1. Meeting of Assistant Professors Discussion of Promotion and Tenure July 25, 2011

2. Agenda Review of Faculty Tracks Mentoring committees (including third- and sixth-year reviews) Promotion expectations for researchers Promotion expectations for education Demonstration of Academic Portfolio

5. Mentoring Committees

6. All full-time Assistant Professors must have a mentoring committee. The goal of the committee is to provide the junior faculty member with a critical assessment of his/her progress. Two senior faculty, including one from the same department. Meet annually. The committee must provide annual written reports to the faculty member, the department Chair and (where appropriate) the Program Coordinator/Division Director.

7. Audience Response (Mentoring Committees) 1.My primary faculty appointment is in a A.Clinical department B.Basic science department 2011 Faculty Affairs Survey Question 1

8. 2. My faculty track is A.Non-tenure eligible B.Tenure-eligible 2011 Faculty Affairs Survey Question 2 Audience Response (Mentoring Committees)

9. 3. I have a mentoring committee A.Yes B.No 2011 Faculty Affairs Survey Question 5 Audience Response (Mentoring Committees)

10. 4. I have found it easy to identify mentors within my department Strongly Strongly DisagreeDisagreeNeutral AgreeAgree ABCDE 2011 Faculty Affairs Survey Question 6 Audience Response (Mentoring Committees)

11. 5. I have found it easy to identify mentors outside of my department Strongly Strongly DisagreeDisagreeNeutral AgreeAgree ABCDE 2011 Faculty Affairs Survey Question 6 Audience Response (Mentoring Committees)

12. 6. I am satisfied with the advice provided by my mentoring committee 2011 Faculty Affairs Survey Question 6 Audience Response (Mentoring Committees) Strongly Strongly DisagreeDisagreeNeutral AgreeAgree ABCDE N/A F

13. 7. I am comfortable reaching out to individual members of my committee for advice 2011 Faculty Affairs Survey Question 6 Audience Response (Mentoring Committees) Strongly Strongly DisagreeDisagreeNeutral AgreeAgree ABCDE N/A F

14. 8. The number of annual meetings with my mentoring committee is generally A.None B.1 C.2 D.3 E.4+ F.Other 2011 Faculty Affairs Survey Question 7 Audience Response (Mentoring Committees)

15. 9. I receive my mentoring committee report annually A.Yes B.No C.N/A 2011 Faculty Affairs Survey Question 8 Audience Response (Mentoring Committees)

16. 10. I meet with my Chair annually to review my mentoring committee feedback A.Yes B.No C.N/A 2011 Faculty Affairs Survey Question 9 Audience Response (Mentoring Committees)

17. Questions on Mentoring

18. Three and Six Year Reviews

19. Third- and Sixth-Year Reviews Reviews are conducted for all full-time faculty The Dean’s office notifies the Chair when a review is due The review is conducted by the Chair and the Departmental Appointments and Promotions Committee If tenure is considered unlikely, the Chair meets with the faculty member to discuss his/her options The Chair notifies the Dean and faculty member of the outcome of the meeting in writing

20. Audience Response: (Promotions and Tenure) 11. I am familiar with the revised policies and procedures for appointment, promotion and tenure*. A.Yes B.No. 2011 Faculty Affairs Survey Question 15 *URL

21. Audience Response: (Promotions and Tenure) 12. I understand what I need to do to prepare for my 3 rd and 6 th year reviews Strongly Strongly DisagreeDisagreeNeutral AgreeAgree ABCDE 2011 Faculty Affairs Survey Question 16

22. 13. Challenges with preparing for my 3 rd and 6 th year reviews include (check all that apply): A. I have not experienced any challenges B. Uncertainty of how to prepare C. Meeting with my Chair D. Convening my mentoring committee E. Other 2011 Faculty Affairs Survey Question 17 Audience Response: (Promotions and Tenure)

23. Tenure Decisions GrantsGrants NIH Grants, including evidence of renewalNIH Grants, including evidence of renewal Peer reviewed publications (especially 1st or last-author publications)Peer reviewed publications (especially 1st or last-author publications) Innovative technologiesInnovative technologies Non-peer reviewed publicationsNon-peer reviewed publications Book chaptersBook chapters AbstractsAbstracts PresentationsPresentations

24. Questions on 3- and 6- Reviews and Expectations for Promotion

25. Audience Response (Performance Expectations for Research Faculty) In 2009, the School of Medicine accepted the recommendations of the AEC and implemented the Policy on Performance Expectations for Research Faculty, which defined expectations for research faculty productivity, adopting metrics utilized at peer institutions. The process for evaluating research faculty involves multiple steps and engagement of the faculty, Chairs, and the Dean’s Office. 2011 Faculty Affairs Survey Page 14

26. Expectations for Research Faculty (AEC) Basic and clinical science departments 60% extramural coverage of research compensation Policy on Performance Expectations for Research Faculty –http://webdoc.nyumc.org/nyumc/files/efaa/attachments/PolicyonPe rformanceExpectationsforResearchFaculty_FINAL.pdfhttp://webdoc.nyumc.org/nyumc/files/efaa/attachments/PolicyonPe rformanceExpectationsforResearchFaculty_FINAL.pdf

27. INSERT FLOW DIAGRAM OF CALCULATION OF EFFORT

28. Audience Response (Performance Expectations for Research Faculty) 14. More than 25% of my total effort is allocated to conduct research A. Yes B. No 2011 Faculty Affairs Survey Question 30

29. Audience Response (Performance Expectations for Research Faculty) 15. I am familiar with the recommendations of the Academic Excellence Commission A. Yes B. No 2011 Faculty Affairs Survey Question 31

30. Audience Response (Performance Expectations for Research Faculty) 16. I understand how Departments allocate effort for School approved education, administration and research efforts as described in the policy A. Yes B. No 2011 Faculty Affairs Survey Question 32

31. Audience Response (Performance Expectations for Research Faculty) 17. I understand how my efforts have been allocated A. Yes B. No 2011 Faculty Affairs Survey Question 33

32. Audience Response (Performance Expectations for Research Faculty) 18. I am satisfied with the allocation of my research, education and administrative efforts Strongly Strongly DisagreeDisagreeNeutral AgreeAgree ABCDE 2011 Faculty Affairs Survey Question 34 N/A F

33. Audience Response (Performance Expectations for Research Faculty) 19. I meet with my Chair annually to review my progress towards extramural funding A. Yes B. No C. N/A 2011 Faculty Affairs Survey Question 36

34. Questions on Research Expectations

35. Promotion to Rank of Associate Professor based upon excellence in education …. As members of the academic community they should publish the results of their observations…Exceptional candidates may also qualify for promotion based upon evidence of distinguished contributions to the educational mission without publications. Such evidence, which should be documented in an academic portfolio…beyond what is expected from the average faculty member..…

36. 2010 Revisions to Recognize Excellence in Teaching Promotion as an educator on tenure track remains Criteria added to non-tenure tracks Recognition of teaching excellence without requirement for publications or extramural reputation

37. Education Expectations (“Artman”) In order to be considered for credit “in excess of Artman II”, a faculty member must first fulfill his/her expected teaching obligations through the following: –Minimum of 200 effort hours annually. Of the 200 hours, At least 40 hours of Type I of teaching must be in formal courses in undergraduate medical education (UME) At least 40 hours of Type I of teaching or thesis advising must be in formal courses in the graduate school (Sackler Institute) Guidelines for Education Effort –http://webdoc.nyumc.org/nyumc/files/efaa/attachments/FINAL_G UIDELINES_FOR_EDUCATION_EFFORT_AEC_POLICY.pdfhttp://webdoc.nyumc.org/nyumc/files/efaa/attachments/FINAL_G UIDELINES_FOR_EDUCATION_EFFORT_AEC_POLICY.pdf

38. 20. I am familiar with the “Artman” teaching expectations for faculty A. Yes B. No 2011 Faculty Affairs Survey Question 23 Audience Response (Education)

39. 21. I participate in the teaching of scheduled courses A. Yes B. No 2011 Faculty Affairs Survey Question 24 Audience Response (Education)

40. 22. The schedule courses in which I teach are for (check all that apply) A. Medical students B. Graduate students C. Residents/fellows D. Students at Washington Square E. Other 2011 Faculty Affairs Survey Question 25 Audience Response (Education)

41. Revisions 2010 “Therefore, to be considered for promotion, documenting the scholarship of education requires demonstration of accomplishments, which should take the form of an academic portfolio. Course leadership and design, the judgment of students, trainees, and peers, and meritorious publications may also be considered when a faculty member's teaching is assessed.”

42. Audience Response (ePortfolio) 23. I am familiar with the ePortfolio (academic portfolio) A. Yes B. No 2011 Faculty Affairs Survey Question 18

43. Audience Response (ePortfolio) 24. I use the ePortfolio (academic portfolio) to document and track my accomplishments A. Yes B. No 2011 Faculty Affairs Survey Question 19

44. Audience Response (ePortfolio) 24. I find the ePortfolio application easy to use Strongly Strongly DisagreeDisagreeNeutral AgreeAgree ABCDE 2011 Faculty Affairs Survey Question 20 N/A F

45. Questions on Education

46. Academic ePortfolio Sabrina Lee Assistant Director Division of Educational Informatics