“It’s probably the most important personnel decision that the college makes. You’re making a lifetime commitment, so it’s going to affect students for a long time,” said Mark Davis, biology professor and chair of this year’s tenure review committee about the tenure process.

While files for tenure review are almost completed, pre-tenure review is in full swing. Part of the process is randomly solicited letters from students evaluating their up-for-tenure professors, which were sent to students last spring and this fall. While student opinions are also solicited for tenure cases, pre-tenure evaluations can have a more profound impact.

“The purpose of the pre-tenure review is to make sure that there are no surprises in the tenure process,” Davis said.

“What were trying to do with pre-tenure review is take the responses that students give us and try to give significant feedback to the faculty member as they’re looking towards their tenure review.” said Provost Dan Hornbach. “It’s meant to be a formative evaluation of the professor’s work.”

Davis also explained that many pre-tenure reviews have made professors question whether or not they really belonged at Macalester.

The pre-tenure process can be particularly important because it is an early step in shaping Macalester’s academic future; good pre-tenure evaluations usually lead to good tenure evaluations, which lead to permanent faculty fixtures at Macalester.

“Each [student evaluation] is read word for word, by all the members on the committee, by the provost and by the president,” Davis said. “[The evaluations] are scrutinized very carefully. If students are asked to write, then they should. It’s a very important part of the process.”

“They’re huge,” said Hornbach of the student evaluations. “The way that we evaluate teaching for both the pre-tenure and the tenure review, we rely on these randomly solicited letters.”

Given the importance of the student evaluations in the pre-tenure process, Davis is disappointed that, historically, less than one in three students solicited returns an evaluation.

“From a faculty member’s point of view, I’ve heard so many say, ‘Jeez, we write so many letters for students, it’s kind of annoying that they don’t take the time to write a letter when they are asked about the faculty,” Davis said. “There is a tendency for students to feel that teaching is not considered very highly and nothing could be further from the truth. Some also believe that input isn’t taken very seriously, and that just isn’t true.”

When reading student evaluations, the tenure review committee will look for general trends in opinions of professors.

“Everyone will have one person who’s had a bad experience, or has an axe to grind or something,” said Davis. “That’s not going to hurt someone. If there are a number of concerns raised by students and particularly when the same issue or issues keep coming up, then the committee looks to see if there is a problem there.”

Negative feedback is usually directed to the provost who gives both the students and the professor in question an opportunity to explain themselves.

“At the pre-tenure, there’s still time for faculty to make improvements,” Hornbach said.

Heather Lendway ’06, one of the many students solicited by the tenure review board for her opinion, has not considered how detailed she will make her evaluation. However, she said that she believes that her evaluation is particularly important.

Andy Dykema ’06 took part in a similar evaluation last year. “I took it very seriously,” he said. “I liked the professor and thought he/she was a valuable addition to the department. We’re the ones directly affected, so it’s important.”

Of course, student evaluations aren’t the only part of a pre-tenure review. “There’s some expectation that professors are doing some scholarship in their field and that it’s of a good quality,” said Davis. “If you’re doing really minimal work in your field, you probably won’t get tenured.”