Elena Fuentes-Afflick, M.D., M.P.H. Academic Advancement for Clinician-Educators: Secrets from the Dean’s Office 2/26/13 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 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 Teaching Research OR Research Teaching These faculty are permitted to have a significant imbalance in their distribution of activities across the 4 evaluation criteria. Usually, a faculty member in the Adjunct series either emphasizes: Research – in which the criteria for productivity, independence and significance are similar to those of the Ladder/In-Res series’ or Teaching – in which the criteria for “distinction in teaching” are similar to those in Ladder/ In-Res and Clinical / Clin X series’. Adjunct faculty engage in University/public service to the extent that it is consistent with their assignment. Teaching Research

HEALTH SCIENCES CLINICAL SERIES Creative activity “encouraged” See Departmental Guidelines Similar to Clinical X faculty – except even more imbalance because University guidelines state that creativity activity is “encouraged” – but the extent of the requirement is delegated to Departments to define at UCSF. Faculty in the HS Clin Prof series are primarily clinician-educators Outstanding: - Clinical competence - Teaching - Service

CLINICAL X SERIES Outstanding: - Clinical competence - Teaching Research / Creative Activity Criteria for evaluation are very similar to Ladder Rank – EXCEPT in the area of research / creative activity, where the requirements are not as stringent for productivity or independence. The majority of the % effort of faculty in this series is dedicated to clinical service and teaching. Outstanding: - Clinical competence - Teaching - Service Dissemination of scholarly work

LADDER RANK and IN-RESIDENCE SERIES Contribute with distinction: - Professional competence (clinical, if applicable) - Research - Teaching - Service (University, professional, public) Contribute with distinction in all aspects of University evaluation. Over next few slides – we’ll look at how your Dept Chair, your Dean and the campus will evaluate success in each of these areas.

Rules and Privileges Ladder Rank In Residence Clinical X Adjunct HS Clinical Tenure/length of Appointment Yes Varies* Yearly % time 100 Any Sabbatical/ Professional leave Yes** 8 year rule No*** Appraisal On request Academic Senate member 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

Evaluation Criteria

Academic Advancement 4 Criteria: - Teaching and mentoring - Research and/or creative activities - Professional competence - University & public service Weighting of Criteria: - Varies by series - Department-defined Sally told you the areas of academic review. Impt to understand that criteria are: Success in each category can actually “look different” depending upon the series. For example, Dr. Marshall is a ladder rank faculty member and success in research for her meant something very different than success in research & creative activity for me (a Clin X). Series-dependent – must understand how impt each of the criteria are to your particular series Department-defined – Chancellor and Deans have general framework for evaluating academic success – but the place that the academic “rubber meets the road” is within your department. For this reason, it is critical to understand how your departmental peers and Department Chair define success in each of the criteria. Will be instructive to look in more detail at each of these criteria to understand how your Dept Chair, Dean will evaluate your productivity – we’ll do this in the context of the different academic series. Departmental criteria may be exceed those used by the Campus, but they can never be less rigorous. If they are MORE rigorous, you better know about it. Ask – “Is there a department-specific document for advancement in my series?”

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

Professional Competence Not Applicable Needs Improvement Favorable Outstanding Overall Professional 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 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 Affairs Sally Marshall, PhD

ADVANCE Academic Personnel Review Department/Service Center Faculty cv, names of letter writers Department/Service Center Faculty ADVANCE ref letters teach eval fac vote Chair letter Academic Affairs Assoc/Vice Dean Dean eval VPAA CAP Report, decision

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