1. RTP Workshop April 2015

2. Myth I didn’t have enough time to work on my one-of-a-kind file but it really doesn’t matter, does it? After all, it’s the content that counts. Reality It is very important that your materials be well organized, so that reviewers can easily locate documents and have more time to focus on reviewing them. If your student evaluations are missing or out of order, they may not be able to assess your teaching effectiveness fully and accurately. The University Panel reviews 60-70 cases in a six-week period, and the Provost may review well over 100 files. As teachers, we know how much it helps us when our students turn in clear and organized papers and projects. Extend your colleagues the same courtesy.

3. Myth The validation process isn’t really important – no one cares. Reality Validation is a crucial step in the process. You should provide as much evidence as possible for your validator for the items that appear on your cv and in your file. If you say something is submitted, you should be able to show evidence of submission or an acknowledgement from a publisher. Similarly, if you cite a review of your work, have a copy of the review. If you have a conference paper listed, have the program handy. The initial validation establishes the baseline for your cv and verifies changes in your cv from the hiring process. In subsequent years, typically only new items or items that have changed status will need to be validated.

4. Myth Teaching doesn’t count for tenure and promotion at SDSU. Reality According to the University Policy File “the primary qualification for reappointment, tenure, or promotion shall be a demonstration of continuing excellence in teaching.” Peer committees and administrators take evidence of effective teaching very seriously when making their recommendations. Faculty members have been denied reappointment, tenure and/or promotion on the basis of teaching performance that does not meet the university’s expectations.

5. Myth All reviewers care about are student evaluation scores. Reality Reviewers base their recommendations on a wide range of indicators of teaching effectiveness. Among the factors they typically consider are peer reviews, syllabi, honors and distinctions, curriculum development, use of new technologies, involving students in research or creative activity, and student mentoring and advising. Student evaluations are a required element of the process, but not the only one. Numerical scores are important because they are quantifiable and easily compared against department averages, but reviewers depend heavily upon written comments which can provide a context for the numbers.

6. Myth A senior faculty member told me that I should put as much stuff in my one-of-a-kind file as I could. She said that committees count the number of pages, and the more you have the better your chances. Reality Our RTP process emphasizes selectivity and quality, not quantity. In your Personal Data Summary (PDS) you are limited to a three- page personal statement and discussion of no more than five achievements in each of the three major categories of evaluation: teaching effectiveness, professional growth, and service (PF, 7.0). Each discussion is meant to cover one separate achievement: one teaching award, one publication, one grant proposal, not a grouping of, for example, several separate achievements under the title, “grant applications.”

7. Myth I had one really difficult class last year, and got lousy student evaluations. I’ll be penalized in the RTP process. Reality Every faculty member’s evaluations fluctuate somewhat throughout the years. Reviewers consider consistency or improvement across a number of courses and semesters as a measure of overall excellence. If it is relevant, use your candidate’s statement to provide a context for or explanation of a poor course evaluation. For example, if it was the first time you had taught that material or the students were unable to get the textbook through no fault of your own, explain that.

8. Myth Only articles in refereed journals count for professional growth. Reality The Policy File states: “Evidence for evaluating professional growth, as identified and defined in department or school and college guidelines, shall comprise: externally reviewed professional growth activities including, as a primary and necessary element, refereed publications of merit, or juried or curated exhibitions and performances.” Disciplinary expectations of professional growth criteria differ. In some, original research must be published in refereed journals; in others, the most recognized form of publication is a scholarly book. And in the creative and performing arts, publication may not be relevant at all. Individual in one field may not always understand professional growth activities in others. That is why our review process is so rigorous. In the end, the professional growth criteria are applied fairly and equitably to everyone. It’s up to you provide the best possible information regarding the standards in the field, the quality of the publications, and the method of refereeing (“blind” review typically is valued most highly) to assist committees in determining the quality of the work.

9. Myth Another colleague told me I should solicit letters from friends and students and put them in my WPAF. Reality There is no place in the WPAF for testimonials. If there are special circumstances that make your case unusual, you may wish to request an external review of your record. Some colleges or departments require an external review for candidates going up for tenure and/or promotion. Consult with your department chair or the chair of the department peer review committee for information about how to request or initiate an external review. And remember, an external reviewer is an academic professional whose appointment is outside SDSU.

10. Myth My mentor also told me not to let my PDS get stale, to put new items every year to show my progress. She also said I must have one example of every type of item. Reality The selection of the five items to illustrate your overall record in the three areas is one of the most important decisions you can make. There is no requirement that you change the items every year, although you do want to include recent work to show evidence of continuous professional growth. Take the opportunity each year to update the status of an item: from a concept to a submission to an acceptance to a publication. Show your breadth within the categories, especially for those types of items most highly valued in your discipline. For example, if you have major journal publications, refereed papers at prestigious conferences, and funded grants, you might want to include examples of each. But use common sense: if you have published five articles in the most competitive journals in your field by the time you apply for tenure, you would certainly want to select most or all of these as your five items. For service, a university, college or department committee, judging a competition, a talk to a community group, etc.

11. Myth I don’t have a lot of professional growth, but I’ve done a lot of service work for my department. I’ve heard that the Policy File says I can get extra credit for service to make up for my research record. Reality The Policy File says: “When a tenured candidate distinguishes herself or himself in performing such duties to the significant benefit of the university and/or beyond, and when this performance is appropriately documented over a significant time, such service for the university shall have more than the usual bearing on reappointment, tenure, and promotion decisions” (3.3). This exception is applied rarely and only to recognize truly exceptional service carried out by tenured associate professors over a very long period of time. While good or even excellent service is appreciated, it cannot substitute for an inadequate professional growth or teaching record in the case of a probationary faculty member.

12. Myth The standards for tenure are higher for those going up for tenure prior to the sixth probationary year, “early tenure,” and only work done at SDSU counts. Reality At SDSU, tenure is awarded when the candidate has demonstrated that he or she has met the university’s criteria in teaching effectiveness, professional growth, and service. The Policy File states that “the entire professional record of the candidate shall be considered, including accomplishments prior to appointment at this university” (6.0). It also says that “work developed or sustained while serving at this university shall be essential to the award of tenure and/or promotion.” The PDS form calls for the submission of evidence of teaching effectiveness from the most recent six semesters. The process carefully balances the entire record with evidence of continued accomplishments while at SDSU. Everything you have done will appear in your CV and can be discussed in your candidate’s statement. That is the most appropriate place to discuss important work you did prior to appointment at SDSU. When it comes to selecting the five items, there are no hard and fast rules, only the exercise of good judgment. Remember that the five items selected are the only items that are reviewed in detail, so they will have substantial impact on the understanding of your candidacy.

13. Myth Higher-level recommendations count more. You don’t have a chance if the Dean, for example, overturns the department’s decision Reality Each recommendation, from the department peer review committee to the University Promotions and Tenure Review Panel, is independent Every recommendation and rebuttal will be given full weight. Only the Provost makes a decision. Myth I didn’t get a very good letter from the dean. A colleague at another university told me I should make an appointment to talk to the Provost to present my case in a better light. Reality RTP at San Diego State is based on the file that makes its way through the process. Each level of review must base its recommendation or decision on what is in the Personnel Action File, which includes the Working Personnel Action File. Nothing outside the file can be considered: no gossip, no testimonials, no side conversations. Peer review committee members and administrators should not discuss an RTP case with anyone except as required by the Policy File. Under no circumstances would the Provost hold a conversation with anyone about an ongoing case.

14. 10+ Things to Avoid Submitting a sloppy, unorganized, or inaccurate WPAF. Writing the personal statement in jargon understood only by experts in your discipline or sub-discipline. Not using the personal statement effectively to contextualize issues or idiosyncrasies in your record. Not providing documentation during the validation process. Not observing the “five-item” rule, and grouping several items together. Not providing departmental averages for student evaluations, or providing the wrong ones for comparison. Not providing evidence of refereeing especially for creative activity and for books and book chapters. Not including the quality of journal publications (such as acceptance rates, citations, impact factors, etc.) in your description of the item. Not providing copies of manuscripts for five professional growth items, especially if they are submitted or in press. Not providing an explanation of co-authorship or co-Principal Investigator in your description of the item. Not providing clear documentation for service activities. Not using the late add process effectively.

15. ?