slide1 n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Academic Personnel Review Process PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Academic Personnel Review Process

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 35

Academic Personnel Review Process - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

Academic Personnel Review Process. October 5, 2010. Review Cycle Calendar. Campus Deadlines for the 2010-11 Academic Review Cycle. Professor Steven White CAP CHAIR. What is CAP looking for?. “Facts” “The average teaching effectiveness evaluation for this course was 3.3/4”

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

Academic Personnel Review Process

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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Presentation Transcript
    1. Academic Personnel Review Process October 5, 2010

    2. Review Cycle Calendar Campus Deadlines for the 2010-11 Academic Review Cycle

    3. ProfessorSteven WhiteCAP CHAIR

    4. What is CAP looking for? • “Facts” • “The average teaching effectiveness evaluation for this course was 3.3/4” • “The candidate received the 2009 John Smith award.” • Context • “This course is our most difficult to teach weed-out course. The candidate revamped the course completely, and this is the highest score for the course in the last 10 years.” • “This award is the top award in the candidate’s field, and the candidate was the first winner from the entire UC system. It has been awarded to a single individual annually since 1975.” • Analysis • “I consider the candidate to be one of the department’s most valued teachers.” • “This award is the main justification for this acceleration, combined with excellent research and teaching and very good service.”

    5. CAP seeks to balance two goals—efficiency of process and integrity of review • The better files are prepared, the fewer the requests from CAP for additional information. • Limit the number of candidate letters requested; the department does not need to contact everyone on the candidate’s list. • When a file is returned with the tentative decision asking if there is “further information,” please note that “further information" is not restatement, re-emphasis, re-contextualization, or elaboration of information already in the file. Further information should be substantively different from what was in the original file. Feel free to respond with a simple statement that “no new information is available.” • Accelerations should not be justified solely on research productivity. Explain how teaching and service during the review period are worthy of an acceleration.

    6. Avoiding the Dreaded BTS(Excerpts from CAP FAQs #20) The department should provide a full and independent analysis. Don’t quote from external letters at length (CAP reads them). Explain the candidate's contribution in collaborative work or assess it independently. Evaluate the quality of the publishing media or performance venues. If creative work is in a language other than English, include information about the content and importance of the work from someone other than the candidate. Department-nominated external letters from reviewers independent from the candidate have the most impact. Having several of these is essential for tenure and promotion cases. Independent UC letters are key for step VI and Above Scale. Avoid having internal letters (such as the chair’s letter or the department letter) written by collaborators of the candidate.

    7. Merit for Assistant Professor Review period begins October 1 of year prior to last merit received Ends September 30 of the year prior to effective date Last merit was effective July 1, 2009 Next merit is effective July 1, 2011 Review Period: October 1, 2008 – September 30, 2010 Last Merit: Effective – July 1, 2009 Next Merit: Effective – July 1, 2011 October 1, 2008 July 1, 2011 Review Period: October 1, 2008 – September 30, 2010 Merit Review Period

    8. Mid-Career Appraisal for an Assistant Professor From initial appointment to UCI to September 30th of the fourth year Hired on July 1, 2008 End of Fourth Year – June 30, 2012 Review Period: July 1, 2008 – September 30, 2011 Hire Date: July 1, 2008 End of Fourth Year: June 30, 2012 July 1, 2008 July 1, 2012 Review Period: July 1, 2008 – September 30, 2011 Mid-Career Appraisal Review Period

    9. Initial Appointment: Effective – July 1, 2008 Promotion: Effective – July 1, 2014 July 1, 2008 July 1, 2014 Review Period: July 1, 2008 – September 30, 2013 Promotion Review Period • Promotion of an Assistant Professor • Review period begins from initial appointment as Assistant Professor • Curriculum Vitae & Addenda dates are through September 30 of the review year • Initial appointment effective July 1, 2008 • Promotion to be effective July 1, 2014 • Review Period includes July 1, 2008 – September 30, 2013

    10. Academic Personnel Review Process Candidate submits information for review Department makes a recommendation Department Chair makes an independent recommendation (optional) Decides normal merits that have been delegated to Deans (CAP review waived) Dean Dean makes a recommendation on promotions and non-delegated merits Ad hoc review committee (optional). Nominated by the Council on Academic Personnel; approved and appointed by the Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost. May be called for promotions, non-reappointments, advancement to above scale, major acceleration, and tenured appointments Academic Personnel reviews dossier for completeness Council on Academic Personnel (elected by Academic Senate) makes a recommendation If CAP’s tentative recommendation differs from that of the Department or Dean, the appropriate person/unit is notified in case there if further information. Copy of notice provided to candidate Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost or Vice Provost Decides appointments, merits, and advancements If EVC and Provost or Chancellor’s tentative decision is different from CAP’s recommendation, CAP will be notified in case there is further information before a final decision is made. Recommends to Chancellor on promotions and non-reappointments Chancellor

    11. Question #1 For advancement to Above Scale, since it is considered a career advancement, can the candidate submit materials past the review period that ends 9/30/2010 all the way through the time period to when the file is due?

    12. Question #2 Why are letters needed for accelerated merits?

    13. Question #3 Are accelerated merits discouraged again this year?

    14. Question #4 When a chair is a collaborator of a candidate, why must a surrogate chair serve in the chair’s role?

    15. Question #5 We have had problems in the past with assistant professors becoming very discouraged with a cautionary vote on their mid-career appraisal. Are there any guidelines for what “cautionary” really means? Is it supposed to indicate that the candidate is really not on track for tenure or perhaps just an area or two needs to be improved?

    16. Question #6 I have tried to encourage candidates to write a brief description of their research results to be included in the case file. My idea is that this would allow department letters to be shorter since they could just stick to evaluative statements and omit lengthy technical descriptions of the work. Faculty have pushed back, saying that the longer department letters do a better job of advocating for the candidate. Does CAP have a position on this?

    17. Question #7 If the candidate spent two years as an Assistant Professor at another university and then moves to UCI, do the first two years count just as they would if they were spent here? In other words, promotion the Associate Professor should occur after 4 years at UCI?

    18. Question #8 Similar situation, but the first two years elsewhere were the independent phase of one of these new “transition to independence” type awards, e.g., NIH K-xx. In such cases, the candidate is doing independent research that will continue when they become an Assistant Professor.

    19. Question #9 What is the review period that should be used for merits with MCAs?

    20. Question #10 Are external letters still needed for Prof. V-VI cases? Is this a campus or UC expectation?  Please clarify if there has been any change in expectations for this merit step.

    21. Question #11 What happens when a faculty member receives two No Actions in a row?  What if one or both of the No Actions started as a merit recommendation from the department but the merit was denied?  Is that treated the same as a file that started out as a No Action?

    22. Question #12 Please clarify current policy. Can exercising the Stop-the-Clock option be used to defer MCA and Tenure review or just the latter?

    23. Question #13 What is the practice or policy on the composition (number on the committee and membership) of ad hoc committees?

    24. Question #14 Can other UCI department/UC School emeriti and active senate faculty participate in the review process?

    25. Question #15 Can a Five Year Review be deferred for one year if the faculty member expects to go up for Advancement to Professor VI or Above Scale in the following year, but is not quite ready?

    26. Question #16 Is it important that the faculty use MyData for their CV’s? 

    27. Question #17 Why can’t decisions be timelier?  The decision on a fairly routine full professor promotion case in my department was not communicated until the last feasible day.

    28. Question #18 Should schools continue to use the Short Form AP-25 with the on-line Review system?

    29. Question #19 Can my department use the AP-25 form for Above Scale merits?

    30. Question #20 Non-Senate delegations, future actions. 

    31. Tips • Use your Chair’s Guide (UCI-AP-15) and Chair’s Resource Guide • Check that the letter of solicitation requests the appropriate information • Utilize UC reviewers for all Professor, Step VI, and Advancement to Above Scale actions • Provide all referees with the same information – updated curriculum vitae, publications, etc. • Solicit letters early – beginning of summer • Watch for publication and other documentation cut-off dates (September 30th) on all cases EXCEPT promotions to Associate Professor rank. In these cases, reviewers will consider all evidence up to the final decision • Identify faculty who wish to postpone promotion review and have file ready to forward in September, but no later than November 1 • Indicate the proposed action on the Action Summary Form based on the department’s recommendation (action supported by a majority of faculty)

    32. Academic Personnel Online Resources Academic Review Process – Guidelines for the Review Process to assist Chairs and faculty are located here. Academic Review Cycle – This section addresses types of actions and offers guidelines for compiling the dossier. Details such as time at step, accelerations, and additional advice are located here.

    33. Academic Personnel Online Resources

    34. Academic Personnel Online Systems

    35. Websites • Academic Personnel – • UCI Advance Program – • Family Friendly Programs – • Office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity (OEOD) – • RECRUIT – • MyDATA – • AP Review – • UCI Academic employment website – • Higher Education Resource Center (HERC) – • Inside Higher Ed – • President’s Postdoctoral Fellowship Program – • Mortgage Origination Program Loans (MOP) – • Irvine Campus Housing Authority (ICHA) –