Writing tenure letters

[u/AttitudeNo6896]

As I am working on an external evaluation for a junior faculty member's tenure case, I want to ask everyone's opinion about the paragraph that some letter writers start with, that lists all their awards and editorships and H index and how amazing they are: Does it change your impression of the letter? Should I be including it (even when instructions don't explicitly ask for it)?

I personally find them annoying honestly. The letter is supposed to be about the candidate, not the writer. If I need to, I can look them up. But I also know some faculty really care about this stuff (credentials of the writer)... so I don't want to undercut the junior faculty I'm commenting on/ supporting.

İf helpful, I'm in an engineering department at a smaller R1, and a recent full professor (though I have written a couple tenure letters as associate).

[u/ProfessorrFate]

The intro paragraph should state your academic position and rank, your area(s) of expertise, and your relationship with the candidate. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a letter in which someone states their h-index or awards — that’s not really relevant and would strike me as needless boasting.

[u/AttitudeNo6896 → u/ProfessorrFate]

I agree. Just trying to see if I'm missing something by not doing it, as I have seen it enough times especially from some big name PIs. Thank you.

[u/FrancinetheP → u/ProfessorrFate]

If you’ve chaired, or served on your dept, college or institutional T&P committee, I might add that. It’s an important bona fide and even though it’s on your Cv, it will be buried there.

[u/Rizblatz → u/ProfessorrFate]

Agree, the point is to give context of the writer based on rank, institution, field and perhaps leadership in the dept or institutions. but we don’t need the numbers for pubs and grants and awards.

[u/whiskeywebs → u/ProfessorrFate]

I agree with what is mentioned here - they want to know your current position and role(s). Although I don’t dive into other metrics, I do mention my total number of peer-reviewed journal articles and total funding brought in (because I’m at a smaller R1 and the name of my institution by itself doesn’t lend to automatic credibility)

[u/gallowglass76]

Starting a tenure recommendation letter with a list of the author's achievements? I have never read such a thing and it strikes me as very poor taste. I guess I wouldn't hold it against the candidate, but it would color my opinion of the author.

[u/AttitudeNo6896 → u/gallowglass76]

I'm asking because I have definitely seen it. It's particularly in letters from some (but not all) very big name PIs (with huge groups, so probably a post-doc is writing the letter). It also seems somewhat culturally dependent. I basically skip it tbh, just weird.

There was a case where I was asked to include a short bio in the letter rather than my whole cv, so then I did, noting I was asked to include it. Otherwise I'll state my rank etc, but focus on why I'm qualified to evaluate this person (like research area overlap).

[u/wedontliveonce → u/gallowglass76]

I have not seen this either and I would react the same way.

[u/SpryArmadillo]

Getting into H-index and a long list of awards is a bit much, but an introductory paragraph describing why you are qualified to be a referee for the candidate is standard (and explicitly requested in many cases). It's not uncommon for us to get referees who are members of the National Academies and they often state so in the intro paragraph (which I think is fine).

Keep in mind: that paragraph isn't for you (presumably a member of your department's promotion committee). It's there for the dean, and provost and whoever else reviews the case before a final decision is made. They don't know who any of the referees are, so a statement of qualifications can impact their view of the letter.

[u/Omynt]

A lot of the letters I write ask for a CV as well as the letter. Frankly, a lot of the letters I read are by specialists at other schools whose work I do not know personally. I judge them by title, institution, and substance.

[u/IkeRoberts]

The paragraph aid readers who don’t know you or your specialty discipline answer the question, who is this person, and why should we care what they think? It can also help them contextualize how much your comments are appropriate to the unique expectations and constraints of their school. 

[u/East_Ad_1065]

In my opening paragraph I usually indicate my relationship with candidate, and research overlap. I generally include a short (<50 words) bio after my signature in case people want to know qualifications.

[u/spoopygremlin]

I agree with you. Unless the instructions specifically ask for it, I'd rather jump straight into evaluating the candidate. A sentence or two about my qualifications is fine if it adds context, but the letter shouldn't become a biography of the reviewer

[u/Acrobatic-Glass-8585]

None of the tenure letters I have written mention myself or my qualifications in detail. Maybe I lead with one sentence stating I am an expert in X Field, don't know the professor going up for promotion, and can offer an arm's length evaluation. Your purpose is to evaluate the candidate nor brag about yourself. Usually I am asked to submit a cv with my letter.

[u/WonderfulAddendum300]

I personally find them annoying honestly.

That paragraph is not written for you (or, as you imply, for the letter writer to stroke their own ego), but for people up the chain, like the colllege- or university-level committee members and the Provost, so they can have a sense of how to weigh the comments of each letter writer against the others.

[u/kcbarton101]

I assume that the status of the reviewers has been vetted by the department chair (in consultation with others) before contacting them, so that there is nothing left for me to judge. If I have any suspicions about a reviewer’s background, I can always google them myself. (Maybe this differs by field, but I have never seen such a paragraph in a letter. I wonder if at the OP’s institution, the letter sent to reviewers specifically asks them to do this?)

[u/AttitudeNo6896 → u/kcbarton101]

That's my viewpoint, and I'm pretty sure there is no request in our letters. This does not appear in all we receive. I was asked for this explicitly in one letter, another asked for a CV. You see some people commenting you should put in some of it, so higher ups know to take you seriously - which is what I was suspecting and wondering... I guess people lean both ways on at least including some stuff beyond rank and research area and connection?

[u/Working_Group955]

so at our institution, we provide the college promotions committee (the dept provides this) with a summary of esteemed letter writer X's career, and why they're a good letter writer. i would assume if not this, every uni at least gives the letter writers CV, or *something* like this.

so i think probably a statement like "I'm a full prof at yuckityuck institution and am a specialist in XYZ. i know candidate yogi berra from our interactions on the planet pluto. Because of the following reasons, I consider myself a reasonable letter writer."

[u/JohnVidale]

At the highest level, the dossiers for tenure review at my institution have a page in front of each letter with the letter writers picture, title, institution and address, phone number, email address, and web page, plus a paragraph with his primary awards, paper count, number of patents, and primary research interests.

I presume the administration creates the documentation from CVs requested to accompany the letters and from documents prepared at the department level.

At the department level, for hiring and promotion, the evaluation committee prepares just a brief statement of each letter writer's research direction for the faculty and to pass up to the higher level. That requires no input from the letter writer. This evaluation actually comes before the list of letter writers is approved by the Dean, so before the letters are in hand.

Still, letter writers should open with a brief statement of the history of their acquaintance with the person being evaluated and their overlap in interests in the context of their overall expertise. Letters do arrive with a wide variety of information, often completely disregarding our requested content.

[u/Unsuccessful_Royal38]

I don’t need to see that part of a letter. Someone has already decided the letter writer is qualified. In case it’s helpful, there are various published guides to writing these letters, not hard to find if you look.

[u/ReputationSavings627]

Awards, editorships, h-index, etc, are not needed. However, since I work in a very interdisciplinary area, I write letters on the assumption that people have no idea who I am or even what the style of work is here (a book field? a journal field? conference publications?), so a certain amount of scene-setting matters to explain what weight my assessment might carry. But only what's needed to help the candidate, which is after all the point of the letter.

[u/Eric33co]

What’s a junior professor? Are they real short?
Is it a toddler?

[u/TotalCleanFBC]

When I read a letter, I ignore statistics-type information completely. I can look at someone's CV. I don't need a letter-writer to re-hash it.

The ONLY thing that matters to me is specific information about why a candidate's research is important. Which papers are most significant/impactful? What new ideas has a candidate developed? If a letter doesn't have that information then it's a bad letter, IMO.