As part of our regular “We Are!” feature, we recognize 18 Penn Staters who have gone above and beyond what’s asked of them in their work at the University.
Read the Full News Story
Administrator
The College of Earth and Mineral Sciences is committed to fostering the timely advancement of its untenured tenure-line faculty towards tenure. Therefore, under extraordinary circumstances, individuals may be considered for early tenure if an extremely strong case can be made to do so. The number of years and achievements beyond the completion of the doctoral degree (or the highest professional degree in the discipline) are key factors in early tenure considerations.
PURPOSE
The purpose of these guidelines is to outline the EMS procedures and conditions for candidates or department leadership to request the dean’s support for a request for an early tenure review.
UNIVERSITY RESOURCES
Policy AC23
Guidelines for Recommending Faculty for Early Tenure
Promotion and Tenure | Faculty Affairs
- see questions 51 through 54 of the Promotion and Tenure FAQs under Tenure-Line Policies
- see Administrative Guidelines for Policy AC23 and in particular, Appendix H
PROCEDURES
The department head and the candidate meet to discuss the candidate’s materials. If the department head determines that the candidate’s dossier is strong enough to warrant an early tenure review, the department head will compile the required documents listed below and submit them to their department’s P&T committee for their review.
- A current curriculum vitae from the candidate
- A statement from the candidate outlining their significant accomplishments that would support an early tenure review
The department’s P&T committee will meet to review and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the candidate’s case for early tenure.
- If the committee unanimously supports an early tenure review, they will write a letter to the department head outlining their support. This letter will accompany a statement of support from the department head, along with the two required documents above, when the whole package is submitted to the Dean.
- If the committee is not unanimous, they will write a letter to the department head outlining their areas of concern and reasons for their lack of unanimous support. The department head will review the letter and then schedule a meeting with the candidate to outline why the request for an early tenure review was not supported and will not be going any further in the process.
If the candidate’s early tenure review request goes forward to the dean, the dean determines whether or not they support the request.
- If the dean supports the request, they will write a letter of justification and submit the whole package to the Senior Vice Provost in the Office of Faculty Affairs, as outlined in Appendix H of the Administrative Guidelines. The rest of the process is outlined in AC23.
- If the dean does not support the request, they will write a letter explaining their concerns and reasons for their lack of support. The department head will then meet with the candidate and outline why the request was not supported and state that the request will not go any further. Because of this, the candidate’s request is not covered by AC23, as it did not reach the first step in AC23.
Adopted: EMS Tenure Line Faculty Advisory Committee – June 2025
All colleges must incorporate the overarching principles for the incorporation of student feedback detailed below into promotion and/or tenure guidelines for tenure-line and non-tenure-line faculty members undergoing formal review.
- The goal of this approach is to provide a holistic review of SEEQ/SRTE student feedback that minimizes bias.
- This review of student feedback will replace the previous summary of quantitative and qualitative student feedback on teaching effectiveness in formal promotion and/or tenure review materials.
- The sub-unit at the first level of review will identify a minimum of two individuals to serve as student feedback reviewers, consistent with the criteria below:
- at least one individual selected from a list of two or more Penn State faculty members nominated by the candidate
- one member of the promotion and tenure committee at the first level of review
- The reviewers are charged with
- examining student feedback from available courses for the period since a candidate’s last formal review and/or covered by the review (whichever is the shortest)
- writing a report of no more than 750 words (about one single-space page) describing insights about the candidate’s teaching effectiveness derived from quantitative and qualitative student feedback from SEEQ/SRTE responses across the courses taught during the review period
- as applicable, reviewers should incorporate attention to the elements of teaching: effective course design, effective instruction, inclusive and ethical pedagogy, reflective and evolving practice. NOTE: Reviewers are advised to consult with the Schreyer Institute for Teaching Effectiveness for guidance for how to interpret student feedback
- This report will be sent to the subunit head or supervisor and will be included in the dossier reviewed by the candidate. If a candidate perceives that the report inadequately represents teaching effectiveness based on student feedback, candidates may revise their narratives to address the perceived discrepancy.
- SEEQ/SRTE scores will be included in an appendix to the dossier. The delivery mode of the course and the distribution, mode, and median for SEEQ/SRTE items will be provided for each course.
- All candidates have the option of including raw data student feedback from the SEEQ/SRTE in their supplemental materials.
Guidelines established by Office of Faculty Affairs: May 5, 2025
See also: https://facultyaffairs.psu.edu/changes-to-the-assessment-of-teaching-effectiveness/
FOCUS OF STATEMENT
A single narrative statement written by the candidate is required. This statement should focus on clarifying and highlighting the primary area(s) of concentration and contribution by the candidate to aid the College and University Committees in their review of the dossier.
PLACEMENT OF STATEMENT IN DOSSIER
This statement is placed immediately after the College and Department Criteria Statements in the dossier.
PROCESS FOR STATEMENT REVIEW PRIOR TO FINALIZATION
The Department Head has a responsibility to review the candidate’s narrative statement and ensure that it is not subjective or evaluative. The candidate may be asked to make revisions as part of this review.
GUIDELINES FOR STATEMENT PREPARATION
The format of the Narrative Statement should:
- Be a brief statement explaining areas of emphasis and major contributions. We encourage candidates to be as succinct as possible. The narrative statement should not exceed 2,000 words; this word length will be reduced to 1,600 words when there are no candidates pursuing tenure who were in their probationary period in calendar year 2020.
- Be written in the first person.
- Include sections on research, teaching, and service. It is also helpful to explain links between these areas.
- Be factual and objective, not subjective or evaluative (e.g., avoid phrases such as “internationally recognized,” “made important contributions,” …).
SUGGESTIONS FOR CREATING A STRONG STATEMENT
- Audience: you are not writing for your colleagues in your department, but for people on the College and University P&T Committees. They may be lawyers, musicians, biologists as all possible specialties may be on the University committee. Therefore, avoid unnecessary technical jargon, technical acronyms, or other phrases that reviewers outside the discipline would not understand.
- What Do They Want to Know? Quite simply, who are you as a scholar at Penn State. Committee members are confronted with about 150 dossiers at the University level. They need to be able to make sense of these dossiers without first having to read it through, line by line. At the department level, people do that close reading and some even read papers or chapters cited in the dossier! Many committees assign two people to read the dossier in detail and to present a case statement to the rest of the committee who have, at least, skimmed through the dossier.
- What Is Your Challenge? To give the educated, scientifically informed reader a context into which to put the details of your work. Committee members welcome the help. Your statement is often the first thing that people read, and they often quote from it in their own letters of evaluation.
Therefore, some advice:
- Think Big Picture: assume that the details are present in the body of the dossier. People want to get a sense of context. They want to understand your career aspirations and how you are meeting them in your work at Penn State.
- Don’t Repeat the Details: refer to and develop connections among the details in the three major sections: teaching, research, and search. However, for example, you should not refer to specific grants or courses unless it is to illustrate a bigger point.
- Think of Your Philosophy, Overarching Themes, and Goals: people want to know who you are, what you are doing, why you do it, how you do it, and where you are going. I know that these things make people feel uncomfortable, but….
- Begin Each Section with a Statement of Beliefs and Goals: this is easiest to do in the teaching section because you do have a teaching philosophy. Show how that underpins all your instructional program, but also show how, for example, you realize this philosophy in different ways in introductory versus advanced level work, general education courses versus graduate seminars, etc. So, you might talk about any of the following things: the role of active or collaborative learning; the use of e-Education approaches; the goal of developing critical thinkers; the fostering of life-long learners; the use of undergraduate TIs; the development of essentials skills such as…. Use these section beginning statements to organize what follows. If you have themes, then refer to them in the more detailed discussion.
- Begin the Narrative Statement with an Overarching Philosophy and Goal: this might mix the following things:
- A short (10-20 words) description of your research area; you want the reader to remember that you are an X who is working on Y to….
- A statement as to how you see the links among teaching, learning, and service.
- And if you can do it, make a statement about what you want to be when you grow up! Seriously, we do have long-terms goals for ourselves, and readers do want to see that you are not just focusing on the immediate present (e.g., getting tenure at Penn State). This can either appear at the end of the first paragraph, before you address the three areas in sequence, or it could appear as a conclusion. I think that the latter is preferable.
- You Should Write in Ways that are Memorable and Searchable: by this I mean that you want the reader to remember some things about you and your work, but you also want them to be able to refer to this statement and find things quickly. Therefore:
- Use headers and perhaps even sub-heads; alternatively consider using bold or italics to highlight key ideas
- Use short paragraphs with clear topic sentences
- Write in an active voice (they want to know what you think and what you do)
- Keep it tight and focused
I’m sorry to say it, but this short (2-3 page) statement is as important as any article that you will write. It is your chance to make the reader (judge) see that you are thoughtful, articulate, and driven. Readers like to see a vision and a commitment: you are not just doing this as a job, but you care about X, Y, and Z. Your academic life is a passion and a vocation. That does not mean you should indulge in multiple adverbs and exclamation marks. It does mean that you should not just report on who you are but try to share a sense as to why you do what you do, why you care. If you do that, then they too will care and react positively to the detailed information in the rest of the dossier.
Last updated: May 14, 2025
OVERALL PHILOSOPHY:
An effective Faculty Mentoring Program can help faculty members share (mentors) and acquire (mentees) professional skills and attitudes for personal, institutional, and career success. It can promote the development of self-confidence and professional achievement and ultimately enhance institutional stability and continuity. Ideally, participation in a mentoring program helps improve instruction and enhance communication between new faculty and experienced faculty. Mentoring should be a voluntary, mutually agreed upon arrangement that should be driven by what type of mentor the mentee is seeking. Ideally, fully promoted faculty members should volunteer to serve as mentors and allow mentees to select them based upon their own internal needs and criteria. Mentors can have multiple mentees, if their time and effort can be applied equally to their mentees. Additionally, mentees are encouraged to seek out multiple mentors, based upon the unique skills certain mentors may possess that meet their needs. Mentors and mentees do not have to belong to the same academic field or administrative unit.
GOALS:
The goals of the EMS Faculty Mentor Program are as follows:
- To provide instructional support for new faculty,
- To promote a cohesive and supportive faculty,
- To create collegiality among the established and junior faculty members,
- To strengthen professional relationships, and
- To provide experienced faculty the opportunity to develop their instructional support skills.
In no way is the mentor program intended to be supervisory or evaluative. The mentor relationship should be collegial, informative, and flexible.
CHARACTERISTICS:
A mentoring program is devoted to the individual mentee’s career and individual development, providing personal guidance and support that complements professional development and activities that lead to tenure and/or promotion. Mentors should not be in the mentee’s “chain of command”: that is, contributors to the mentee’s performance appraisal. The mentor/mentee relationship is very different from one of supervisory duties. The mentor should be available to coach, guide, and champion the mentee, which has potential to conflict with the role of a supervisor, sometimes requiring discipline and the need to evaluate all subordinates.
Frequent communication between mentor and mentee should occur. Effective mentoring involves regular interaction between the mentor and mentee, but the relationship should not consume so much time as to become burdensome. While there is no rule dictating the frequency of meeting, the mentor and mentee should talk, check-in, or meet as often as necessary to meet the needs of both parties. Each mentor/mentee relationship might require a different amount of time and should be agreed upon at the outset of the process. The possibilities and combinations for interaction are endless, and the process does not need to be complicated.
Mentoring goes beyond subject matter expertise to new skills the organization needs (tied to competencies). Mentoring should be recognized as an aspect of departmental service and included in faculty activity reports.
EXPECTATIONS:
The Department Head
- Ensure whole department accepts its responsibility to mentor junior faculty in ways that help them to reach their full potential, be successful in the tenure process, and be overall thriving members of the departmental faculty
- Recognize that in some contexts some candidates (e.g., members of underrepresented populations, individuals with disabilities, or faculty working in specialized areas) face special challenges
- Ensure that mentorship is recognized as both a formal and informal activity in the department and the time spent mentoring should be rewarded
- Ensure all junior faculty members have established mentoring relationships within the first year on campus
- Initiate the assignment of mentors and guide/facilitate junior faculty members in their search for a mentor (this task could be delegated to a Mentoring Committee as MatSE does).
- Establish best practices for type and frequency of mentoring
- Should not serve as a mentor within their own department, but could mentor fellow junior/new Department Heads
- The department head plays a central role in a variety of human resource decisions, including promotion, tenure, remuneration and space allocation. Thus, mentoring by the department head sets up the potential for real or perceived conflicts of interest, and this should be considered carefully. The department head can be an invaluable source of guidance, but he or she should never serve as a mentor
- If a department head elects to engage in mentoring activities, this should be with the understanding and caution that their advice carries far more impact, for better or worse on junior faculty than by any other faculty member
- Ensure mentoring continues beyond tenure for associate professors
- Encourage larger group sessions for mentoring, to include peer group functions, activities at the College-level seminars and workshops
The Mentor
- Be proactive…seek out the mentee and build a rapport with them
- Be understanding…some mentees may not feel comfortable asking certain questions/seeking guidance. Be prepared to solicit them for more information
- Be available…. schedule opportunities to meet, communicate, and collaborate
- Listen…be a sounding board; empathize; zero in on specific interests and concerns
- Facilitate…tap into your experience; lead the way; help locate a resource or solution
- Be accountable…provide an acknowledgement that they have been meeting/mentoring
- In practice, the Mentor’s role will vary depending upon the unique needs and concerns of the new faculty member and could include any of the following:
- Sounding Board…listen to and supporting creative ideas and suggestions
- Resource…lead the new faculty member to information or the person with the answer
- Advisor…offer your opinion or advice on a real or hypothetical problem; aid in addressing work/life balance issues and techniques for effective time management
- Guide…help navigate the maze of buildings, offices, and resources
- Interpreter…decipher policies, contracts, campus acronyms, and “codes”
- Reviewer…provide feedback on a proposal, paper, or handout
- Role Model…share your teaching and research practices, tips, and techniques
- Advocate…facilitate the new faculty’s social and professional network, identify professional opportunities for advancement, including funding and speaking opportunities
The Mentee
- Engage…ask the mentor questions, share comments, voice concerns, and identify issues
- Seek…look for and utilize opportunities for professional growth and excellence in teaching, research, and service
- Take personal responsibility…for your academic career; be an active agent and judge of the appropriate course of action for career advancement
- Take responsibility to develop a portfolio of mentors, both within their home unit/department, across the college, and beyond (to include their disciplinary community outside of Penn State).
An example of how this could work for a new faculty member:
Year 1
- The Department Head and the new faculty member develop a list of potential mentors from within the academic unit. The faculty member talks to potential mentors in order to find two individuals who are both willing and available. The mentors are formally charged by the Department Head, preferably in writing (by email, for example)
- In addition, during the first year, the faculty member seeks other mentors, including individuals with common experience or interests. The faculty member should seek to develop professional networks with peers and more experienced colleagues in the department, at Penn State, and at other academic institutions
- Mentors and the faculty member should meet informally several times throughout the first year
Subsequent Years
- The mentors and faculty member should continue to meet at least three times a semester
- The mentor should report the occurrence of mentoring activities to the Department Head
- The mentoring relationship should continue through and beyond the tenure process. If the mentor is no longer available or willing, the Department Head and the faculty member should find a mutually agreed upon replacement
BEST PRACTICES:
- A diversity of mentoring activities beyond the one-on-one are encouraged, including peer groups, mentoring activities organized at the College level, including seminars and workshops
- Mentorship should continue beyond tenure for associate professors
- Mentoring tasks should include discussion of professional goals, scientific leadership, access to professional opportunities for advancement, including funding and speaking opportunities, and ways to balance priorities and expectations in the academic environment. Mentoring can also aid the junior faculty member’s understanding of governance and finances within the university, professional relationships, and management skills to better guide students. Many junior faculty might benefit from mentoring that addresses work-life balance issues and techniques for effective time management
REFERENCES:
- Sands, R.G., Parson, L.A., and Duane, J., 1991. Faculty mentoring faculty in a public university. J. Higher Ed. 62: 174-193.
Faculty Mentoring Faculty in a Public University: The Journal of Higher Education: Vol 62, No 2 - University of Albany website. Mentoring best practices.
Mentoring Best Practices | University at Albany
REVISIONS:
- Created: 2015 (Kate Freeman and Lee Kump)
- Revised and approved by EMS Executive Council: February 24, 2026
John Mauro, department head and professor of materials science and engineering at Penn State, has been named interim John Leone Dean in the College of Earth and Mineral Sciences, effective July 1.
Read the Full News Story
ELIGIBILITY
This College addendum to Penn State Policy AC40 applies to all non-tenure-line faculty in the College of Earth and Mineral Sciences with teaching responsibilities. Non-tenure-line faculty with teaching responsibilities are defined for the purposes of these guidelines as full-time non-tenure-line faculty in the teaching or research faculty ranks who have teaching as part of their job description and/or have taught a minimum of six credits in each of the two academic years immediately prior to the five-year review. These guidelines do not apply to non-tenure-line faculty who teach occasionally for supplemental pay, or Dutton’s Learning Design faculty.
BACKGROUND
Non-tenure-line faculty with teaching responsibilities will participate in a robust peer review of teaching once every five years. The Non-Tenure-Line Faculty Performance Evaluation (NTLFPE) is intended to recognize accomplishments and foster the future planning of faculty members who are contributing to the teaching mission of the College and University and, in rare cases, to provide guidance to those not contributing meaningfully to the well-being of the College or University. The goal of the evaluation is as much to look towards the future as to review past progress. In particular, the NTLFPE is designed to encourage and assist those aspiring to increased impact or further excellence.
The NTLFPE is a method for assisting and supporting faculty members to maintain vigorous contributions to teaching throughout their careers. A substantive discussion of the faculty members’ readiness for promotion, where applicable, must accompany the review. See also the College’s “Guidelines for Promotion in the Non-Tenure-Line Faculty Ranks” at https://www.ems.psu.edu/resources-faculty-and-staff under ‘Faculty Promotion (and/or Tenure).’
Following a phase-in period (outlined on page five), the five-year clock will start on January 1 after the year of hire or January 1 of the year after the most recent promotion decision, whichever is most recent (exceptions to this schedule for individual faculty members require approval by the Dean). Faculty members will be advised of their five-year timeline in early January which is one year in advance of the evaluation, so they can seek out information and resources from the Dutton and/or Schreyer Institutes if they wish. The five-year reviews must involve a meeting with the supervising administrator and, if requested by the faculty member, the Dean.
PROCEDURE GOVERNING THE EVALUATION
- The NTLFPE process is intended to provide an opportunity to review and acknowledge past achievements in teaching, and particularly to provide an opportunity for planning future activities. To help achieve these objectives, the EMS faculty member will be notified one year in advance (in early January) of the deadline for submission of materials (and their sub-unit head will be copied on this notification). Then early the following November, the Dean’s Office will send a letter to the faculty member (copying the supervising administrator and the sub-unit head) requesting the submission of a packet of documents to their supervising administrator. A one-page document that (i) discusses current challenges and opportunities in the faculty member’s job responsibilities and (ii) summarizes key achievements over the last five years that provide building blocks to address these challenges and opportunities. Discussion of accomplishments should be restricted to the past five years.
- A one-page document that (i) describes objectives in teaching for the next year, (ii) details planned activities to achieve these objectives, and (iii) specifies milestones that can be used to assess progress.
- Copies of the supervisor’s comments from the most recent annual review and the four preceding annual reviews.
- At least one evaluation by a peer of a course taught within the review period. This course will be selected in agreement with the NTL faculty member and their supervisor. This review is to be completed in accordance with the College’s Peer Teaching Evaluations’ guidelines
- SRTE/SEEQ quantitative data from within the review period to provide the student perspective
- A statement from the sub-unit head outlining the faculty member’s teaching expectations and contributions to teaching during the review period.
The following information can also be included. Note that the inclusion of this information is optional and at the EMS faculty member’s discretion, However, if an external evaluator participates in the review (see Optional External Evaluator Review below) then this additional information MUST be included.
- Copies of the most recent annual review and the four preceding annual reviews,
- SRTE/SEEQ qualitative data from within the review period to provide additional student perspective
Once the packet is assembled, the supervising administrator will meet with the faculty member to review the packet and provide them with the opportunity to formally respond and/or update the packet.
If the faculty member chooses to have an external evaluator participate in the review, the assembled packet must be provided to the external evaluator on or before January 5 and their letter of evaluation must be provided to the supervising administrator on or before January 26.
The finalized packet should be submitted to the supervising administrator on or before January 26.
The supervising administrator will write a review of the faculty member’s teaching performance and future teaching plans. The full package will be submitted by the supervising administrator to the Dean’s Office. One copy of all materials in an electronic format should be submitted, preferably in a single Adobe pdf document. Outside letters will not be solicited nor considered as part of the review.
OPTIONAL EXTERNAL EVALUATOR REVIEW
The faculty member may choose to request external feedback on their dossier in the form of an external evaluation. This external evaluator must be a member of the EMS faculty (at any rank) and must be invited to serve in this role by the faculty member by no later than January 5th of the year in which the package is due
If applicable, the external evaluator will review the materials and prepare a written summary and assessment focusing on accomplishments and future goals in teaching, in accordance with college expectations. The evaluation should include a realistic appraisal of the candidate’s ability to achieve the proposed goals. The letter will be forwarded to the supervising administrator for inclusion in the packet that will be forwarded to the Dean.
CONCLUDING THE EVALUATION
The supervising administrator will conclude the evaluation by meeting with the faculty member and discussing the written evaluation(s). A copy of the written evaluation from the external evaluator (if applicable) and the supervising administrator will be provided to the faculty member at the conclusion of the evaluation for them to keep for their records.
The supervising administrator will reserve time to meet with each faculty member to discuss the review. If requested by the faculty member or the Dean, a meeting will be arranged with the faculty member and the Dean to discuss the evaluation. A summary of the meeting with the Dean will be shared, in writing, with the faculty members’ supervising administrator.
If the faculty member disagrees with the evaluation, they have the opportunity to provide a written response to the review to the Dean. This response will be included in the final document.
The Dean, in conjunction with the supervising administrator, will be responsible for initiating action, if any, in response to the evaluation. For the vast majority of faculty who are effectively carrying out the College mission, the supervising administrator should make recommendations as to the appropriate recognition that could further enhance the quality of a faculty member’s work such as university-wide opportunities, programs, and awards.
The evaluation process may identify faculty who need redirection or revitalization. In these cases, a development plan (for the duration of the existing contract) should be formulated to help the faculty member improve their academic contribution. If appropriate, such faculty development plans will be accompanied by institutional resources and assistance necessary for their successful implementation. Any development plan should be constructive in nature, and again, if appropriate, supported by institutional resources for implementation. In cases where a plan is developed, follow-through to ensure its implementation is required.
PHASE IN SCHEDULE
*The performance of all non-tenure-line faculty with teaching responsibilities will begin to be evaluated, according to these guidelines, in January 2027. However, because this is a new process, it will take five years to evaluate all eligible non-tenure-line faculty. During this five-year ‘phase-in’ period approximately twenty percent of the eligible non-tenure-line faculty will be evaluated annually. A ‘phase-in’ roster for the process will be developed by the Dean’s Office, and each faculty member will be advised of their individual timeline once the roster is finalized.
Notes:
Following the ‘phase-in’ period, the performance of all eligible non-tenure-line faculty members, regardless of rank, will normally be evaluated every five years, unless the faculty member underwent a promotion process, in which case the next review will be five years after the completion of that process, whether or not the promotion was awarded.
An NTLFPE review will not be required if the faculty member is on a phased retirement plan or has a confirmed departure date from Penn State that is within the next twelve months.
An NTLFPE review will also not be required if the faculty member is undergoing the promotion process in the same academic year as the NTLFPE packet is due.
TIMELINE
- Early January – The faculty member is given advance notice by the Dean’s Office that they will undergo a NTLFPE review the following January (i.e. in twelve months). The supervising administrator is copied, and the guidelines and timeline are included in the notification. No action is required at this time.
- Early November of the faculty member’s fifth year* (or five years since their last review) - The faculty member is sent confirmation by the Dean’s Office that they will undergo a NTLFPE review in the coming January (i.e. in two months). The supervising administrator is copied, and the guidelines and timeline are included in the confirmation.
- OPTIONAL January 5 – the complete package is submitted to the external evaluator,
- OPTIONAL January 26 – the external evaluator’s letter is due to the supervising administrator
- January 26 - The faculty member’s documents are due to the supervising administrator.
- February 15 - The complete package is submitted by the supervising administrator to the Dean’s Office.
- March (early) – the Dean will review the package and is available for a meeting on request as outlined above.
REFERENCE
Policy AC40 Annual Evaluation of Faculty Performance (Formerly HR40) https://policy.psu.edu/policies/ac40
REVISION HISTORY
Policy adopted: July 1, 2025
Policy updated: March 25, 2026 (NTL FPE College Committee removed and optional external evaluator added)
- Christopher Fowler, Professor of Geography (2025-28)
- Kevin Furlong, Professor of Geosciences (2024-27)
- Matt Kumjian, Professor of Meteorology and Atmospheric Science (2024-27)
- Shimin Liu, Professor of Energy and Mineral Engineering (2025- 28)
- Suzanne Mohney, Professor of Materials Science and Engineering and Electrical Engineering (2025-28)
Emily Shor, from Swarthmore, has been named the student marshal for the College of Earth and Mineral Sciences’ (EMS) spring 2026 commencement ceremony, which will be held at 1:30 p.m. on Saturday, May 9, in the Pegula Ice Arena at Penn State University Park.
Read the Full News Story
Nitin Samarth, Verne M. Willaman Professor of Physics and professor of materials science and engineering, has been elected a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences for distinguished contributions to the physical sciences. He is one of 252 leaders in academia, the arts, industry, journalism, philanthropy, policy, research and science elected in 2026.
Read the Full News Story