ABSTRACT
The substance of tenure review and its process are complex and difficult enough. Forgetting to mention in personnel reports the circulation and acceptance rates of journals, the very competitive and blind-refereed nature of the annual CCCC program, or that certain conference proceedings are refereed and selective. The past few pages have emphasized broad tenure criteria and more specific department expectations because these will form the basis of tenure review, as well as various important pretenure evaluations. It is easy to think of tenure review and various pretenure evaluations as one-way transactions in which personnel committees, faculty members, chairs, and deans judge the work the people describe and document in various required reports. Submitting timely, well-written reports to the personnel committee may help the case for tenure, if they include worthy accomplishments in teaching, research and service.
