Preparing for Promotion Advice from the Rank & Tenure Committee

1. Preparing for Promotion Advice from the Rank & Tenure Committee Karen Marcdante, MDMedical 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 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: http://www.mcw.edu/facaffairs

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

12. Number of referees

13. Selecting Referees • All letters • 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 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 0.69-.89) 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 BoardPositive 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 • 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 email) • 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 peoplein 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