Promotion to Full Professor What, how, why, when, … Nancy Amato Texas A&M Liz Bradley University of Colorado

Agenda Introductions Career paths: examples Criteria & procedures Planning for promotion Discussion

Liz’s trajectory 1992 PhD in EE/CS (MIT) Jan 1993 Assistant Professor at CU 1999 Promotion to Associate with tenure; chair of athletics committee 2003 Chair 2004 Promotion to Full 2006 Complete burnout Well-timed sabbatical 2008 Becoming productive again…

Nancy’s trajectory 1995 PhD in CS (UIUC) Jan 1995 start as Assistant Professor at Texas A&M –Sept 1996: husband starts as Asst Prof at Texas A&M in same Dept –May 1997: refuse ``opportunity’’ to have an extra year for tenure September 2000 Promotion to Associate with tenure –Sept 2003: sabbatical starts :-) September 2004 Promotion to Full –Dec 2004: sabbatical ends :-( January May 2006: Graduate Advisor –January 2005-present: Department P&T Committee –September 2008-present: College P&T Committee –September 2010: next sabbatical !

Criteria for Full Professor Leadership role in research in teaching in service This can come with some risks, but you have tenure and can afford to take some now – don’t be afraid to take advantage of this freedom - enjoy it!

Criteria for Full Professor Leadership role in research in teaching in service This can come with some risks, but you have tenure and can afford to take some now – don’t be afraid to take advantage of this freedom - enjoy it!

The Procedure at CU & Texas A&M No deadline Faculty member initiates Dean = gatekeeper (CU only) Same general process as tenure: statements, external letters, multiple measures of teaching

Planning for promotion Assume leadership positions, but understand the risks Demonstrate leadership in research –Chair/Serve on review panels and program committees –Assume leadership role in collaborations, mentor junior faculty, place your students well –Organize visible research events, e.g., workshops at conferences –Caution: quality IS important Network - raise your visibility & cultivate potential referees –Go give talks (don’t be shy - invite yourself!) –Invite colleagues you want to know better to visit you –Collaborate –Get involved in professional societies, e.g., ACM, IEEE, CRA-W - select activities aligned with your research

Planning for promotion, cont. Get involved in P&T –Mentor junior faculty; write tenure letters –If possible, participate in tenure cases –Get on college/higher review committees –Policies differ between institutions Assess the landscape –Talk to the full professors, especially those on your dept P&T committee –Discuss your progress with your chair/head If you’re told you’re not ready, ask why –Get feedback from people who have been involved in promotion cases, at dept & college levels –Look at the CVs of recently promoted colleagues, also those of colleagues who you know were not successful

Planning for promotion, cont. Keep good records (CV, teaching, …) –Keep your webpage updated! Work with a mentor Do for yourself; learn to say “no” Don’t spread yourself thin; build a coherent research area Make sure you’re having fun doing it! –Select things you have an interest in and passion for - this is where you will naturally lead and have impact

Choose Service that Matters l Cost/benefit analysis + better environment + visibility + connections – stress – time l Just say “no” to the “should’s” Personal Professional CRA-W Journal Editor SIG Board Space comm Ugrad Mentoring Admit comm Somebody “should”

Discussion points When to go up for full? Moving into power without ruffling feathers Chair/administration position timing Non-monotonic progress Research, teaching, service …? Non-stationary criteria

The conference proceedings issue Snippet from a chair’s letter that LizB wrote for a tenure case: It is important to note that publication records of computer scientists who do experimental studies often look unbalanced to reviewers from other fields because of their heavy emphasis on conference and workshop papers. This issue arose so frequently around the country that the National Research Council commissioned a study of publication practices in experimental computer science (Academic Careers for Experimental Computer Scientists and Engineers, National Academy Press, Washington, 1994). The findings showed that selected conferences are the preferred publication venues for researchers in this area. Because of their quicker turnaround and high quality, coupled with the rapid speed of developments in this field, these conferences are considered as or more important than the associated journals, and the study recommends that reviewers take this into account when evaluating the work of such researchers. The newness of the XXXX field amplifies this effect in XXX's case, as many of the preferred venues in this field are still running in workshop form. See also engineering.colorado.edu/facultystaff/faculty_reappointment.htm

When a promotion is not successful At the departmental level –Try to get constructive feedback At a higher level –Did the department make a good case? How to handle the disappointment –anger, withdrawal, considering leaving, shrugging it off