1. University of Miami Miller School of Medicine
Tenure-Earning Track

2. Tenure-Earning Track:
Faculty members who demonstrate excellence in teaching and service and who strive to make significant and original contributions to the body of knowledge in their medical specialties or scientific disciplines.

3. How are Criteria for Promotion and Tenure Established?
Faculty Senate is responsible for the policies and procedures as outlined in the Faculty Manual (miami.edu/facultysenate)
Requirements for faculty promotion and tenure in the Miller School of Medicine are determined by the Faculty Council (medicalcouncil.miami.edu)

4. What is the process? Individual/Department Miller School of Medicine
Faculty member discussed with division chief or department chair
Some departments have internal advisory committee review
Packet prepared with outside letters, Departmental Review and Vote
Faculty member asks to be considered
Miller School of Medicine
MSOM Appointment, Promotion, & Tenure (APT) Committee Reviews and Votes
Chair’s have opportunity for appeal of negative or split APT votes
Dean reviews APT recommendation and makes Dean’s recommendation
University
University Academic Personnel Board (APB) Reviews and Votes
Provost Reviews Recommendations, makes Final Decisions
University Board of Trustees Reviews and Makes Final Decisions on Tenure

5. Evaluation of Merit:
A key is whether there has been significant and continuing growth, productivity and excellence in the activities relevant to the candidate’s track during the candidate’s time at his/her present rank.

6. Promotion from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor:
Must have attained national recognition
Evidence of scholarship supported by publications or similar communications in at least one focus area
Teaching: evidence of having developed and/or conducted teaching programs (classroom teaching, graduate-student teaching, clinical teaching)
Research: evidence of major involvement in a research program that is of high quality and significance and is extramurally funded
Clinical Activity: evidence of performing clinical responsibilities
Professional Service: evidence of service to Department, School, hospital or University

7. Promotion from Associate Professor to Professor and Award of Tenure:
Must have attained widespread recognition
Continued evidence of scholarship supported by publications or similar communications in at least one focus area
Teaching: continued evidence of having developed and/or conducted teaching programs (classroom teaching, graduate-student teaching, clinical teaching)
Research: evidence of major involvement in a research program that is of high quality and significance and is extramurally funded
Clinical Activity: evidence of performing clinical responsibilities
Professional Service: evidence of service to Department, School, hospital or University

8. Mandatory Tenure Review
Timeline for Tenure
Year
Event
Comments
Year 1
Yearly Review
Year 2
Year 3
Mid-Point Review
Midpoint assesses progress towards tenure and occurs in the Fall of the third year. If not making progress, recommendation for terminal notice is made; if renewal, receive 3-year extension of appointment
Year 4
Terminal Year
If not making progress, this is terminal year
Year 5
Mandatory Review
Mandatory Promotion Review occurs in the Fall of the fifth year. Assistant Professor must be promoted to Associate Professor to receive 2-year extension of appointment. Associate Professor is assessed for progress towards tenure. Promotion is effective June 1st of the sixth year.
Year 6
If Associate Professor is not making progress toward tenure or if Assistant Professor is not promoted, this is terminal year.
Year 7
Mandatory Tenure Review
Mandatory Tenure Review occurs in the Fall of the seventh year. If tenure is awarded, it is effective June 1st of the eighth year.
Year 8
Tenure Awarded
If tenure is denied, this is terminal year

9. Voting Procedures All mid-point reviews require one vote
All promotions require one vote
All award of tenure reviews require one vote
Instances where a promotion and request for tenure are being considered at the same time, there are two votes taken: one for promotion and one for tenure

10. Who Votes for What? TENURE TRACK TENURE-EARNING TENURE RESEARCH
TENURE TRACK
TENURE-EARNING
TENURE
RESEARCH
CLINICAL EDUCATOR
ACTION
TO/OF
ASST PROF
ASSOC PROF
PROF
Initial/Consultative
Tenure-earning Asst Prof x
Tenure-earning Assoc Prof
Award of Tenure Assoc Prof
Award of Tenure Prof
Research Asst Prof
Research Assoc Prof
Research Prof
Asst Prof of Clinical
Assoc Prof of Clinical
Prof of Clinical
Appointment

11. Who Votes for What? TENURE TRACK TENURE-EARNING TENURE RESEARCH
TENURE TRACK
TENURE-EARNING
TENURE
RESEARCH
CLINICAL EDUCATOR
ACTION
TO/OF
ASST PROF
ASSOC PROF
PROF
Reappointment
Tenured Assoc Prof making progress toward Promotion to Prof x
Tenure-earning Asst Prof
Tenure-earning Assoc Prof
Research Asst Prof
Research Assoc Prof
Research Prof
Asst Prof of Clinical
Assoc Prof of Clinical
Prof of Clinical
Promotion
Assoc Prof (Tenure Track)
Prof (Tenure Track)
Award of Tenure
Assoc Prof
Prof

12. Clock Dates for Tenure Review
Hire Date
Mid-Point Review
(3rd year)
Terminal Year
(4th Year)
Mandatory Review
(5th Year)
Promotion Effective
(6th Year)
(7th year)
Tenure Review
(8th year)
Tenure Effective
(9th year)
(10th year)
2008
Jan 2011
May 2012
Fall 2013
June 2014
May 2015
Fall 2015
June 2016
May 2017
2009
Jan 2012
May 2013
Fall 2014
June 2015
May 2016
Fall 2016
June 2017
May 2018
2010
Jan 2013
May 2014
Fall 2017
June 2018
May 2019
2011
Jan 2014
Fall 2018
June 2019
May 2020
2012
Jan 2015
Fall 2019
June 2020
May 2021
2013
Jan 2016
Fall 2020
June 2021
May 2022
2014
Jan 2017
Fall 2021
June 2022
May 2023
2015
Jan 2018
Fall 2022
June 2023
May 2024

13. Candidate file to include the following:
Third Year Mid-Point Reviews (effective June 1st of fourth year)
Purpose is to assess progress towards tenure.
Candidate file to include the following:
The faculty member is responsible for:
Candidate’s Personal Statement/Career Assessment (2 pages)
Candidate’s current CV in Standard UM Format
Minimum of five external review letters (arm’s length)
Letters of acceptance for ‘in-press’ articles (as applicable)
Three publications (within last 5-7 years)
Educator Portfolio (optional)
The Department is responsible for:
DF-15 form (completed by department)
Chairman Recommendation Memo
Summary of Departmental APT Committee Vote
Teaching Evaluation (s)
Scholarly Material Review Certification

14. Candidate file to include the following:
Fifth Year Mandatory (Promotion) Review (effective June 1st of sixth year)
Assistant Professors must be promoted to Associate Professors in order to receive 2-year extension of appointment. Those already at Associate Professor rank are assessed for progress towards tenure.
Candidate file to include the following:
The faculty member is responsible for:
Candidate’s Personal Statement/Career Assessment (2 pages)
Candidate’s current CV in Standard UM Format
Minimum of five external review letters (arm’s length)
Letters of acceptance for ‘in-press’ articles (as applicable)
Three publications (within last 5-7 years)
Educator Portfolio (optional)
The Department is responsible for:
DF-15 form (completed by department)
Chairman Recommendation Memo
Summary of Departmental APT Committee Vote
Teaching Evaluation (s)
Scholarly Material Review Certification

15. Purpose is to review for and grant award of tenure.
Seventh Year Mandatory (Tenure) Review (effective June 1st of eighth year)
Purpose is to review for and grant award of tenure.
Candidate file to include the following:
The faculty member is responsible for:
Candidate’s Personal Statement/Career Assessment (2 pages)
Candidate’s current CV in Standard UM Format
Minimum of five external review letters (arm’s length)
Letters of acceptance for ‘in-press’ articles (as applicable)
Three publications (within last 5-7 years)
Educator Portfolio (optional)
The Department is responsible for:
DF-15 form (completed by department)
Chairman Recommendation Memo
Summary of Departmental APT Committee Vote
Teaching Evaluation (s)
Scholarly Material Review Certification

16. Formatting Your Curriculum Vitae
Be precise:
Number items; specifically your references/publications
Follow guidelines for presentation of materials
Be accurate in your references (committee members will check pub-med)
Quantify first and last author roles
Be concise: be conscious of committee member reader burden (they have lots to read)
Make your regional / national (for associate professor) and national / international (for professor) activities, impact and recognition clear
Continually update your CV and materials
Link to UM Format:

17. Personal Statement/Career Assessment
Recommended length: 2-3 pages (2 is preferred)
Illustrate progressive advancement and impact
Suggested outline:
Paragraph 1 – Early career and roots in academic medicine
Paragraph 2 – Development of your particular expertise (in research, education, administration, clinical care)
Paragraph 3 – Recognition of expertise by others (papers, panels, journal reviews, advisory and editorial boards)
Paragraph 4 – Comment on other areas (e.g. teaching, administration, service)
Paragraph 5 – Vision for your future – how will you continue to grow, excel, and increase scope of impact

18. External Reviewers
You will be asked to provide 8-10 reviewer names that may be contacted by your Chair for a letter of evaluation. You are required to have 5 “arm’s length” letters for your promotion package.
These reviewers should be academic leaders who can provide neutral expert opinions on your accomplishments, stature, and potential for future success.
Evaluators should hold a rank at least equal to that which you aspire. Letters from Senior Leaders in non-academic institutions will be included in your file, but will NOT be considered as one of the core letters.
External reviewers should be neutral to you and should NOT be former mentors, preceptors, colleagues or collaborators.
Confidentiality is imperative. Once the reviewer list has been submitted, the candidate cannot be informed as to who has responded or what response was received.
Faculty Affairs will the solicitation requests, once approved by the candidate’s chairman, unless the Department indicates that they will handle the solicitation process themselves. If this is the case, the Department is required to follow-up with Faculty Affairs and provide weekly updates.
You may have letters of support from internal colleagues and/or collaborators at other institutions but they will not count towards the required 5 letters for your packet.

19. Guidelines for Determining “arm’s length” Reviewers:
Reviewer Qualifications
Details
Is this reviewer a current or former mentor/mentee?
Former preceptors, thesis advisors, lab directors, or other industry experts that have had a role in your training and development are NOT considered arm’s-length. Former students, and/or post-graduate trainees are NOT considered arm’s-length.
Is the reviewer from your former institution and/or region?
In general, reviewers should NOT be from your former institution, regardless of professional relationship. Former faculty members, Chairs, Deans and/or colleagues who directly interacted with you in the course of your duties at your former institution(s) are NOT considered arm’s-length. Candidates should NOT list more than one reviewer from the same institution.
Is this reviewer a current or former supervisor?
Former lab directors, Chairs, Deans that directly supervised your duties and/or training at other institutions are NOT considered arm’s-length.
Is this reviewer a close collaborator?
If the reviewer has collaborated in a grant, published or been a co-applicant with you, within the last five years, the reviewer is NOT considered arm’s- length. Beyond that five year window, the reviewer may or may not be neutral depending on the nature of the relationship.
Is this reviewer a close personal friend or a relative?
If the reviewer has maintained a long-standing relationship that has extended beyond professional meetings or occasional communications, the reviewer is NOT considered arm’s-length.

20. General Timeline Event Estimated Date Survey Faculty January 2015
Initial document solicitation for candidates
January/February 2015
Solicitation letters sent out
March 2015
Responses from letters received
April – end of May 2015
Document compilation for each file
Final receipt of documents from faculty and department
End of May 2015
Departmental APT Committee Voting Meetings
June – August 2015
Completed files to Faculty Affairs
End of August 2015
SOM APT Committee File Review
September – October 2015
SOM APT Committee Meeting
End of October 2015
Dean’s review of files
November 2015
Coral Gables Academic Personnel Board Meeting
January – February 2016
Provost Review of files
February – March 2016
Board of Trustees Review of Files
April – May 2016
Results Announced (effective June 1, 2016)
May 2016

21. Mitzi Wilkinson, Director, Faculty Affairs
Resources/Contacts
Mitzi Wilkinson, Director, Faculty Affairs
Amanda Mesa, APT Coordinator
Faculty Affairs Website