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