Preparing for Promotion Advice from the Rank & Tenure Committee Karen Marcdante, MD Medical College of Wisconsin

Questions for Faculty How is excellence in academic faculty recognized? With all the tasks I’m asked to do, who makes sure that I will advance? How do others know that I am productive?

Objectives for Today Describe Promotion Tracks/Pathways Explain the process for Promotion Provide some DOs and DONTs

Rank & Tenure Committee Composition Bruce Campbell, MD (Otolaryngology) Eric Cohen (Nephrology) Julie Biller, MD (Pulmonary Medicine) Owen Griffith, PhD (Biochemistry) Cecilia Hillard, PhD (Pharmacology) Karen Marcdante, MD (Pediatrics) (chair) Marlene Melzer-Lange (Pediatrics) Frank Pintar, PhD (Neurosurgery) Hershel Raff, PhD (Endocrine) Jeanne Seagard, PhD (Anesthesiology) Craig Young, MD (Orthopedics/Sport Med)

The Promotion Tracks “Traditional” Clinician-Educator Research Academic Clinician

Promotion Criteria Demonstrated excellence and achievement in Scholarship/research Teaching Service Amount and type of activity varies by track

The Tracks: Expected Effort Clinician- Educator Traditional

The Tracks: Expected Effort Academic Clinician Research

The Promotion Process You’re Promoted! Departmental review Chair proposed faculty for promotion Packet Preparation for Committee Rank & Tenure Committee Review Dean/Board of Directors Approval You’re Promoted!

Deadlines: For July 1st implementation October 1st: Traditional Path and all tenure January 1st: Clinician Educator, Research, Academic Clinician For updated guidelines, more information and MCW CV format , see website: http://www.mcw.edu/facaffairs

What to provide when proposed Updated CV Updated portfolio (CE/AC tracks +?) Names of referees Two representative publications

Number of referees Research Path Clinician Educator Path Academic Clinician Path Traditional Assoc Professor Internal External 4 5 2 4* Professor 7 6*

Selecting Referees All letters Diversity is good Best if referee at/above proposed rank Speak to impact of your work Diversity is good Internal letters Not all from your section Outside of your department if possible External letters Not all from your training institution

Preparing the Packet (Office of Faculty Affairs) Solicits letters from the referees. Referees are provided Full packet (including portfolio) MCW promotion criteria for rank and track. When the minimum # of letters are received, the packet is sent to the R&T Committee.

R & T Committee Review R&T committee members receive packet (CV, letters, portfolio, articles) May request additional information If need additional info, proposal is tabled Votes on proposed action Majority ( 6 of 11) required for action Accept or reject proposed promotion

R&T Committee review Careful review of activities and productivity, letters, products Comparison to requirements Strong focus on promoting when possible Discussion of quality, quantity, criteria

What we look for: Traditional Track Independent research funding Peer review publications Service (committees, councils) Teaching activities Evidence of reputation Associate Professor: Regional/National Professor: National/International

What we look for: Clinician Educator Track Excellence in teaching/education and clinical practice Scholarship Development/dissemination of materials Publications Service to institution (MCW/hospital) Evidence of reputation Associate Professor: Regional Professor: National

What we look for: Research Track Independent funding and publications Role in research program/core facility Role in research training Evidence of reputation Associate Professor: Regional Professor: National

What we look for: Academic Clinician Track Excellence in clinical practice, program development Excellence in teaching (lower volume) Time in rank (not sole factor) Asst  Associate Professor: 10 years Assoc  Professor:  5 years Service to institution (MCW/Hospital)

Types of Evidence CV Provides useful information if done well Includes entries that may not be understood by committee Consider annotations as needed

CV examples New Investigator Award Research in Medical Education Central Group on Educational Affairs of the Association of American Medical Colleges Competitive award, selected by medical education researchers based on abstract and presentation

CV Examples 30 hours/year Introduction to Clinical Medical (M1) (the Medical Interview) 10 hours/year Bioethics Small Group Facilitator (M2) 7 hrs/rotation 8 rotations/yr Case-based Interactive Learning Sessions: Pediatric interview and child development, SP evaluation (M3) Provides an idea of time commitment

Portfolios Used most often in Clinician Educator but can be provided by anyone Contains additional evidence not easy to incorporate into CV Examples of your best work that demonstrate your impact

Portfolio Example: Teaching Student Teaching Evaluations: Dr. Nelson compared to other faculty

Portfolio Example: Clinical Year gone on sabbatical

Portfolio Example: Administration Role: Facilitator, OSCE program development Activities: Developed 12 OSCE stations Implemented OSCE evaluation Developed teaching OSCE, video OSCE Student rating: 90% rate it as excellent Products: OSCE evaluation system (reliability 0.69-.89) 2 peer reviewed national presentations 1 publication

Portfolio Example: Academic Clinician - QI

Tenure Awarded to individuals deemed “vital” to missions For accomplishments beyond achieving academic recognition Reflects exceptional, continuous contributions Available for Traditional and Clinician Educator paths only Granted independent of promotion

What we look for: Tenure decisions Evidence of how you are VITAL to MCW missions Identified by internal AND external referees What would happen if faculty wasn’t present Rarely given below rank of Professor

The Dean and Board Positive Vote Dean notified Can overturn a positive, not negative vote If Dean approves, sent to MCW Board of Directors If Board approves, promotion takes effect July 1st.

Negative Vote R&T sends letter to chair Reasons for denial Must wait until next academic year to resubmit Appeal process Chair submits significant new information Or appeals to committee in person

Promotion and MCW culture No “Up or out” policy Tenure rarely granted at Associate Professor level Different from state institutions Goal of the committee = Promotion Work with department to optimize chance Still need evidence of excellence

Promotion “DOs” Start preparing NOW Get input from others Collect evidence Keep CV up to date Get input from others Colleagues, mentors, chairs Know the criteria

Promotion “DOs”: When submitting Use MCW format for CV/portfolio Provide complete, accurate information Don’t assume others know what you do Consider annotating CV Use portfolio if CV insufficient to demonstrate contributions Send your best publications

Promotion “DOs”: When submitting Select referees carefully Talk with them personally (not via email) Consider what they know and can comment on At or above proposed rank Can comment on whether you would be promoted at their institution (external) Include Key people in your career

Promotion “DON’Ts” Submit incomplete/sloppy materials Include “wish list” Submitted papers, grants, etc Assume we’ll know anything about you

Promotion “DON’Ts” Ask for a letter from a member of R&T Can’t vote for you if wrote a letter Make it difficult for committee to see your value

Summary Know criteria for promotion in your track Deliberately pursue the criteria Follow the process to provide best evidence Pay attention to the details (Dos and Don’ts)

Summary Promotion and Tenure decisions based on evidence of excellence Need to provide best, clear documentation Ask for help from experts on preparation Goal is to promote when prepared