Peter Holland, James B. Duke Professor of Psychology: Experimental and chair of the review committee, said in reviewing Duke's APT system and examining those of other peer institutions, the committee found that the basic process fits the university's needs. Duke's process is somewhat unusual in the weight it gives to the university-wide APT committee. At other peer institutions, Holland said, the more important decision is made at the school or other level, and the university APT committee, if there is one, is less important.

The report noted that 56 percent of faculty members who enter the tenure track as assistant professors are ultimately awarded tenure over the past nine years. However, 27 percent of the candidates left prior to a tenure decision; of the candidates who asked for tenure reviews, 76 percent were granted tenure.

But one growing issue for APT is how to assess interdisciplinary research. Some faculty members have complained that the university APT committee isn't broad enough to make an assessment, but Holland said his committee found that problems, when they existed, were more likely to occur at the level of the department's review of the candidate, which occurs prior to the APT committee review.

The committee's solution is for the deans to be more responsible for ensuring that interdisciplinary interests are addressed in the APT process. It recommended that deans be involved in determining the membership of department/school tenure review committees. In cases of concern, candidates should bring interdisciplinary concerns to the dean, including suggestions for faculty members outside of the department who could sit on the department tenure review committee. The dean then would be responsible for acting on these concerns.

This is a change, Holland said, because the last APT review suggested that deans be removed from the process. Since then, he said, most deans have been reluctant to be heavily involved.

"The dean should be involved," Holland said. "There are some things that are best done by the dean, and ensuring interdisciplinary concerns are addressed at the departmental level is one of them."

Other recommendations were intended to make the process more efficient. These include simplifying the text of letters used to solicit outside opinions on candidates, speeding the process on candidates who are obviously going to earn tenure and eliminating non-essential information from APT dossiers on candidates.

Other recommendations would revise the Faculty Handbook provisions. The two most significant revisions concern candidates who are up for early review and the procedure for promotion to full professor. Duke's practice has been that candidates go through official tenure review, meaning it reaches the university APT committee and the provost, only once. However, the handbook does not cite this "up or out" policy.

Likewise, Duke's standards for promotion to full professor, which sometimes reward excellence in university service or teaching, are somewhat different for earning tenure, which Holland noted was more weighed toward research. He recommends that the handbook be revised to reflect actual practice.

The Academic Council will vote on the recommendations at its April meeting.

The university APT process covers faculty members across the university, including most of the professional schools. The School of Law has its own APT process, but its candidates still must be approved by the provost. In the School of Medicine, faculty in the basic sciences go through the university APT system after being reviewed by the basic sciences APT committee; however in the clinical sciences, candidates are reviewed through their own internal procedure and candidates are approved by the chancellor for health affairs.