So I met with file advisor #2 and, putting my bruised ego aside, the result of this meeting was very insightful and productive. File advisor #2 was a great choice because of her intimate knowledge of the workings of the T & P committee (she chaired the committee not too long ago!). It is interesting that file advisor #2 picked up on things that file advisor #1 did not. File advisor #1 took a top down approach to the file. That is, looking at my my personal statement to guide the development of the file. On the other hand, file advisor #2 had a bottom up approach. She focused on looking at the individual documents and evidence to help form/shape my descriptions and statements (particularly my teaching statement). This is just an example as to why it is important to have different individuals consult your draft file.
I got some very valuable feedback from file advisor #2. Some include:
- CV: moving some things from my CV to the actual file (as evidence); be consistent with my tenses
- References: consider using a tenured librarian as a reference as opposed to another tenure-tracked librarian (I was a bit surprised by this as I didn’t see why it would make a difference, but I will incorporate this change, because file advisor #2 is very knowledgeable and I trust her candor)
- Information Literacy section: to include a separate page for each sample class I chose and in bullet form (to make it easier for the T& P evaluators) address the specific techniques or methods I used for that class
- for documents created with others or documents which are modified, I should include detail description of what I did
- for each section of the file, include the most recent examples first
The end looks like it is sight. I will be tackling all these issues and pray to complete the finalized draft of my file by the end of the week. I need a vacation!
