on the path forward.
The case is discussed by (some or all of the) tenured faculty members in the department, who have achieved the promotion level that the case pertains to, i.e. AWOT and AWIT cases are reviewed by tenured faculty, and FP cases are reviewed by FPs.
The committee chair presents the case to the faculty, highlighting the candidate’s contributions and summarizing strengths and weaknesses. This is followed by an open discussion and a vote.
The faculty vote is advisory to the DH, i.e., the decision about whether to move the case forward lies with the DH. The DH adds a letter to the case that provides an overview of the candidate and case, including a summary of the committee recommendation, faculty discussion and votes, and a justification of the decision to bring the case forward to SoS (or not). See a template Table of Contents of the materials included in a case.
If the case is not moving forward, after the faculty discussion, the dean reviews it and discusses it with the DH. The DH then informs the candidate, summarizes the findings, and provides information on the path forward.
For cases advanced to Science Council, the DH will prepare a presentation of the case to the dean and other SoS department heads. See the presentation template, as well as examples of content. We will ask the candidate to supply slides that can be used to present the core research achievements and future goals; the DH will discuss these with the candidate to help hone their presentation of the candidate’s research area and specific contributions.
Members of Science Council vote on each case and this is advisory to the dean. If the dean decides to take the case forward, (s)he, or an Associate Dean, will present the case to Academic Council.
Irrespective of the outcome, all candidates for AWOT will receive a letter, prepared by the DH and reviewed by the dean, that summarizes the rationale for the decision. Subject to the important confidentiality considerations described below, this will provide insight on strengths, areas for improvement, and the department and school council’s evaluation of a candidate’s prospects for promotion to tenure.
TIMELINES
AWOT and FULL cases typically have the same timeline. Candidates will not be informed of specific dates within these ranges.
Decision to seek promotion In the spring term
Candidate provides materials Late spring
Promotion committee suggests letter writers Early summer
Letters are sought from referees Over the summer
Promotion committee considers the full case Early fall
Department faculty meeting Mid fall
DH presents case to Science Council Late fall
Dean takes case to Academic Council January
MIT Corporation receives report of the promotion February
Promotion takes effect July 1
The timing for AWIT cases varies by department. Candidates are encouraged to inquire within their departments.:
Decision to seek promotion By the start of the fall term
Candidate provides materials varies by department
Promotion committee suggests letter writers varies by department
Letters are sought from referees varies by department
Promotion committee considers the full case varies by department
Department faculty meeting varies by department
DH presents case to Science Council Spring term
Dean takes case to Academic Council April
MIT Corporation votes on the promotion May
Promotion takes effect July 1
The above timelines are guidelines. Candidates will be informed if their case will proceed on a different timeline. Even with changes to this schedule, cases are always completed within a single academic year.
LETTER REQUIREMENTS
Each promotion case requires a different minimum number of letters:
AWOT: At least 8 external letters. At least 4 internal letters, including 2 research letters, a teaching letter, and a mentoring letter.
AWIT: At least 12 external letters. At least 5 internal letters, including 3 research letters, a teaching letter, and a mentoring letter.
FP: A total of 5 letters, which can be a combination of internal and external but must include a mentoring assessment letter.
Back to top
Confidentiality
Confidentiality is essential in MIT promotions. The highest level of discretion is required to enable full evaluation and open discussion. Candidates should never be informed of any details from their promotion procedure. This includes: the names of the referees, comments from letters that could identify the writer, comments made by MIT faculty members, the dates of various meetings, or the results of any votes. This is true whether or not the candidate is promoted. With the exception of MIT faculty members involved in the evaluation process, information about the case should not be discussed with other individuals within or outside of MIT (such as untenured MIT faculty, faculty in other departments, the candidate’s trainees or external referees). Once a case is finished, the case material is no longer available to the faculty, without explicit approval from the DH or as part of a subsequent case, per the details above.
The following statement from the dean is included in case materials, including the materials sent to external referees:
"An essential component of the evaluation process for promotion at MIT is the solicitation of written assessments from persons familiar with the individual’s character, research and teaching capabilities, and academic qualifications. In order to assure the most candid and useful evaluations, MIT has traditionally accorded such assessments the highest degree of confidentiality.
Legal developments indicate that persons being evaluated may, under a variety of circumstances, obtain access to such assessments of themselves and others. MIT intends to continue its long-standing policy of treating faculty evaluations with the highest degree of confidentiality. This policy includes taking the necessary legal actions, when appropriate, to resist attempts to breach the confidentiality of such records, and, if disclosure is required, to limit its scope as much as is feasible.
Note that MIT faculty who have a conflict of interest with the candidate will not have access to the case materials, including the letters of evaluation and the discussion of the case. Conflicts of interest include spouses, close family members, romantic relationships, as well as being the candidate’s primary advisor for their PhD or post-doctoral research.
If you have any questions or concerns regarding the Institute’s policy or the information that you have been asked to provide, please feel free to speak to or contact me."
Back to top