1. 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

2. 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.

3. Policies

4. Academic Personnel Manual (APM)

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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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.

17. 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

18. Evaluation Criteria

19. 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?”

20. Teaching and Mentoring
Not Applicable
Needs Improvement
Favorable
Outstanding
Overall
Student/trainee/mentee evaluations
Peer Evaluations
Teaching and Mentoring

21. 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

22. 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”

23. 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

24. Professional Competence
Not Applicable
Needs Improvement
Favorable
Outstanding
Overall
Professional Competence

25. University and Public Service
Not Applicable
Needs Improvement
Favorable
Outstanding
Overall
Department/School/ Campus/Hospital
Professional (Local and National)
UC/System-wide
Community

26. 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

27. 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

28. 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)

29. 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

30. Academic Affairs Review
Review the advancement history
Review the ‘packet’
Recommendation
Approve
Disapprove
Other

31. 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

32. Vice Provost for Academic Affairs Sally Marshall, PhD

33. 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

34. 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.

35. 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

36. 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

37. 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

38. 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

39. Guidelines for 2- or 3-year acceleration
Rare
Much more difficult
Usually based on retention or extraordinary achievements
CAP approval required

43. 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.

44. Characteristics of Success

45. 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