Understanding the Tenure and Promotion Process

Understanding the Tenure and Promotion Process
David Wm. Reed College of Agriculture and Life Sciences 2012

Faculty Workshops College of Agriculture and Life Sciences
Understanding the Promotion and Tenure Process March 20, 2012, 3 pm, AGLS Candidate Dossier Preparation Workshop April 25, 2012, time and place tba Administrative Dossier Preparation Workshop April 26, 2012, time and place tba Mentoring Beyond the Department one-on-one, anytime Dean of Faculties New Faculty Orientation, fall of every year. Demystifying Tenure and Promotion, March 9, 2012, Rudder 501 Is this the Right Time or Not? Preparing for Promotion to Full Professor, April 4, 2012, 2-4 pm, Rudder 701

Climbing the Professorial Ranks

Escalating Professorial Value Over Time The peak gets higher The climb gets steeper

You don’t get to the top by just doing our job! What is your “value added”? What is your “impact” outside your job? How have you advanced your field?

Is this your “time”? The Tenure and Promotion Clocks

TAMU Tenure Clock Assistant to Associate Probation Mid-Term Mandatory
Formula Calendar Year hired +3 = Mid-Term Review Year = Mid-Term Review Year Calendar Year hired + Probationary Period – 2 = Mandatory Year – 2 = 2017/2018 year Probation Mid-Term Mandatory Last Year 7 years 2015 2017 2019 6 years 2016 2018 5 years 2014? 4 years na 2014 3 years 2013

Mid-Term Review Mid-Term Review.
Required by TAMU and AgriLife Research Only required for 7-year probationary period Less than 7-year encouraged Review only goes to Department and Dean’s/Director’s level Timeline Year of Mid-Term Review: Year of hire +3 University Policy: March-December Timeline: March-May prep Dossier & Dept evaluation, June-July College-level evaluation, and complete report to faculty by end of summer.

Implications <7 Year Probationary Period
Mid-Term Mandatory Last Year 7 years 2015 2 year before mandatory 2017 (after 5 years) 2019 6 years Only 1 year before mandatory 2016 (after 4 years) 2018 5 years 2014 Only possible if have a 2-year mid-term review, which is only 1 year before mandatory review (after 3 years) 4 years na (after 2 years) 3 years 2013 I always recommend a 7-year probationary period. Allows time for a meaningful mid-term review Allows time for TAMUS accomplishments You can always request early review – at no “risk”!

AgriLife Research Promotion Clock
Assistant to Associate Professor Assistant to Associate Research Professor Formula Within 5 years of appointment and prior to the 6th year, e.g. a 5 Year Review (same as year of hire +7 -2) Decision Recommend promotion Recommend evaluation the following year. Recommend non-reappointment, with 1 year to relocate.

AgriLife Extension Promotion Clock
Assistant to Associate and Associate Professor to Professor Following appointment to the initial professorial ran, an Extension faculty member will annually be eligible for consideration at the next higher rank based on recommendation of the designated unit head. In Practice The timeline typically follows the TAMU timeline.

Early Evaluation – TAMU Tenure Clock
Can you request early evaluation? Yes Is it wise? Yes, if: The reward outweighs the risks. And, if you can handle the risks! Ask yourself : Why do I want to go up early? Is the decision terminal? No (This is one reason why I always suggest a probationary period of 7 years?)

TAMU Tenure Clock Extension to Probationary Period
Requires approval of Head, Dean and Dean of Faculties Usually 1 year Reasons: Certain leaves w/o pay or service <50% Medical Primary care of child, caregiver of relative Serious disruption beyond faculty members control

TAMU Tenure Clock Exceptions to Normal Requirements
One can request evaluation based on a sole criteria: Gifted and productive master teacher Exceptionally outstanding researcher Unselfish, distinctive and outstanding service Not very commonly requested. One has to be truly “gifted” and “exceptional”.

TAMU “Promotion Clock”
Associate Professor to Professor There is no “Clock” Individual decides when they want to be evaluated. What is the “Norm”? Historically, 12-14 total years in rank 5-7 years since promotion to Associate Is the decision terminal? No

Time in Rank FY0809 Dossiers Average % of all YES votes
Unanimous Majority Minority Yes No PROMOTION TO Associate Professor Professor +tenure VOTES - Aver. % YES 100% 95% 45% 93% 42% Years in Rank Assistant elsewhere 4 3 TAMUS 5 2 6 Associate elsewhere 10 Total 6.6 12 11 20

Associate Professor to Professor Associate Research to Research Professor Formula After 6 years in rank and prior to the 7th year, 6 Year Review after promotion, or 12 years total (5 year +1 year review time + 6 years) Decision Recommend promotion Recommend evaluation after 2 years

Associate Professor to Professor Associate Research to Research Professor If recommendation is Recommend evaluation after 2 years Second review after 8 years, but before the 9th year. Decision Recommend promotion Recommend remain in rank, unless evidence forthcoming in the future warrant additional consideration. Recommend non reappointment, with 1 year to relocate.

TAMU “Promotion” Clock
Associate Professor to Professor Can I go up “Early”? University rules – there is no chronological early. “Chronological Early” But some may consider “early” anytime before the “Norm” But, is there a developmental early? “Developmental Early” Anytime before it can be: “determined” that the candidate, independently and originally, has achieved the standards and expectations of promotion to Professor, and “demonstrated” the ability to sustain that level of performance.

Thinking of Going up Early “Best Management Practice”
Request a preliminary evaluation. By a mentor or senior faculty that knows the system. By Head and/or Departmental P&T Committee By the Associate Dean for Faculty Development (we’ll get to Evaluation Rubrics later)

The Review Process - Who Reviews Whom
Who determines if you deserving of promotion? To a large degree, your “Professor” colleagues.

Which level is the toughest test to pass?
Associate Professor and/or tenure Professor 3 Year Average VOTES - % YES Department Committee 96% 100% Head Resident Director College Committee 88% 94% Dean or Director Average % yes 92% 98% Toughest?

In what areas will you be evaluated?
Teaching Research Service (Extension)

In what areas will you be evaluated?
Teaching Sharing your knowledge with others, formal classroom teaching, and informal teaching (ex. guest lectures, short courses, special topics, graduate training). Research Original scholarship and creative contributions. Extension Extension education/programming/teaching. Service Contributions to your department, college, agency, university, societies, stakeholders, industry, public, etc.

How do you know if your achievements meet expectations?
Two Approaches to assess your achievements. Peer Expectations What are the current Professors looking for? Metric Expectations Compare your record to other faculty recently promoted or not promoted.

Peer Expectations Rank of Top Three Metrics and/or Accomplishments
Assistant to Associate Professor

Assistant to Associate Professor Teaching % Ranked in top 3 Student Evaluations 82% Teach Undergrad and Grad 36% Peer Evaluation 27% Teaching improvement activities 27% Teaching proportional to appointment 27% Evaluation improve over time 18% Graduate Chair Masters and PhD 18% Graduate Committees 9% New Unique Courses Developed 9% Student Advising 9%

Assistant to Associate Professor Research % Ranked in top 3 Articles Peer-reviewed/refereed 91% Grants-competitive (to maintain program) 91% Abstracts/presentation at scientific meetings 27% Graduate student training 27% Team/Collaborative research 18% Involvement in societies/meetings 18% Evidence of regional recognition 18% Articles non-peer reviewed 9% Graduate students publish 9% Potential for national recognition 9% Impact of Research 9% Patents, copyrights, releases 9% Awards Research 9%

Assistant to Associate Professor Extension / Service % Ranked in top 3 Scholarly extension appropriate publications 45% Grants-competitive (to maintain program) 36% Involvement in societies/meetings 36% Demonstrate impact of programming 27% Regional and state recognition 27% Service activities within TAMU 27% Deliver info based on science 18% Graduate student training 18% Articles Peer-reviewed/refereed 9% Demonstrate demand for programs 9% Involvement clientele, commodity groups, etc. 9% Team/collaborative relationships 9% Potential for national recognition 9%

Metrics, Accomplishments and Characteristics of Recent Dossiers
Metric Expectations Metrics, Accomplishments and Characteristics of Recent Dossiers

Metric Expectations Metrics, Accomplishments and Characteristics of Recent Dossiers Associate Professor +tenure Professor 2008 2009 TEACHING Undergraduate courses/year 1.6 1.1 Graduate courses/year 1.7 1.2 3.0 0.8 Student Evaluations 4.5 4.42 4.41 4.4 Dept Average 4.51 4.56 % of Dept Average 101% 98% 97% 99% Balanced mix > Grad

Metric Expectations Metrics, Accomplishments and Characteristics of Recent Dossiers Associate Professor +tenure Professor 2008 2009 TEACHING Undergraduate courses/year 1.6 1.1 Graduate courses/year 1.7 1.2 3.0 0.8 Student Evaluations 4.5 4.42 4.41 4.4 Dept Average 4.51 4.56 % of Dept Average 101% 98% 97% 99% You don’t want to be < dept aver.

Metric Expectations Metrics, Accomplishments and Characteristics of Recent Dossiers Associate Professor +tenure Professor 2008 2009 GRADUATE TRAINING Chair/Co-Chair: Masters 3 11 9 Chair/Co-Chair: PhD 4 6 7 Committee: Masters Committee: PhD 5 Balanced mix 2-3X

Metric Expectations Metrics, Accomplishments and Characteristics of Recent Dossiers Associate Professor +tenure Professor 2008 2009 PUBLICATIONS Refereed Journal Articles 16 29 (19) 57 38 Since Last Promotion 25 19 Senior Author 7 10 18 Graduate Stu. Authors 4 5 12 Abstracts 24 46 34 37 Non-Ref./Editor Review 6 Books/Chapters 2 9 Extension/Industry Pubs 1 3 Balanced mix

Metric Expectations Metrics, Accomplishments and Characteristics of Recent Dossiers Refereed Publications Associate Professor and/or Tenure Professor 3 Year Average (2008, 2009, 2010) Mean 22 56 2-3X

Metric Expectations Metrics, Accomplishments and Characteristics of Recent Dossiers Refereed Publications Associate Professor and/or Tenure Professor 3 Year Average (2008, 2009, 2010) Mean 22 56 Median 18 45 2-3X

Metric Expectations Metrics, Accomplishments and Characteristics of Recent Dossiers Refereed Publications Associate Professor and/or Tenure Professor 3 Year Average (2008, 2009, 2010) Mean 22 56 Median 18 45 Range 9 to 69 30 to 120 2-3X

Metric Expectations 2-3X Grants
Metrics, Accomplishments and Characteristics of Recent Dossiers Grants Associate Professor and/or Tenure Professor 3 Year Average (2008, 2009, 2010) External Competitive Internal Competitive or Non-Competitive Mean $861,500 $101,506 $2,148,717 $111,941 2-3X

Metrics, Accomplishments and Characteristics of Recent Dossiers Grants Associate Professor and/or Tenure Professor 3 Year Average (2008, 2009, 2010) External Competitive Internal Competitive or Non-Competitive Mean $861,500 $101,506 $2,148,717 $111,941 Median $722,455 $36,000 $1,775,187 $56,172 2-3X

Metrics, Accomplishments and Characteristics of Recent Dossiers Grants Associate Professor and/or Tenure Professor 3 Year Average (2008, 2009, 2010) External Competitive Internal Competitive or Non-Competitive Mean $861,500 $101,506 $2,148,717 $111,941 Median $722,455 $36,000 $1,775,187 $56,172 Range $82K to $3.1 M $0 to $390K $590-$4.1M $0 to $734K 2-3X

Metric Expectations Metrics, Accomplishments and Characteristics of Recent Dossiers Associate Professor +tenure Professor 2008 2009 INTELLEC. PROP. # Cultivar or Germplasm 0.1 2 # of Patents 1 SIGNIFICANT RECOG. Need for National Recognition # Awards and Honors 0.6 5 Officer, Editor, Fellow, Grant Reviewer, etc. 0.4 4

Assess Your Progress Rubrics Peer Expectation Rubric
Metric Evaluation Rubric

PEER EXPECTATION RUBRIC Promotion - Assistant to Associate Professor
Rank of Top Three Metrics & Accomplishments (Survey: Former Members of the Ag Program Peer Review Committee, 2008) Promotion - Assistant to Associate Professor % Ranked Above Below Teaching in top 3 Average Comments Student Evaluations 82% Teach Undergrad and Grad 36% Peer Evaluation 27% Teaching improvement activities Teaching proportional to appointment Evaluations improve over time 18% Graduate Chair Masters and PhD Graduate Committees 9% New Unique Courses Developed Student Advising Sub-Total Research Articles Peer-reviewed/refereed 91% Grants-competitive (to maintain program) Abstracts/presentation at scientific meetings Graduate student training Team/Collaborative research Involvement in societies/meetings Evidence of regional recognition Articles non-peer reviewed Graduate students publish Potential for national recognition Impact of Research Patents, copyrights, releases Awards Research Extension and Service Scholarly extension appropriate publications 45% Demonstrate impact of programming Regional and state recognition Service activities within TAMU Deliver info based on science Demonstrate demand for programs Involvement clientele, commodity groups, etc. Team/collaborative relationships Total

Peer Metrics Rubric METRICS RUBRIC
Summary of Metrics and/or Accomplishments (From Analysis of T&P Packets FY ) Promotion - Assistant to Associate Professor % % Appointment Appointment Teaching 60% 50% 40% Research Extension 0% - Years in Rank Years Assistant elsewhere 4 TAMUS 5 4.2 6 Associate elsewhere Total 6.6 Analysis FY0809 Dossiers Dossier is Most Similar to Unanimous Majority % Yes % No Yes No 100% 95% 55% TEACHING Undergraduate courses/year 2.1 1.2 0.8 Graduate courses/year 2.0 1.5 0.5 Student Evaluations 4.62 4.40 4.49 Dept Average 4.51 4.45 % of Dept Average 102% 101% Student Advising GRADUATE STUDENT TRAINING Chair/Co-Chair: Masters 2 Chair/Co-Chair: PhD 3 1 Committee: Masters 7 Committee: PhD PUBLICATIONS Refereed Journal Articles 16 11 Since Last Promotion Senior Author 8 Graduate Students Authors Abstracts 25 24 17 Non-Refereed or Editor reviewed 9 Books/Chapters Extension/Industry Publications GRANTS AND CONTRACTS (allocated to your program) to neasest $50k External Competitive Total -$ 1,000s $ $ $ Internal Total - $1,000s $ $ $ External Competitive $ 1,000s Internal $1,000s SIGNIFICANT RECOGNITION # Awards and Honors Society Officer, Editor, Fellow, etc. Sum

Mentoring Beyond the Department

May you never be able to say:
Mentoring Beyond the Department College of Agriculture and Life Sciences Understanding the Promotion and Tenure Process Candidate Dossier Preparation Workshop Administrative Dossier Preparation Workshop One-on-One Mentoring Beyond the Department Dean of Faculties New Faculty Orientation Demystifying Tenure and Promotion Is this the Right Time or Not? Preparing for Promotion to Full Professor May you never be able to say: “I wish I had been told”

Understanding the Tenure and Promotion Process

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Understanding the Tenure and Promotion Process"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Understanding the Tenure and Promotion Process

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Understanding the Tenure and Promotion Process"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback