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. 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 Resources Popular topics: Benefits, Diversity, Mentoring, Problem resolution Urgent issues: Impairment, Improper conduct, Suicide prevention CCFL: Faculty development, faculty enrichment

UCSF Faculty Appointments Series 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 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 and IN-RESIDENCE SERIES Contribute with distinction: - Professional competence (clinical, if applicable) - Research - Teaching - Service (University, professional, public)

Ladder Rank In Residence Clinical XAdjunctHS Clinical Tenure/length of Appointment YesVaries*Yearly % time100 Any Sabbatical/ Professional leave YesYes** 8 year ruleYes No*** AppraisalYes On request Academic Senate member Yes 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 Advancement 4 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 FavorableOutstanding 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 FavorableOutstanding 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 FavorableOutstanding Overall Professional Competence

University and Public Service Not Applicable Needs Improvement FavorableOutstanding 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

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