academic advancement for clinician-educators: secrets from the dean’s office 2/26/13 renee binder,...
TRANSCRIPT
Academic Advancementfor Clinician-Educators:
Secrets from the Dean’s Office2/26/13
Renee Binder, M.D. Elena Fuentes-Afflick, M.D., M.P.H.
SOM Academic Affairs
1. Identify the criteria used to assess academic advancement.
2. Review the criteria for accelerations.
3. Using case examples, evaluate academic advancement packets to identify characteristics for success.
Policies
Academic Personnel Manual (APM)
UCSF Academic Affairs Website
http://academicaffairs.ucsf.edu
• Resources• Popular topics: Benefits, Diversity, Mentoring,
Problem resolution• Urgent issues: Impairment, Improper conduct,
Suicide prevention• CCFL: Faculty development, faculty enrichment
UCSF Faculty Appointments• Series
- 5 - UC is different from most universities• Rank
- Assistant, Associate, Professor• Step
– Assistant I to VI– Associate I to V– Professor I to IX and Above Scale– 21 total levels
ADJUNCT SERIES
OR
Teaching
Research
Research
Teaching
HEALTH SCIENCES CLINICAL SERIES
Creative activity “encouraged”See Departmental Guidelines
Outstanding:- Clinical competence- Teaching- Service
Research / Creative Activity
Outstanding:- Clinical competence- Teaching- Service
Dissemination of scholarly work
CLINICAL X SERIES
LADDER RANK andIN-RESIDENCE SERIES
Contribute with distinction:- Professional competence (clinical, if applicable)- Research- Teaching- Service (University, professional, public)
Ladder Rank
In Residence
Clinical X Adjunct HS Clinical
Tenure/length ofAppointment
Yes Varies* Yearly Yearly Yearly
% time 100 100 100 Any Any
Sabbatical/Professional leave
Yes Yes** Yes** Yes** Yes**
8 year rule Yes Yes Yes No*** No***
Appraisal Yes Yes Yes On request On request
Academic Senate member
Yes Yes Yes No No
* appointed without end date at Associate/Professor level, no tenure** professional leave possible*** no 8 year rule at UCSF, but applies to other campuses
Rules and Privileges
Academic Advancement4 Criteria:
- Teaching and mentoring- Research and/or creative activities- Professional competence- University & public service
Weighting of Criteria:- Varies by series- Department-defined
Teaching and Mentoring
Not Applicable
Needs Improvement Favorable Outstanding
Overall
Student/trainee/mentee evaluations
Peer Evaluations
Teaching and Mentoring
Evaluation of Teaching• Direct teaching: Students, graduate
students, residents, fellows• Course / Program Administration
– Program design, curricular innovations– Textbooks, other teaching materials
• Educational scholarship• Advising and mentoring: Trainees, faculty• Data sources
– CV– Teaching evaluations– Reference letters
Challenges
• Teaching is hard to define
• Teaching contributions are hard to document– Teaching effort varies– E-value assessments may be limited– What is the ‘gold standard?’
• “All UCSF faculty are excellent teachers”
Research and/or Creative Activities
Not Applicable Needs Improvement Favorable Outstanding
Overall
Productivity
Independence
Significance of research
Collaborative research (not a requirement)
Peer-reviewed research support
Research and/or Creative Activities
Professional Competence
Not Applicable Needs Improvement Favorable Outstanding
OverallProfessional Competence
University and Public Service
Not Applicable
Needs Improvement Favorable Outstanding
Overall
Department/School/ Campus/Hospital
Professional (Local and National)
UC/System-wide
Community
University and Public Service
University and Public Service
• Administration– Departmental Committees– Interdepartmental Activities– Search Committees
• University Service– UCSF Campus-wide, School-wide activities– Academic Senate Committees– UC System-wide Activities
• Professional Service– Editorial Board– Professional Society Leadership
• Community, Public Service
Faculty Review Process
#1 – Departmental review
#2 – Chair’s assessment
#3 – Academic Affairs office
#4 – Vice Provost for Academic Affairs
#5 – CAP (Committee on Academic Personnel)
#6 – Vice Provost for Academic Affairs
Departmental review
• Updated CV• Review by senior faculty/appointments and promotions
committee• When indicated, Departmental review and vote (new
appointments to Academic Senate positions, promotions, Professor 5 to 6 and Professor 9 to above scale)
• Teaching evaluations: Students/Residents/ Fellows reference letters and e-values
• Additional requirements for new appointments and promotions (including external and internal references and peer evaluations of teaching)
Department Chair’s Assessment
• Report of the faculty review• Quantity and quality of teaching & mentoring• Research/creative work• Professional competence• University and public service• Evaluation of faculty member’s progress
Academic Affairs Review
• Review the advancement history
• Review the ‘packet’
• Recommendation– Approve– Disapprove– Other
Committee on Academic Personnel (CAP)
• Appointments at Assistant Professor III and higher
• Promotion from Assistant – Associate, Associate – Professor, Professor 5 to 6, and Professor 9 to above scale
• Accelerations ≥ 2 years
Vice Provost for Academic AffairsSally Marshall, PhD
Academic Personnel Review
Faculty Department/Service Center
Academic Affairs Assoc/Vice Dean
VPAA CAP
cv, names of letter writers
ref letters teach evalfac voteChair letter
Dean eval
Report, decision
ADVANCE
Objectives
1. Identify the criteria used to assess academic advancement.
2. Review the criteria for accelerations.
3. Using case examples, evaluate academic advancement packets to identify characteristics for success.
On-time advancement
• Assistant: merit increase every 2 years– Promoted after 6-7 years as Assistant or 2 years at Step IV – Need national recognition to go to Associate
• Associate: every 2 years– Promoted after 6 years or 2 years at Step III– Need national and international recognition to go to
Professor
• Professor: advanced every 3 years
Accelerations
• All faculty are expected to be outstanding!
• UCSF Guidelines for Accelerated Advancement
• Anyone may nominate a faculty member for accelerated advancement, including self-nomination
Guidelines for 1-year acceleration
• Outstanding performance in all areas and exceptional performance in ≥ 1 category: teaching, research, professional competence, University/public service
• Unusual to receive consecutive accelerations
Examples of exceptional performance
• Receipt of a competitive professional service award
• Sustained level of outstanding achievement
• Unusual productivity in publishing original work
• Sustained (3 years), dedicated service on a major committee: CAP, CHR, Admissions
Guidelines for 2- or 3-year acceleration
• Rare
• Much more difficult
• Usually based on retention or extraordinary achievements
• CAP approval required
Objectives
1. Identify the criteria used to assess academic advancement.
2. Review the criteria for accelerations.
3. Using case examples, evaluate academic advancement packets to identify characteristics for success.
Characteristics of Success
Summary: Secrets from the Dean’s Office
• Know your series and what is required for advancement and promotion
• Frequently update your C.V. and describe activities and accomplishments in appropriate sections
• Develop national and international reputation• Volunteer for leadership positions at UCSF and within
professional organizations• Review for journals• Cultivate internal and external references• Meet with your Chair to let her/him know what you are doing• Request 1 year accelerations when appropriate