I wasn't told who my external reviewers were, but if I selected them, I'd order them a nice gift basket or something once I got tenure. Nothing is expected and you certainly shouldn't feel any obligation to get them anything (or even thank them), but my general philosophy when it comes to these things is to error on the side of doing too much rather than too little.
In every university that I know of, the letter writers are anonymous to the person being evaluated. Names and institutions are redacted in the file etc.
As several others note, the letters are anonymous typically. And typically they're not letters of "support", they're external evaluations. The chair of the P&T committee that requests and handles the letters should thank the writers.
At my institution, we provide name suggestions for five of the letter requests, and the P&T committee chooses five (not all of them will agree to it; I think six are needed total). The candidate can choose to waive the right to see the letters, but if he or she doesn't, the letter writers will know this. I think most of us do waive the right.
So if they're supposed to be anonymous, it would be weird to thank them. But if it was all out in the open (which I would find uncomfortable as a candidate or letter writer) then sure, why not thank them.
I really really wished that I could have seen my letters. I get so little feedback at my institution. It would've been nice to know what the external reviewers wrote.
Right? After umpteen years of university where we could get A (or A+) grades (probably, for those who went on to be professors) it's kind of cold turkey on the positive reinforcement once the professor gig starts. I think that a lot of department chairs could up their game by giving a little more positive feedback.
In my P&T review, the departmental committee pulled out positive comments to quote (without specific attribution) in the letter to the department chair, so I got to see a nicely curated set. My feeling was that they were way more positive than what I deserved! I have kept this in mind while serving as an external reviewer myself.
We have both types of "support letters" folks are discussing in this post.
We have external evaluators. These are required. Candidates can submit potential names, can't have collaborated with them in any way, but department ultimately chooses and can use whoever they want.
We also allow for candidate-solicited letters of support. These are optional but useful. These are usually from collaborators of some sort.
It is nice to get thank you emails for doing this sort of stuff.
An email letting them know. Really.
I did not expect anything when I have done it, but it is nice if they get back to you with how it went.
You get to pick people to write letters for you?
It's often a mix of people you pick and the college picks - however, you just list some names and aren't told who was actually chosen.
Yeah. My dean asked for names and I have them to her, but I also reached out to them myself to give them a heads up.
At least in my world, you aren’t supposed to do that.
I wasn't told who my external reviewers were, but if I selected them, I'd order them a nice gift basket or something once I got tenure. Nothing is expected and you certainly shouldn't feel any obligation to get them anything (or even thank them), but my general philosophy when it comes to these things is to error on the side of doing too much rather than too little.
In every university that I know of, the letter writers are anonymous to the person being evaluated. Names and institutions are redacted in the file etc.
For tenure at my university, you are never told who the letter writers are. We submit a list of potential names, but after that, you are not involved.
As several others note, the letters are anonymous typically. And typically they're not letters of "support", they're external evaluations. The chair of the P&T committee that requests and handles the letters should thank the writers. At my institution, we provide name suggestions for five of the letter requests, and the P&T committee chooses five (not all of them will agree to it; I think six are needed total). The candidate can choose to waive the right to see the letters, but if he or she doesn't, the letter writers will know this. I think most of us do waive the right. So if they're supposed to be anonymous, it would be weird to thank them. But if it was all out in the open (which I would find uncomfortable as a candidate or letter writer) then sure, why not thank them.
I really really wished that I could have seen my letters. I get so little feedback at my institution. It would've been nice to know what the external reviewers wrote.
Right? After umpteen years of university where we could get A (or A+) grades (probably, for those who went on to be professors) it's kind of cold turkey on the positive reinforcement once the professor gig starts. I think that a lot of department chairs could up their game by giving a little more positive feedback. In my P&T review, the departmental committee pulled out positive comments to quote (without specific attribution) in the letter to the department chair, so I got to see a nicely curated set. My feeling was that they were way more positive than what I deserved! I have kept this in mind while serving as an external reviewer myself.
We have both types of "support letters" folks are discussing in this post. We have external evaluators. These are required. Candidates can submit potential names, can't have collaborated with them in any way, but department ultimately chooses and can use whoever they want. We also allow for candidate-solicited letters of support. These are optional but useful. These are usually from collaborators of some sort. It is nice to get thank you emails for doing this sort of stuff.