Preparing for Promotion Advice from the

Rank & Tenure Committee

Karen Marcdante, MDMedical College of Wisconsin

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?

Objectives for Today

Describe Promotion Tracks/Pathways

Explain the process for Promotion

Provide some DOs and DONTs

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)

Rank & Tenure Committee Composition

The Promotion Tracks

“Traditional”

Clinician-Educator

Research

Academic Clinician

Promotion Criteria

Demonstrated excellence and achievement in – Scholarship/research– Teaching– Service

Amount and type of activity varies by track

TraditionalClinician-Educator

The Tracks: Expected Effort

ScholarshipTeachingService

The Tracks: Expected Effort

Scholarship

Teaching

Service

Research Academic Clinician

The Promotion ProcessDepartmental review

Chair proposed faculty for promotion

Packet Preparation for Committee

Rank & Tenure Committee Review

Dean/Board of Directors Approval

You’re Promoted!

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

What to provide when proposedUpdated CV

Updated portfolio (CE/AC tracks +?)

Names of referees

Two representative publications

Number of refereesResearchPath

Clinician Educator Path

Academic Clinician Path

Traditional

Assoc Professor Internal External

45

42

4*2

45

Professor Internal External

47

44

6*2

47

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 sectionOutside of your department if possible

– External lettersNot all from your training institution

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.

R & T Committee ReviewR&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

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

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

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

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

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)

Types of Evidence

CV– Provides useful information if done well– Includes entries that may not be

understood by committeeConsider annotations as needed

CV examplesNew Investigator AwardResearch in Medical EducationCentral Group on Educational Affairs of the Association of American Medical

CollegesCompetitive award, selected by medical education

researchers based on abstract and presentation

CV Examples

30 hours/year Introduction to Clinical Medical (M1)(the Medical Interview)

10 hours/year Bioethics Small Group Facilitator (M2)

7 hrs/rotation8 rotations/yr

Case-based Interactive Learning Sessions: Pediatric interview and child development, SP evaluation (M3)

Provides an idea of time commitment

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

Portfolio Example: Teaching

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

96-97 97-98

All U.K. Faculty

All Year 3 & 4COM Faculty

All PediatricFaculty

Dr. Chris Nelson

Student Teaching Evaluations: Dr. Nelson compared to other faculty

Portfolio Example: Clinical

Section's Patient Volume

400500600700800900

10001100

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Year

No. of Pts

Year gone on sabbatical

Portfolio Example: Administration

Role: Facilitator, OSCE program developmentActivities: Developed 12 OSCE stations

Implemented OSCE evaluationDeveloped teaching OSCE, video

OSCEStudent rating: 90% rate it as excellentProducts: OSCE evaluation system

(reliability 0.69-.89)2 peer reviewed national presentations1 publication

Portfolio Example: Academic Clinician - QI

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

July October January April

Percent

receiving enteral feeds

Implementation of protocol

TenureAwarded 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

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

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.

Negative VoteR&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

Promotion and MCW cultureNo “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

Promotion “DOs”

Start preparing NOW– Collect evidence– Keep CV up to date

Get input from others– Colleagues, mentors, chairs

Know the criteria

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

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 people in your career

Promotion “DON’Ts”

Submit incomplete/sloppy materials

Include “wish list”– Submitted papers, grants, etc

Assume we’ll know anything about you

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

SummaryKnow 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)

SummaryPromotion 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