I am up for 2-year TT review in the coming weeks. Technically I have been on this job for only 1 year and 6 months. This is my first such review.
I am not sure what the committee looks for, but I am going to try to show the following:
1) Established an active research program; got a larger space from the department and established a college wide center
2) Am supervising PhD, MS, undergrad and high-school students. Of course none of them have graduated till now. PhD people cant since it has been only 1.5 years for me to be here. MS will hopefully show more progress in this coming semester
3) Wrote a ton of grants. And by ton I mean 19 !
Now that I am writing it this seems to be a larger number. In my defense not all of them were complete grants (Like NSF 15 pages and NIH 12 pages). Some were smaller ( 1 or 2 pages) and some were collaborative (where again I wrote 1 or 2 pages).
Out of these I was successful in 5. This looks like a small number. In my defense 2 of the successful ones were NSF grants.
4) I was able to make my last year paper productive by finishing up the papers from my postdoc ( and since I didn't had a lab and/or students there was nothing much I could do). This makes up 4 papers.
This year my lab (with me being a senior author) have been able to produce papers. This number is 3 but 3 more papers are ready to be submitted (in 4 weeks hopefully).
1) I think I did good in teaching. Got decent reviews from my undergrad class. Taught 2 grad classes and the reviews were mostly positive. I am not sure what else to add here.
A collegue of mine adds up the stats from his reviews. Another adds up comments as well. May be I will do a combination of these two.
1) Did a ton of service for conferences, journals. Was an editor for 2 special issues and 1 in progress. Also chairing 2 conference workshops.
2) did service for the department as well as the college.
What else would they look for? Am I missing something?