1. Meeting of Assistant Professors Discussion of Promotion and Tenure July 26, 2010

2. Agenda Review of Faculty Tracks 2010 revisions to recognize excellence in education Mentoring committees (including third- and sixth-year reviews) Tenure statistics pre- and post- “Artman I” Demonstration of Academic Portfolio

6. Primary Themes Tenure Tracks Investigator / Educator Track, a full-time tenure track for those faculty members in any department whose primary career is in independent, investigator-initiated research and who devote some time to education and service. Investigator Clinician / Educator Track, a full-time tenure track…for those faculty in the clinical departments whose primary career combines independent research with clinical activities and who devote some time to education and service.

7. Promotion & Tenure  In addition to research and scholarly activities, all tenure track faculty members are required to participate in teaching.  In addition to major efforts in research and teaching, tenure track faculty members are also expected to contribute to the School of Medicine in a service capacity. They can fulfill this obligation by participating in committee work, internal governance and/or community service.

8. Primary Themes Full-time, Non-tenure Clinician Investigator / Educator Track, a full-time non-tenure track for those faculty members in clinical departments whose primary career is in the provision of clinical care and who devote a substantial portion of their efforts to teaching, research, and service. Research / Educator Track, a full-time non- tenure track for those faculty members in any department whose primary career is in research, but who devote a portion of their efforts to education and service.

9. Promotion Full-time, Non-tenure Tracks  Promotion on either of these tracks will require documentation of: (1) excellence in teaching, research, and/or patient care; (2) evidence of peer recognition; and (3) contributions of service to the school.  Revised policies include provisions that recognize excellence in teaching, and remove requirement for publications as the sole evidence for “scholarship”  However, excellence in teaching must be demonstrated in academic portfolio

10. Primary Themes Part-Time Tracks Clinical Track, a part-time non-tenure track for those faculty members in clinical departments whose primary career is in the provision of clinical care and who devote some time to teaching, research and/or service. Research Track, a part-time non-tenure track for those faculty involved in part-time or time-limited research in other's laboratories and who devote limited time to teaching and service.

11. Promotion Part-time Faculty  Clinical Track Faculty members in this track will fulfill a variety of teaching, clinical and service responsibilities in the institution according to the needs of the departments and divisions…[and] will be expected to demonstrate excellence in patient care and teaching, and, when appropriate, to contribute to the service activities of the School of Medicine.  Research Track …In general, promotion for faculty members will be dependent upon the grants of others [and] will be expected to maintain a high level of proficiency and participation in the research program and, when appropriate, may contribute to the educational and service activities of the School of Medicine.

12. Mentoring Committees and Three and Six Year Reviews

13. Mentoring Committees 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.

14. 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

15. 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

16. Overall Effects of the Artman Report: Success Rates for Pre- and Post-Artman Tenure Applications

17. Characteristics of Basic and Clinical Grantees, Pre- Artman BasicClinical Category Mean  SD Median Mean  SD Median # Grants9.91 ± 7.5486.03 ± 4.965.5 # NIH Grants*4.27 ± 2.8741.65 ± 2.240.5 $ Amount of grants 3,198,638 ± 3,152,6682,943,0693,331,543 ± 4,744,420 1,409,50 0 # Peer reviewed publications40.1 ± 14.44035 7 ± 24.028 # 1st/last author publications24.6 ± 8.712521.0 ± 20.215 * Statistically significant difference between means for basic v. clinical applicants

18. Characteristics of Basic and Clinical Grantees, Post- Artman BasicClinical Category Mean  SD Median Mean  SD Median # Grants7.88 ± 4.70610.3 ± 9.517.5 # NIH Grants3.88 ± 3.4133.78 ± 3.753.5 $ Amount of grants 4,317,331 ± 3,434,4943,791,750 5,208,596 ± 6,087,5783,709,375 # Peer reviewed publications47.6 ± 29.232.566.9 ± 53.144.5 # 1st/last author publications27.2 ± 17.62136.1 ± 30.025 * Statistically significant difference between means for basic v. clinical applicants

19. 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

20. Excellence in Education “Excellence in education represents a valued academic endeavor, and will be sufficient for promotion even in the absence of publications and national reputation” Levinson, W., Rubenstein A., New England Journal of Medicine Vol 341, No 11: 840-843, September 9, 1999.

21. Promotion to Rank of Associate Professor …. 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..…

22. Revisions 2010 “Therefore, to be considered for promotion, documenting the scholarship of education requires demonstration of accomplishments, which should take the form of a teaching 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.”

23. Academic ePortfolio Sabrina Lee Program Director Division of Education Informatics