Elizabeth R. Jacobs, M.D. Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine The Promotion Process at the Medical College of Wisconsin September 19 th, 2006

Navigating the Promotion Process at MCW Promotion Pathways- –The new 4 th option Promotion Process Promotion DOs and DON’Ts

Rank & Tenure Committee –Composition Eric Cohen, MD (Nephrology) Chair Julie Biller, MD (Pulmonary Medicine) Owen Griffith, PhD (Biochemistry) Cecilia Hillard, PhD (Pharmacology) John Klein, PhD (HPI-Biostatistics) Dennis Maiman, MD (Neurosurgery) Karen Marcdante, MD (Pediatrics) Hershel Raff, PhD (Endocine) Jeanne Seagaard, PhD (Anesthesiology) James Sebastian, MD (General Medicine)

Promotion Criteria Traditional Track History of independent research funding and peer reviewed publications Service to MCW (committees, councils) Established reputation –Associate Professor: Regional –Professor: National

Promotion Criteria Research Track Independent funding and publications Role in defined research program or direct core facility Role in research training Reputation –Associate Professor: Regional –Professor: National

Promotion Criteria Clinician Educator Excellence in teaching/education Excellence in clinical practice Scholarship –Development/dissemination of materials –Publications Clinical observations Education Service to institution

Background to definition of a 4 th promotional pathway Expansion of the clinical enterprise critical to overall mission of MCW. Faculty providing high amounts of clinical care and administration may not “fit” current paths. Chusid Ad Hoc Committee recommended a 4 th academic pathway. Dean appointed an ad hoc committee to review rationale for (and against) creation of a 4 th pathway- including examination of experience from other academic institutions- and to determine criteria for promotion in this pathway.

The Fourth Track Academic Clinician Pathway was approved in spring Faculty with appointments in this pathway will have titles of the form: Assistant Professor of Clinical XXX (e.g. Orthopedic Medicine). For faculty with predominantly clinical or administrative responsibilities (>80%) Faculty in this pathway are not eligible for tenure Anticipated time to promotion from first faculty appointment is 10 years

Faculty in the Academic Clinician Path should spend a preponderance of time and should have attained substantial expertise in clinical care and/or clinical administration. Evidence of accomplishment includes items such as, but not necessarily limited to: quality of care indicators, patient satisfaction measures, the development of a referral base, the development of clinical care pathways. They should additionally have demonstrated a sustained commitment to and excellence in teaching. Evidence of accomplishment includes teaching awards or demand for clinical rotations by trainees. The Fourth Track- Academic Clinician

Board certification in the appropriate specialty is expected. Service to the college or clinical practice partners, such as committee participation, is desirable. For those whose position includes a substantial clinical administrative role, evidence of the performance of the clinical program or group is considered. The Fourth Track- Academic Clinician- continued

Well before the first step in the promotion process in every pathway…. Review your progress and plan with your Chair on a regular basis- no less than once a year. When you identify areas in which your objective accomplishments are weak, define a plan and time frame in which to address these weakness.

Five Steps of Promotion Process Internal Promotions Committee reviews Nomination by Chair submitted Office of Faculty Affairs prepares packet R&T committee reviews materials and renders decision Final approval by Dean & MCW Board of Directors

Deadlines: For July 1 st implementation Traditional Path and all tenure: Oct 1 st Clinician Educator, Academic Clinician & Research: Jan 1 st For updated guidelines, more information and MCW CV format, see website:

Promotion Process: You and Your Chair You provide updated CV –Use MCW format ONLY Chair provides letter of support –Detailing merit based on criteria for track and rank –You should provide detailed outline of your accomplishments in areas of focus for your Chair Names of referees –At least 4 internal –2-7 external (depends on track/rank) Reprints of 2 “representative” publications

Solicits letters from the referees. Referees are provided Full packet (including portfolio) Outline of what areas they are to address in their letters MCW promotion criteria for rank and track. When the reference letters are received, the packet is sent to the R&T Committee. Office of Faculty Affairs

Rank and Tenure Committee R&T committee members review packet –May request additional information –If need additional info, tables review Votes on proposed action Majority (  6 of 11) required for action –Positive or negative

The Dean and Board Positive Vote Dean notified –Can overturn a positive, not negative vote If Dean approves, sent to MCW Board of Directors If Board approves, promotion takes effect July 1 st.

Negative Vote R&T sends letter to chair –Outlining reasons for denial Must wait until next academic year Appeal process –Chair submits significant new information –Or appeals to committee in person

Tenure Available to faculty in traditional and clinician/educator tracks Same criteria for both tracks, decision separate from promotion decision Faculty must be VITAL to MCW missions (clinical, education, research) Rarely given below rank of Professor

No “Up or out policy” (promotion to Assoc Prof after 6 yrs as Asst Prof) Positive: More career flexibility Negative: Stagnation at Asst Prof level MCW = State schools

Tenure not granted at Assoc Prof (is granted at State-Supported Universities) Positive: Less financial obligation for MCW Negative:Chance of obtaining tenure may be lower MCW = State schools

Portfolios Way to highlight achievements that are not easy to depict in a CV No more than 10 single sided pages Should highlight “themes” of your career

Educator’s Portfolio

Portfolio Example for New Track Patients seen in Pulmonary Clinic Sabbatical year

EP: Example Implementation of protocol

Promotion “DOs” Be prepared –Plan early and review often Get input from colleagues, mentors, chairs Just being here for a long time does not warrant promotion

Promotion “DOs” Use the MCW format for CV Provide complete, accurate information Be sure your accomplishments are clearly conveyed –Use explicit descriptions such as “1 of 10 highlighted oral presentations at a national meeting of >10,000 attendees” –Consider using a portfolio Send your best publications

Promotion “DOs” Choose referees carefully –At or above level of promotion (academicians) –Local: not just all from your section/dept –National: not all from your training –Contact them first, ask if they can write “good” letter –Let them know what to highlight (from what they know about you)

Promotion “DON’Ts” Procrastinate –Keep CV and portfolio updated Allow typos, incorrect grammar, incomplete citations Include “wish list” –Submitted publications, “approved but not funded grants” Mix abstracts, chapters, papers

Promotion “DON’Ts” Ask for letters from “Harvard-types” –Asked “Would candidate be promoted at your institution?” Ask for letters from members of the R&T committee –If they write a letter, they have to leave for discussion and vote

Summary Promotion is the recognition of your peers based on faculty approved criteria You are responsible for preparing the documentation needed –Ask for help from the “experts” It is not a “secret ritual”. The committee doesn’t look for reasons not to promote YES