COM Faculty Guidelines (ARPT Criteria)

COM Faculty Guidelines (ARPT Criteria) December 2000 vs. January 2010 Comparisons Related to COM Basic Science Departments 31 March 2010 1

Outline of this Presentation Background COM 2000 vs. COM 2010, direct text comparisons Title Page Preamble General Description of Tenure Track Research Tenure Track Initial appointments Promotion Tenure NOT included in this presentation: the Clinical Tenure Track (CTT); the various Non-Tenure Tracks (Clinical, Research, Field Service, Adjunct, Volunteer, Visiting, Secondary) and Pathways (Clinical Specialist, Educator Specialist, Research Specialist); and the Documentation Material Required. 2

Background ARPT criteria ( Faculty Guidelines ) and procedures are developed by the academic unit (department) and approved by the Dean and Provost. Departments should review their Guidelines periodically, at least every three years (COM Guidelines) to five years (UC/AAUP Contract) years. COM departments are asked to review their Guidelines whenever the COM Guidelines change. 3

Background Possible outcomes of Guidelines review by COM departments include: department adopts COM Guidelines as is department adopts COM Guidelines incorporating tweaks department adopts COM Guidelines with an added appendix department adopts separate Guidelines consistent with COM Guidelines department reaffirms its earlier approved Guidelines 4

Background The COM Guidelines document of 31 December 2000 was in force from December 2000 until recently. A new COM Guidelines was signed by the Provost on 24 January 2010. The UC/AAUP contract requires that COM departments develop their own detailed criteria which the Dean of the College of Medicine must approve. 5

Background Updating the COM ARPT Guidelines requires consent of Faculty, Faculty Council, Dean and Provost. A proposed new COM Guidelines document was finished in March 2007. This document was longer than, added new tracks to, and gave quantitative expectations (e.g., history of 2 major grants, 2-3 papers/yr and 70% extramural salary for tenure) not present in, the 2000 COM Guidelines. 6

Background The March 2007 proposed COM Guidelines document was found to be incompatible with the UC/AAUP contract (new Tracks need Contract approval), and withdrawn. It is invalid. Another proposed new COM Guidelines document was completed in January 2009. This was intended to be a rewrite of the invalid March 2007 COM document, to make it compatible with the UC/AAUP Contract. 7

Background The 2009 proposed COM Guidelines document was approved by COM Council (Faculty Council) and submitted to the Provost for review in January 2009. The Provost approved the new COM Guidelines document in January 2010. COM departments were asked in February 2010 to review their ARPT Guidelines in light of the new COM Guidelines document and to respond by 1 May 2010. 8

Background AAUP is considering the new (January 2010) COM Guidelines document for compatibility with the UC/AAUP contract, and the COM 2010 Guidelines document may be discussed during presently ongoing new contract negotiations. [Issue: Pathways, Tracks] The January 2010 COM Guidelines document is not clearly invalid under the contract, as the (withdrawn) March 2007 one was. 9

COM 2000 vs. COM 2010 The COM 2010 Guidelines runs to 50 pages (vs. 38 pages for COM 2000). Added text consists largely of more detailed criteria and expectations (especially for tenure), more pathways, more definitions, more specifications. The COM 2000 and COM 2010 documents are too different in format for a simple side-by-side Track Changes comparison to be meaningful. There are many deletions and repositionings as well 10 as additions and changes.

COM 2000 vs. COM 2010 Discussed here are the Title Page, the Preamble, the Tenure Tracks General Description, and the Research Tenure Track. NOT discussed here are the Clinical Tenure Track (CTT); the various Non-Tenure Tracks (Clinical, Research, Field Service, Adjunct, Volunteer, Visiting, Secondary) and Pathways (Clinical Specialist, Educator Specialist, Research Specialist); and the Documentation Material Required. 11

COM 2000 vs. COM 2010 Direct Text Comparisons Title Page 12

COM 2000 vs. COM 2010 Title Page From COM 2000 (pg. 1): This document provides broad guidelines for [ARPT] in the COM Because the Dean of the COM and the Provost for Health Affairs must approve departmental criteria for [ARPT], a committee [continues next slide] From COM 2010 (pg. 2): This document provides guidelines for [ARPT] in the COM Because the Dean of the COM and the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost must approve departmental criteria for [ARPT], a committee [continues next slide] 13

COM 2000 vs. COM 2010 Title Page From COM 2000 (pg. 1): a committee of the faculty, appointed by the Dean, worked generally with various groups of faculty and committees and, specifically, with Faculty Council, to develop these guidelines which serve as the broad umbrella of principles applicable to all departments From COM 2010 (pg. 2): a committee of the faculty, appointed by the Dean, worked with Faculty Council, to develop these guidelines applicable to all departments 14

COM 2000 vs. COM 2010 Title Page From COM 2000 (pg. 1): The AAUP agreement requires that departments develop their own detailed criteria which the Dean and the Provost for Health Affairs of the COM must approve. As in the case for COM Faculty Guidelines, departmental criteria will be reviewed by departments, updated as necessary, and submitted for approval every three years. From COM 2010 (pg. 2): The AAUP agreement requires that departments develop their own detailed criteria which the Dean of the COM must approve. If the department elects to develop its own guidelines, these must be reviewed and submitted for approval every three years. 15

COM 2000 vs. COM 2010 Direct Text Comparisons Preamble 16

COM 2000 vs. COM 2010 - Preamble The 2010 Preamble is much shorter than the 2000 Preamble. Some of the missing text is process. E.g., a paragraph from the COM 2000 Preamble describing the review sequence (department ARPT committee, department director, College ARPT, Dean, Provost, SVP, President, Board) is missing from the COM 2010 Preamble. It has been relocated to Documentation Material Required in COM 2010. 17

COM 2000 vs. COM 2010 - Preamble The following process paragraph from COM 2000 Preamble (pg. 4) is missing from COM 2010 Preamble. [It appears in the COM 2010 Documentation Material Required.] All reviewers must follow the criteria established by the department regarding appointment, reappointment, promotion, and/or tenure, and consider the documented qualifications contained within a dossier of a candidate seeking one of the above actions within that department. Although the same information is considered at each level of the review process and recommendations from preceding levels of review are evaluated, recommendations are made independently at each level of review. Recommendations at one level may be different from preceding or subsequent recommendations. 18

COM 2000 vs. COM 2010 - Preamble The following paragraph about service and administration from the COM 2000 Preamble (pg. 3) is missing from the COM 2010 Preamble: The COM and all departments require service and/or administration to accomplish their educational and research goals Although not a primary function of a scholar, contributing to the administration in ways such as serving on committees, or as course directors, is essential. Those who have attained senior ranks in particular must take on more administrative duties to ensure that students and younger faculty have the opportunity to continue their education or develop their teaching skills and establish their research. Sharing the responsibilities of administration and/or service is one important means by which scholars contribute to the departmental goals and objectives and thereby to the improvement of their discipline, department and the University. 19

COM 2000 vs. COM 2010 - Preamble The following paragraph about appointment time limits from the COM 2000 Preamble (pg. 5) is missing from the COM 2010 Preamble: Time limitations on appointments are covered in the current AAUP contract and must be followed precisely. Because the AAUP contract is renegotiated every few years, significant changes in guidelines could occur. At least annually the Dean s office provides to each department information on deadlines for submission of materials for promotion. The department director should ensure that faculty are informed of these deadlines. However, text missing from the Preamble may appear elsewhere in the COM 2010 Guidelines. E.g., the following appears under General Description of Tenure Tracks, in COM 2010 (pg. 6): Note that the Collective Bargaining Agreements give specifics as to probationary times for AAUP represented faculty. 20

COM 2000 vs. COM 2010 - Preamble The beginning (pg. 3) of the COM 2000 Preamble: The College of Medicine has three important responsibilities: patient care, education, and research. The goal of the College of Medicine is to fulfill these obligations with the highest degree of excellence. This document represents the broad standards and guidelines established by the Dean of the College of Medicine and approved by Faculty Council for appointment, reappointment, promotion and tenure. The beginning (pg. 4) of the COM 2010 Preamble: The College of Medicine has three important responsibilities: education, research and patient care. 21

COM 2000 vs. COM 2010 - Preamble From COM 2000 (pg. 3): Each Department must develop, adopt, and apply specific criteria which are consistent with these broad standards but which define special requirements necessitated by the uniqueness of the department s disciplines, responsibilities and roles within the College. Both the college and departmental guidelines may vary significantly from those of other colleges or departments of the University. From COM 2010 (pg. 4): Each department must adopt this document as its guidelines, develop modifications to this document relevant to the department s specific mission or write document guidelines consistent with this document. 22

COM 2000 vs. COM 2010 - Preamble From COM 2000 (pg. 4): The tracks and pathways in the COM are indicated in Text Figure 1 and detailed descriptions of each track and pathway are described further in this document. From COM 2010 (pg. 4): The tracks and pathways in the COM are described in detail in this document. Titles assigned by the University have importance and significance and it is strongly recommended that they be used accurately and appropriately. 23

COM 2000 vs. COM 2010 - Preamble From COM 2000 (pg. 4): Clinical faculty in the COM are defined as those (1) who are geographical full-time or, 2) whose compensation derives in part from their patient care or patient support activities. These faculty members may be in the tenure track or [continued next slide] From COM 2010 (pg. 4): Clinical faculty in the COM are defined as those (1) who are geographical full-time or, 2) whose compensation derives in part from their patient care or patient support activities. These faculty are NOT members of the AAUP Bargaining Unit. Clinical faculty members may be in the tenure track or [continued next slide] 24

COM 2000 vs. COM 2010 - Preamble From COM 2000 (pg. 4): These faculty members may be in the tenure track or in any of the qualified tracks described in this document. Geographical full-time shall mean full-time COM bargaining unit members engaged in clinical activities who are paid from at least two sources From COM 2010 (pg. 4): Clinical faculty members may be in the tenure track or in any of the qualified tracks described in this document. Geographical full-time shall mean full-time COM non-bargaining unit members engaged in clinical activities who are paid from at least two sources 25

COM 2000 vs. COM 2010 Direct Text Comparisons General Description of Tenure Tracks 26

COM 2000 vs. COM 2010 General Description of Tenure Tracks The 2010 General Description is longer than the 2000 General Description. Much of the new added text addresses interdisciplinary team research and criteria by which it would be judged. Some new added text addresses criteria for judging contributions to service and/or administrative aspects of the department and/or program. 27

COM 2000 vs. COM 2010 General Description of Tenure Tracks Four Basic Science departments in COM 2000 (pg. 6): Cell Biology, Neurobiology and Anatomy; Pharmacology and Cell Biophysics; Molecular and Cellular Physiology; Molecular Genetics, Biochemistry and Microbiology. Six Basic Science departments in COM 2010 (pg. 6): Biomedical Engineering; Cancer and Cell Biology; Molecular and Cellular Physiology; Molecular Genetics, Biochemistry and Microbiology; Pharmacology and Cell Biophysics; Public Health Sciences. 28

COM 2000 vs. COM 2010 General Description of Tenure Tracks From COM 2000 (pg. 6): Contributions to the service and/or administrative aspects of the department and/or programs are valuable, and are recognized in the promotion process. From COM 2010 (pg. 6): Contributions to the service and/or administrative aspects of the department and/or programs are critical. These include participation in seminars, departmental conferences, faculty meetings, mentoring, student advising and similar departmental or institutional activities and are recognized in the promotion process. In any ARPT recommendation, the ability to interact effectively with others (collegiality) is important. This will be judged by colleagues, patients, medical students/residents and institutional leaders. 29

COM 2000 vs. COM 2010 General Description of Tenure Track Not found in COM 2000, new in COM 2010 (pg. 6), is the following paragraph about interdisciplinary team research: Whereas evaluating accomplishments in research, clinical scholarship, and educational scholarship has traditionally focused on a faculty member s individual achievements (e.g. first and senior authorship, funding as the PI on grant awards, invitations to present at national or international meetings, etc.), it has become increasingly clear that collegiality and interdisciplinary team activities are crucial to the present and future of biomedical science. Therefore, when relevant, a faculty member s contributions to interdisciplinary teamwork will also be given careful consideration. Factors such as originality, creativity, indispensability, and unique abilities, as judged by colleagues, patients, medical students/residents and institutional leaders will be 30 considered when making this evaluation.

COM 2000 vs. COM 2010 Direct Text Comparisons Research Tenure Track 31

COM 2000 vs. COM 2010 The Research Tenure Track Description There is a new nomenclature for the typical tenure track appointments in basic science departments. COM 2000 calls these I.B Pathway B (TTB). COM 2010 calls these I.B Research Tenure Track (RTT). The COM 2010 Track Description is longer than the COM 2000 Track Description. There are additions, deletions and changes. The Clinical Tenure Track ( TTA in COM 2000 and CTT in COM 2010) is not discussed in this presentation. 32

COM 2000 vs. COM 2010 The Research Tenure Track Description From COM 2000 (pg. 13): While it is expected that candidates will have been successful in obtaining extramural research support from national agencies, evaluation must take into account that success in having these proposals funded continuously is subject to variables that may lie beyond the scientific and scholarly merit of the investigator. Nonetheless, evidence of a consistent funding record is of clear benefit and should be viewed as a positive factor in promotion and tenure. From COM 2010 (pg. 14): It is expected that candidates maintain a successful program. Evidence of a successful funding record is of clear benefit and will be viewed as a positive factor in promotion and 33 tenure.

COM 2000 vs. COM 2010 The Research Tenure Track Description From COM 2000 (pg. 14): Tenure implies a long-term commitment by the University to the qualified individual and requires the continuing dedication of the tenured faculty member to his/her discipline, department, the College and the University. Tenure is usually granted only at the levels of Associate Professor and Full Professor. From COM 2010 (pg. 14): Tenure implies a long-term commitment by the department, College or University to the qualified individual and requires the continuing dedication of the tenured faculty member to his/her discipline, department, the College and the University. 34

COM 2000 vs. COM 2010 The Research Tenure Track Description Not found in COM 2000, new in COM 2010 (pg. 15), is the following paragraph about time in rank: Promotion to Associate Professor is usually not sought until a candidate has been in his/her current rank for five years, while promotion to Full Professor is usually not sought until after seven years as an Associate Professor. Appointment or promotion with fewer years in rank may be considered in cases of exceptional achievement. 35

COM 2000 vs. COM 2010 RTT I.B(1) Criteria for Initial Appointment RTT I.B(1)b Assistant Professor From COM 2000 (pg. 15): published one or more papers as first (senior) author or co-investigator and shown aptitude for an independent research career. From COM 2010 (pg. 15): published at least two papers in quality journals as first (senior) author or co-investigator and shown aptitude for an independent research career. Present in COM 2000 (pg. 15) but missing in COM 2010: Candidates for appointment as Assistant Professor have fulfilled the expectations for appointment to Instructor. 36

COM 2000 vs. COM 2010 RTT I.B(1) Criteria for Initial Appointment RTT I.B(1)c Associate Professor From COM 2000 (pg. 15): Initial appointment is based on [criteria]. testing of new ideas and hypotheses. From COM 2010 (pg. 15): Initial appointment is based on [same criteria]. These accomplishments should be addressed in the initial letter requesting appointment. testing of new ideas and hypotheses and/or has made major contributions to interdisciplinary team research. 37

COM 2000 vs. COM 2010 RTT I.B(1) Criteria for Initial Appointment RTT I.B(1)c Associate Professor (continued) From COM 2000 (pg. 15): Quality and impact of research are judged by... scholars outside the University (selected by the department director and the applicant) with expertise in the candidate s field From COM 2010 (pg. 16): Quality and impact of research are judged by... scholars outside the University with expertise in the candidate s field (solicited by the department; more weight is given to letters from individuals who are not collaborators or former mentors of the applicant) 38

COM 2000 vs. COM 2010 RTT I.B(1) Criteria for Initial Appointment RTT I.B(1)c Associate Professor (continued) From COM 2000: Independence documented by first or senior author on publications, the major creative or ideational force in the planning and development From COM 2010: Independence documented by senior author on publications, the major creative force in the planning and development Major contributions to interdisciplinary research are documented by letters from project directors, principal investigators, or others who have first-hand knowledge of the candidate s role in the overall team effort. 39

COM 2000 vs. COM 2010 RTT I.B(1) Criteria for Initial Appointment RTT I.B(1)d Professor From COM 2000 (pg. 16): For initial appointment as Professor, the candidate when applicable). All criteria indicated in section I.B1c [Assoc. Prof.] must be fulfilled to the highest order of expectations. She/he takes leadership roles From COM 2010 (pg. 17): For initial appointment for promotion to Professor, the candidate when applicable). She/he takes leadership roles 40

COM 2000 vs. COM 2010 RTT I.B(3) Promotion From COM 2000 (pg. 17): Advancement to a higher academic rank requires fulfillment of criteria for that rank. Generally, accomplishments during the candidate s appointment at the University of Cincinnati are of greater importance... Enthusiastic supportive recommendations are required. From COM 2010 (pg. 17): Promotion to a higher academic rank requires fulfillment of criteria for that rank and the demonstration of continuing professional development in all areas. 41

COM 2000 vs. COM 2010 RTT I.B(4) Tenure The Tenure section is about three times longer in COM 2010 than in COM 2000. The same general accomplishments are valued in both documents. COM 2000 states broad criteria succinctly and leaves evaluation of accomplishments to the subjective judgment of referees, committees and administrators. COM 2010 prescribes more criteria in much greater and more quantitative detail, probably leaving less room for subjective judgment. 42

COM 2000 vs. COM 2010 RTT I.B(4) Tenure (Introduction) From COM 2000 (pg. 17): Important criteria for awarding tenure are qualification as an established scholar in his/her discipline and significant contributions to a discipline, the department, and the College. The general criteria From COM 2010 (pg. 17): For tenure there must be clear evidence of outstanding, independent scholarship. The faculty member must have made significant and novel contributions to his/her chosen field of research. The general criteria 43

COM 2000 vs. COM 2010 RTT I.B(4) Tenure (Teaching) From COM 2000 (pg. 17): To be granted tenure, the individual must be a skilled and enthusiastic teacher. From COM 2010 (pg. 17): To be granted tenure, the individual must be a skilled and enthusiastic teacher and/or mentor.... Publication of educational research/scholarship or of teaching materials (print, or other media) is also indicative of achievements in teaching, as is membership on a board (e.g. USMLE) or specialty board exam question writing team. Achievements in mentoring are evidenced by obtaining federal funding for mentorship, by serving as a mentor on others mentored research grants, by receiving local or national mentorship awards, or through letters of support from current or past trainees whom the candidate has mentored. 44

COM 2000 vs. COM 2010 RTT I.B(4) Tenure (Research) From COM 2000 (pg. 17): The faculty member is expected to publish consistently and have a welldeveloped, independent area of research or clinical scholarship with a defined plan for future studies. On-going research funding by competitive, peerreviewed grants from external sources is considered the primary criterion for the granting of tenure. Evaluations of scholarship and research accomplishments will be solicited by the applicant and the department director from well-known and respected authorities in the faculty member s field from within and outside the University. Tenure generally is granted at the rank of Associate or Full Professor. 45

COM 2000 vs. COM 2010 RTT I.B(4) Tenure (Research, continued) From COM 2010 (pg. 18): For tenure, there must be clear evidence that research productivity and scientific recognition will continue throughout the individual s academic career. A tenure recommendation is based on sustained research productivity as evidenced by several criteria. These include publications, national reputation, and extramural grants. The importance of the candidate s research and national reputation can be judged by publications in high-level journals. The quality and impact factor of the journals will be considered. 46

COM 2000 vs. COM 2010 RTT I.B(4) Tenure (Research, continued) From COM 2010 (pg. 18): The candidate should average two to three peer-reviewed papers per year. Also, publications must exhibit a defined area of investigation and clear evidence of independence as an investigator, and/or valuable contributions as a member of an interdisciplinary research team. Another evaluator of accomplishments and impact is invitations to present work at national and international meetings, being asked to organize national meetings, serving as chairs at national and international meetings, editorial boards, etc. 47

COM 2000 vs. COM 2010 RTT I.B(4) Tenure (Research, continued) From COM 2010 (pg. 18): Other parameters might include national awards, named lectureships, visiting professorships, editorial board service or membership on national review panels. Invited published reviews, book chapters or monographs also indicate national recognition. Another external criterion for judging research accomplishments is the ability of the candidate to compete effectively for external funds. The ability to compete for independent research grants is an excellent indication of how the candidate is judged by peers. 48

COM 2000 vs. COM 2010 RTT I.B(4) Tenure (Research, continued) From COM 2010 (pg. 18): It is expected that the candidate would be a current principal investigator on one or more substantial peerreviewed extramural research grants, supporting at least 50% of investigator salary and having sufficient funds to maintain his/her research program. Renewal of external support serves as an external indicator of the individual s ability to maintain a high level program. 49

COM 2000 vs. COM 2010 RTT I.B(4) Tenure (Other) From COM 2010 (pg. 18): Service and/or administrative contributions include participation on committees within the department, college and/or university. It could also include participation in professional societies, editorial boards, program committees, and governing boards. Positive support of academic endeavors is also important. Clinicians are expected to maintain relevant professional licensure and hospital privileges. 50

COM 2000 vs. COM 2010 RTT I.B(4) Tenure (Other) From COM 2010 (pg. 18): In addition if tenure is at the level of Professor, candidates are expected to be able to compete with the foremost leaders in their fields as demonstrated by major scholarly achievements and by teaching and/or mentoring. There should be evidence that they will continue to make significant contributions as scholars and to serve as influential teachers. 51

COM Faculty Guidelines (ARPT Criteria) December 2000 vs. January 2010 Comparisons Related to Basic Science Departments Questions? Comments? Discussion? 52