1 / 13

William Jury Vice Provost for Academic Personnel

William Jury Vice Provost for Academic Personnel. Winter Quarter Department Chair Forum February 23, 2005. Merit/Career Reviews/Advances Progress Comparison. 2003-2004 – report generated through Feb. 27, 2004 AGSM – 40% of 10 actions were received Biomed – 50% of 2 actions were received

ulf
Télécharger la présentation

William Jury Vice Provost for Academic Personnel

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. William JuryVice Provost for Academic Personnel Winter Quarter Department Chair Forum February 23, 2005

  2. Merit/Career Reviews/Advances Progress Comparison 2003-2004 – report generated through Feb. 27, 2004 AGSM – 40% of 10 actions were received Biomed – 50% of 2 actions were received CHASS – 46% of 70 actions were received CNAS – 86% of 69 actions were received COE – 65% of 26 actions were received GSOE – 50% of 4 actions were received 2004-2005- report generated through Feb, 22, 2005 AGSM – 95% of 19 actions have been received Biomed – 33% of 6 actions have been received CHASS – 61% of 74 actions have been received CNAS – 56% of 61 actions have been received COE – 50% of 24 actions have been received GSOE – 100% of 4 actions have been received

  3. Promotions Progress Comparison 2003-2004 – report generated through Feb. 27, 2004 AGSM – 100% of 2 actions were received Biomed – 0% of 1 action was received CHASS – 70% of 10 actions were received CNAS – 91% of 11 actions were received COE – 0% of 2 actions were received GSOE – 100% of 1 action was received 2004-2005- report generated through Feb, 22, 2005 AGSM –0% of 2 actions have been received Biomed – n/a CHASS – 18% of 11 actions have been received CNAS – 18% of 11 actions have been received COE – 20% of 10 actions have been received GSOE – n/a

  4. Analysis of 2003-4 file progress Problems with Ad Hoc Committees Delays from information requests Informing the faculty on file preparation Suggested CALL changes Rewarding service Non-uniform teaching evaluations New Campus awards and honors Academic Personnel Issues for Discussion

  5. Analysis of File Progress • Four files stretched into the fall quarter • One was started in April with permission • All involved Ad Hoc committees • All involved requests for additional information

  6. Analysis of File Progress • In one file, 15 people had to be contacted before an ad hoc could be formed • Another file was delayed four months when an ad hoc member resigned • In two cases a substantial 2-3 month delay occurred in responding to information requests made to departments • Many of the information requests are for things that should have been provided

  7. Problems in File Progress • Ad Hoc: CHASS faculty are far more likely to turn down requests to serve, and CHASS ad hocs take longer to meet and longer to write reports than faculty in the other colleges • Chronic problems in outside letters • No UC evaluations • Too many referees with ties to faculty under evaluation • Too few letters

  8. Problems in File Preparation • Co-author identification and role in publication • Publication venues and departmental standards • Incorrect characterization of work not yet published • Inconsistent department use of teaching evaluation metrics

  9. Rewarding Service • Service at the campus level is uneven • Service is widely perceived as a detriment to success in the merit and promotion system • Service is critical to our future • This is a national problem

  10. Service Penalties and Incentives Under Discussion • Require campus service as a condition for advancement • Monitor the quality of campus service • Negotiate service-driven merit cycles • Utilize more release time and stipends to compensate service • Make service more prestigious (awards, etc)

  11. Evaluating Teaching in Personnel Actions: Discussion Item • Some departments use non-standard teaching evaluations, but not uniformly • Faculty occasionally fail to submit evaluations for certain courses • Teaching problems in a single course have affected advancement

  12. Suggested CALL Changes from Faculty: Discussion Item • Allow “publications about the artist” on difference list • Develop new criteria for evaluating collaborative work • Require cover sheet characterizing publication venues • Decrease reliance on teaching evaluations • Require departmental statement on teaching

  13. Suggested CALL Changes from Faculty: Discussion Item • Clarify relative importance of teaching in an acceleration • Full career evaluated in Step VI and AS files • Grants with CO-PI should explain role of candidate • Third option added on procedural safeguard for response to Dept. letter.

More Related