Workshop on P & T

for probationary faculty

March 19, 2008

AcknowledgmentsPresenters:Tom Haffie Louise MilliganZhifeng DingMark DaleySupport:New Faculty Network Steering GroupPam Brown

Dean’s perspective Chairs all P & T Committees in Science In last 1.5 yrs., has presided over 34

cases

Your file is youYour P&T file introduces the Committee to you. First impressions are important.It is how the Committee gets to know you as an academic.It is the basis on which your application is assessed.A well-prepared file is anticipated by Committees, an ill-prepared file is an annoyance that impedes the process.

Purpose of Workshop

- to guide probationary faculty in preparation of best possible P & T file

- to discuss aspects of the P & T process of interest to participants

Elements of well-prepared fileIt includes all relevant activities.It has no glaring omissions.It is well organized and easy to read.It avoids unnecessary repetition.It has been mentored.It does not assume that readers of the file

are experts or mind readers.

Who reads your file?1. Your referees (assess your research).

[typically 5 people], 2. P & T Committee (assesses everything).

[8 people]3. Provost (assesses everything).

[2 people]TOTAL: 15 people, only 4 of whom are

from your Dept.

Refereesa) At arm’s length (generally NSERC rules) b) Some/many may not know you personally

this is OKc) It is important that majority are familiar with

your research program and publicationsd) Referees who have no prior knowledge of

your research are at a disadvantage compared to those who are familiar

P & T Committee

7 colleagues + Dean (as Chair):

4 from your Dept. (3 tenured + Chair)

1 from another Science Dept.

2 from other Faculties

Office of Provost

Files initially read by Vice-Provost

and subsequently by Provost

Some pitfalls to avoid No detailed explanation of contributions to co-

authored publications Not indicating grad students/PDFs in author lists

of publications Omitting a section or subsection of the P&T file. Not providing basic information about grants

(dates, PI vs. co-PI vs. investigator, $ values attributed to individual, annual dollar amount, etc.)

Not providing dates of activities, appointments, etc.

Teaching Dossier

Courses

Outlines

Ratings

StudentsSupervised

Teaching Dossier:Information Flow in Context

Teaching Philosophy Specific contributions/Innovations Diverse evidence of effectiveness Professional Development Educational Leadership Research on Teaching

NAME of

INSTRUCTOR:

Subject

Course #

Section #

Subject

Course #

Section #

Subject

Course #

Section #

Acad. Year

Term

Enrolment

# Responses

Question 1

Question 2

……..

Question 14

Avg. of 1-14

Quest. 15 (effect.)

Quest. 16 (learning)

Service: P&T

40% Teaching (2 days/week)

20% Service (1 day/week)

40% Research (2 days/week)

“...the significance accorded to Teaching and Research shall be approximately equal and, in all cases, each shall be accorded greater significance than Service.........While a candidate must have achieved a satisfactory record of performance in Service, the meritorious performance of these duties shall not compensate for an insufficiently strong record of performance in Teaching or Research. However, an unsatisfactory record of performance in Service contributions may be an important factor in the denial of Tenure and/or Promotion.”

Service DossierClause 4.2, P&T Article

Service DossierYour role in…

• Departmental

• Faculty

• University

• Community– Review manuscripts, grants, etc.– Organize conferences, workshops– Grant selection committees

Service Dossier

• Short narrative– Highlight achievements

– Comment on philosophy

• “Sunshine” comments