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

2. 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?

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

4. 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)

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

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

7. The Tracks: Expected Effort
Clinician-
Educator
Traditional

8. The Tracks: Expected Effort
Academic Clinician
Research

9. 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!

10. 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:

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

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

13. 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

14. 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.

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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)

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

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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

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

26. Portfolio Example: Clinical
Year gone on sabbatical

27. 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

28. Portfolio Example: Academic Clinician - QI

29. 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

30. 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

31. 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.

32. 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

33. 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

34. 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

35. 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

36. Promotion “DOs”: When submitting
Select referees carefully
Talk with them personally (not via )
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

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

38. 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

39. 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)

40. 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