The Promotion Process Presentation of the Rank & Tenure Committee Cecilia Hillard, PhD Chair, Rank and Tenure Committee Medical College of Wisconsin

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

Stephen Duncan, PhD (Cell Biology) Joseph Layde, MD (Psychiatry) Michael Quasney, MD, PhD (Pediatrics) Frank Pintar, PhD (Neurosurgery) Wai-Meng Kwok, PhD (Anesthesiology) Craig Young, MD (Orthopedics/Sports Med) Karen Brasel, MD (Surgery) Dara Frank, PhD (Microbiology) Jeffrey Whittle, MD (Medicine) Jay Sandlow, MD (Urology) Rank & Tenure Committee Composition

Up-to-date information at Infoscope

Faculty Affairs

The Promotion Tracks Traditional Clinician-Educator Research Academic Clinician

Promotion Criteria Demonstrated excellence and achievement in –Research/Scholarship –Teaching –Service/Clinical activities Amount and type of activity varies by track

Traditional Pathway Independent, extramurally funded researcher Senior-authored, peer reviewed publications; PI on grants; patents Significant contributions to the educational mission Service to MCW and to the broader scientific community National (Associate) or International (Professor) reputation

Research Pathway Research is the primary emphasis Can be an essential member of a research team Lead a critical research core Can be independently funded Educational contributions can be “traditional” or in research training Service to MCW and to the broader scientific community Regional (Associate) or National (Professor) reputation

Clinician Educator Pathway Scholarship and excellence in clinical science and/or education Scholarly products are required; best are peer-reviewed Significant contributions to the educational mission Service to MCW or hospitals Regional (Associate) or National(Professor) reputation

Academic Clinician Pathway Excellence in clinical practice; clinical program development Less emphasis on scholarly products, but need to show impact Some contribution to the educational mission Service to MCW or hospitals Time in rank (10 years as assistant; at least 5 as associate) Other institutions count; equivalent nonacademic positions

Tenure Awarded to individuals deemed “vital” to missions of MCW –Is recognition of future promise, based upon accomplishments –Reasons for vitality are outlined in chair’s letter and referee letters Available for Traditional and Clinician Educator tracks; Associate and Professor ranks Granted independent of promotion, but can be granted at the same time

Types of Evidence CV –Must be in MCW format; use the faculty collaboration data base –Follow the categories, use those that are appropriate for you –Feel free to annotate; add a category

CV examples Competitive award, selected annually by physiological researchers based on cv, career accomplishments, and abstract for annual meeting Young Investigator Award Circulation Section American Physiological Society

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 hours/year Introduction to Clinical Medical (M1) (the Medical Interview) 2004-present 10 hours/year Bioethics Small Group Facilitator (M2) 2006-present 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

Educator’s Portfolio Used most often by those in Clinician Educator and Academic Clinician pathways Contains additional information beyond the CV (do not duplicate) Demonstrate your impact in education and clincial program development Quantitative data are better than testimonials Be concise - no more than 10 pages (we prefer 5) We do not need a statement of your philosophy

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 ) 2 peer reviewed national presentations 1 publication

Portfolio Example: Academic Clinician

Letters of support Ideally, they address your impact Can provide us with perspective Can put your accomplishments into a context

Selecting Referees Choose people who can speak to your impact Choose people with stature; rank helps us gauge this as does institution Internal referees –Outside of your department –Comment on novel aspects of your contributions (eg committee work or educational role) External referees –Must have left MCW more than 5 years ago –Try to get a variety of institutions

The Promotion Process Departmental review (Internal Promotions Committee) Chair proposes and submits “materials” Faculty Affairs solicits and receives letters Rank & Tenure Committee Review Dean/Board of Directors Approval

What materials are required when proposed? Letter from the Chair outlining reasons that promotion is requested and: Curriculum vitae Educator’s portfolio (CE/AC pathways) Names of referees Two publications

Deadlines for receipt of materials in Faculty Affairs: For July 1, 2012 implementation October 1, 2011: Clinician Educator January 1, 2012: Traditional, Research, Academic Clinician, Tenure

Minimum number of referees Research Path Clinician Educator Path Academic Clinician Path Traditional Path Assoc Professor Internal External Professor Internal External

Preparing the Packet (This occurs in Faculty Affairs) Solicit letters from the referees. –Referees are provided: CV, portfolio and publications 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 R&T committee members receive “packet” several weeks ahead of the meeting (Chair letter, CV, letters from referees, portfolio, publications) Carefully review the entire packet before the meeting Comparison to requirements

R & T Committee Review A member presents a brief overview of the candidate’s accomplishments Discussion; comparison to criteria Vote, using a “motion, second” process –Accept or reject proposed promotion –Table for more information or clarification Majority of those present required for action We review as many as 15 packets/meeting; rolling process

The Dean and Board of Trustees Positive Vote on Promotion/Tenure 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 1 st.

Negative Vote R&T chair communicates with departmental 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 Traditional pathway faculty in the basic science departments must be promoted to associate professor within 7 years of assistant professor appointment; other pathways do not have a clock Tenure not automatically granted at Associate Professor level The R+T committee will –Work with department to optimize materials –Provide advice regarding CV and portfolio preparation

Promotion “DOs” Start preparing NOW –Collect evidence –Keep CV up-to-date –Review often –Cultivate referees Get input from others –Colleagues, mentors, chairs, rank and tenure members Know the criteria –Work to fulfill them

Promotion “Dos” 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 is insufficient to demonstrate your contributions and impact Submit your best publications

Promotion “Dos” Select referees carefully –Talk with them beforehand –At or above proposed rank –It is helpful if he/she can comment on whether you would be promoted at their institution –Include key people in your career, but try to expand beyond those involved in your training –Ask for more than required minimum

Promotion “DON’Ts” No incomplete/sloppy materials -No typos, incorrect grammar, incomplete citations, duplications, out-of-date information -Don’t mix abstracts, chapters, papers -Follow the instructions for the CV categories -When in doubt, ASK! No “wish lists” - Submitted papers - Approved but not funded grants No assumptions –Define abbreviations –Annotate to clarify

Summary Have frequent discussions with your chair; understand the departmental expectations for promotion Know criteria for promotion in your pathway –Deliberately pursue the criteria Follow the process to provide best evidence Pay attention to the details

Summary Promotion and Tenure decisions are based on evidence of excellence in your contributions to the MCW missions Rank and tenure is flexible in our consideration of “evidence of excellence” Provide clear documentation –Ask for help on preparation Goal is to promote when prepared

Thank You! Questions?