SUMMARY OF PROCEDURES #2GUIDE TO THE PREPARATION OF A DOSSIERhttp://www.apo.ucla.edu/call/summary2.htm

SUMMARY OF PROCEDURES #7FOURTH-YEAR APPRAISALS FOR PROFESSORIAL SERIEShttp://www.apo.ucla.edu/call/summary7.htm

Journey of the Dossierhttp://www.apo.ucla.edu/docs/Journey_of_the_Dossier.pdf

Appraisals for Assistant Professorshttp://www.apo.ucla.edu/docs/Appraisals_for_Asst_Prof.pdf

SOME VERY USEFUL WEB SITES TO HELP YOU

We will be talking about dossiers for two advancement  different reviews – the fourth year review, and the review for promotion from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor.

You were hired because of your potential. The assumption, based on your previous work, was that you have the potential to become an independent investigator.

The fourth year review is an internal review that your department, dean, the committee on academic promotions (CAP) and the vice chancellor make regarding your progress toward meeting the requirements for promotion to Associate Professor.

Objective of the Fourth Year Appraisal

During an Assistant Professor’s fourth yearof service, the Department conducts aformal appraisal. The purpose of theappraisal is to provide an early assessmentof the likelihood of eventual qualificationfor promotion, to identify any areas ofweakness or imbalance in the recordwhich appear to require correction, and toprovide feedback to the AssistantProfessor regarding these matters.

Upon completion of the appraisal at thedepartment level, the dossier is forwardedto the Dean, the Council on AcademicPersonnel, and in some instances, the ViceChancellor, Academic Personnel.

Fourth Year Appraisal Process

Appraisals are to be conducted and concluded no laterthan the end of the fourth year of service. Departmentshave established deadlines for the submission of dossiermaterials.

Normally the dossier will proceed to an evaluationcommittee in the Department (ad hoc, personnel orexecutive committee) that may issue a written report.The full faculty will then review the dossier, committeereport and candidate’s rebuttal, if any. A meeting of thefull faculty will be convened to discuss and vote on theappraisal.

The outcome of the meeting and vote will becommunicated by the chair to the candidate along witha copy of the department report. The chair will alsoinform the candidate of the opportunity to respond andestablish a deadline for that response.

The appraisal is forwarded to the Dean’s office fortransmittal to the Council on Academic Personnel. Oncethe Council has commented, it is returned to the Deanfor final determination, or if any reviewing body hasrecommended an “unfavorable” appraisal, the ViceChancellor becomes the final approval authority. Inaddition, under certain circumstances, the Council maymake a recommendation that the appraisal be reviewedand decided by the Vice Chancellor.

Timing of the Fourth Year Appraisal

The appraisal is to be conducted duringthe fourth year of combined service in theAssistant Professor rank of the Regularseries, In‐Residence series and other titlesas specified in Appendix 14 of The CALL,“Guide to the Computation of Years ofService Which Count Toward the Eight‐Year Limit.”

An appraisal may also be conducted at anytime during service as an AssistantProfessor at the election of thedepartment or when requested by theappointee, Dean, Council on AcademicPersonnel, or the Vice Chancellor. Whenan appraisal coincides with review forrenewal or merit increase or both, a singlecombined dossier is to be submitted.

Fourth Year Appraisal Characteristics

Appraisals are characterized as either:

“Favorable” ‐ indicating an assessmentthat it appears likely that the individualwill eventually qualify for promotion.

“With Reservations” ‐ indicating thatthere is identified weakness or imbalancein the record which appears to requirecorrection in order for the individualeventually to qualify for promotion.

“Unfavorable” ‐ indicating that on thepresent evidence it appears unlikely thatthe individual will eventually qualify forpromotion.

TIME

PROGRESS

STANDARD  PROGRESS

4TH YEAR PROMOTION

TIME

PROGRESS

STANDARD  PROGRESS

4TH YEAR PROMOTION

TIME

PROGRESS

STANDARD  PROGRESS

4TH YEAR PROMOTION

TIME

PROGRESS

STANDARD  PROGRESS

4TH YEAR PROMOTION

TIME

PROGRESS

STANDARD  PROGRESS

4TH YEAR PROMOTION

FAVORABLEFAVORABLE

WITH RESERVATIONS

UNFAVORABLE

FAVORABLE(UNFAVORABLE)

TIME

PROGRESS

STANDARD  PROGRESS

4TH YEAR PROMOTION

FAVORABLEFAVORABLE

WITH RESERVATIONS

UNFAVORABLE

PROMOTEDPROMOTED

PROMOTED

NOT PROMOTED

FAVORABLE(UNFAVORABLE)

Communicating the Results of the FourthYear Appraisal

The results of the appraisal arecommunicated to the Chair through aletter from the Dean or Vice Chancellor. Itis the Chair’s responsibility to counsel theindividual regarding the status of theircareer path and specific action that maybe in order in light of the appraisal result.The letter to the Chair will also include acopy of the Council on AcademicPersonnel comment. This “CAP” report isto be given to the candidate.

Typical Concerns Where the Fourth Year Appraisal WasLess than Favorable (i.e., “with reservations” or“unfavorable”)

research productivity was quantitatively weak;

creative contributions were not clear if much of the workis collaborative;.

the quality of the work was not strong;

teaching did not meet a high standard;

an unbalanced record with respect to the several criteriafor promotion (e.g., devoted too much time to the servicerequirement as compared to teaching or creativeendeavor);

exhibits high promise but the achievement record wasweak (note that superior “attainment” and creative“achievement” is required for advancement to the rankof associate professor.)

“with reservations” is often the evaluation of facultywho are doing well in their research, but have not yetpublished their results.

We will be talking about dossiers for two advancement  different reviews – the fourth year review, and the review for promotion from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor.

You were hired because of your potential. The assumption, based on your previous work, was that you have the potential to become an independent investigator.

The fourth year review is an internal review that your department, dean, the committee on academic promotions (CAP) and the vice chancellor make regarding your progress toward meeting the requirements for promotion to Associate Professor.

The review for promotion to Associate Professor  determines whether your potential has been realized – have you accomplished what was expected.  Has your potential been realized in performance, based primarily on your published research – and, as a consequence – by your recognition by your peers (grants, invited seminars, meeting/symposia presentations). 

Criteria for Advancement

For all faculty members in the Regular ProfessorialSeries, the criteria for advancement, cover thefollowing categories:

TeachingResearch and creative workProfessional activityUniversity and public service

A detailed statement of these criteria are providedin the “Instructions to Review and AppraisalCommittees,” found in Appendix 5 of The CALL.

In general, greater emphasis is placed on thecandidate’s performance under the first twocriteria, although note is taken of his/her activitiesin the other two categories.

It should be noted that the instructions especiallyemphasize the following standard of performance:“Superior intellectual attainment, as evidencedboth in teaching and in research or other creativeachievement, is an indispensable qualification forappointment or promotion to tenure positions.”

A tabulation of the numerical rating achieved by thecandidate and a comparison with the Departmentaverage, or the group average of all those teaching thesame courses, is helpful.

Student Evaluations for the Past 3 or 4 Years

Other Sources of Evaluation

Letters which have been solicited from peers, faculty,teaching or research assistants, postdoctoral fellows,students and others may be used to supplementteaching evaluations from questionnaires. This appliesespecially to thesis advising, innovative teachingprojects, clinical or workshop guidance, and otherteaching activities outside the conventional classroomsituation. Critical analyses of syllabi prepared by thecandidate can be valuable.

YOUR DOSSIER

Teaching

Remember, you can add anything to your dossier that you wish to add to the review process!  If a student has written a letter to  you for special consideration, for example, you can add that to the dossier.

YOUR DOSSIER

Teaching  (Continued)

Evidence of peer evaluation should be reflected in thedepartment ad‐hoc and/or department letter, using thefollowing methods:

Comparative Charts. Comparison of individual’s teachingwith department average.

Visitations. Classroom visits by standing committee orad‐hoc committee. Written evaluation by committeeor individual letters of evaluation.

Letters from Peers. Solicited letters from individuals whomay have co‐taught with candidate.

Letters should be solicited by department, notcandidate.

Review of Materials

Analysis by committee of course materials.

Review of syllabus.

Peer Evaluation

Remember, you can add anything to your dossier that you wish to add to the review process! Syllabus. Letters. 

Research and/or Other Creative Activities

List of Publications and/or Other Evidence

Such lists should be in chronological order with somemethod employed to indicate items that are new sincelast review. Particular care should be taken to guardagainst double‐counting. Each item should be identifiedby a label such as:

1. book;2. book chapter;3. full‐length paper in a referred journal;4. letter to the editor or communication;5. abstract;6. paper in a symposium digest;7. report;8. review; and9. other evidence.

The labeling can be done item by item if the list is notsubdivided, or subdivisions by categories can be used,in which case each sub‐list should be chronological. Thefirst and last page of each published item should benoted. For items with joint authorship, it is helpful toindicate the degree of contribution by the candidate.Clear identification of items accepted but not yet inprint, and of items submitted, is also desirable.

YOUR DOSSIER

Research and/or Other Creative Activities (continued)

Disaggregation of Collaborative ResearchIt is important to clearly identify the candidate’s role ineach collaborated paper/publication. (it very importantto make very clear what your role is in collaborativeresearch projects; this is your responsibility)

List of Co‐AuthorsList UCLA faculty who have co‐authored with the candidate for actions where a review committee might be appointed. This list should be indicated on the last page of the Bibliography in alphabetical order.

Departmental ReviewThe Department review of the relevant record shouldnot be solely an advocacy document. Rather, it should bea balanced assessment of all salient features (positiveand negative), including points brought out in the facultymeeting called to consider the case.

The portion of the Departmental review concerned withthe candidate’s recent creative activity should bepenetrating and should offer a critique of all majoritems. What is the significance? Is anything seminal? Arethere known reactions from the candidate’s peers? Youneed to make these points clear in your self‐statement.

YOUR DOSSIER

Research and/or Other Creative Activities (continued)

Letters of Evaluation  (not for a fourth year review)When it is appropriate for the review in question thatletters of evaluation be solicited, the following procedureis recommended:

1. The candidate is should submit a list of four or fiveexternal people from whom letters should be requested.2. The Chair should put together a supplemental externallist not revealed to the candidate (these lists willsometimes overlap).3. A third list of reasonable size (perhaps six to eightnames) should be prepared from the two partial lists: onlythe third list (not revealed to the candidate) should beincluded in the dossier with identification of the source ofthe individual entries;.4. extramural letters should be solicited from all peoplewhose names appear on this third list's he list of externalletter‐writers in the dossier must clearly indicate if theletter writer originated from the candidate’s list, chair’s listor if suggested by both.5. When feasible, examples of the candidate’s recentcreative activities should be sent to each referee, whoshould be asked to make substantive comments about thisevidence and to rank the candidate among otherresearchers in the field. It is helpful if a biographicalparagraph is attached in the dossier to the letter fromeach referee, establishing the credentials of the referee.

YOUR DOSSIER

Research and/or Other Creative Activities (continued)

Letters of Evaluation  (not for a fourth year review)

Internal letters should be requested from knowledgeablesources, but with regard to the need to preserve a pool offaculty from which a review committee can be formed ifnecessary. Internal referees should only be selected ifthey can provide special information not available fromother sources.

The candidate should be given the opportunity toindicate potential referees who might have a prejudice.

YOUR DOSSIER

Professional Competence and Activities

This is a category in which the actualactivities vary markedly from discipline todiscipline. It is often helpful to include abrief explanation of what constitutespertinent activity in the given discipline(e.g., editorship, consulting), followed by adescription of the candidate’s activities,their significance, and how the candidate’slevel of activity compares to the norm.

Your self statement will be very important

YOUR DOSSIER

YOUR DOSSIER

University Service

In addition to a tabulation of thecommittees on which the candidate hasserved, and the dates, it is helpful to pointout which of these committeeassignments have been more thannormally important and whatcontributions the candidate made. If thereis information available about theeffectiveness with which the candidatedischarged these committee assignments,it would be useful to include it.

Remember, you can add anything to yourdossier that you wish to add to the reviewprocess!

Self‐Evaluation Letter

Many departments ask the candidate toplace in the file a written statement of thecandidate’s own assessment ofachievements in teaching, research, andservice since the last review. It can help allreviewing agencies to understand thecandidate’s philosophy of teaching,construction of new courses, the nature ofcollaborative research, etc. Guard againstoverlong self‐statements. These letters canbe very informative but they should bekept to a modest length (3 to 5 pages) andshould not serve as a substitute for thepenetrating departmental review.

YOUR DOSSIER

Your best advocate in making your case islikely to be you. Your self‐statement canbe pivotal in the CAP review, where themembers do not know you.

•Self-statement 3-5 pages (but check with your department).. Theself-statement is the only opportunity for you to say somethingabout yourself in your own words.

•Mentoring form (the candidate needs to meet with the mentor atleast twice/year). Take the initiative on this – don’t depend on yourdepartment to “push” this!!

•Peer evaluations (either forms or letters, if forms are not available).These should be solicited by the dept. Ask your chair; is s/he doesn’tdo it, ask peer evaluators to send letters regarding your teaching tothe chair, for your dossier.

•Student evaluations (forms are really useful when comments areincluded; letters can also be solicited to bolster the file).Beaggressive about this as well – if the dept doesn’t do it, solicit lettersto be sent by students, post docs, fellows.

•Candidates can now ask ORUs/unit Directors to provide commentsfor the dossier if the candidate is engaged in interdisciplinary workthat is in the area of the ORU. Don’t abuse this, but if there is trulyinterdisciplinary work in you research history, ask the dept chair (orresponsible administrator) to solicit such comments for your dossier.The. dept is to contact the director/head of the unit, requesting astatement on the candidate’s participation in interdisciplinaryresearch..

•Only items that actually occurred during the review period shouldbe listed on the data summary pages. So, no pending grants, futurepresentations, activities when you were a postdoc, etc. These canbe mentioned in the self-statement or CV.

•The bibliography for the data summary pages should becategorized – peer-reviewed papers separate from books andabstracts and so on.

SOME SUMMARY POINTS TO THINK ABOUT 

PRETTY STRAIGHT FORWARD; TYPICAL BIOGRAPHICDATA

AGAIN, JUST BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION

THIS SHOULD INCLUDE FELLOWS, GRAD STUDENTS, POST‐DOCS, VISITINGSCIENTISTS, UNDER GRADS (IF YOU NEEDSOME FILLER)

Ph.DCandi‐Dates.

IncludeResidents,MedicalFellows,but  Identify them assuch

BE SURE TO INDICATE THE NUMBER OF LECTURES YOU GIVE,  PBLsYOU MEET WITH, LABS YOU SUPERVISE.  IT IS IMPORTRANT THAT YOU DISCUSS  YOUR TEACHING IN YOUR SELF EVALUATION, AND THAT THE INFORMATION HERE AND IN THE SELF EVALUATION AGREE.

REMEMBER, YOU CAN PUT ANYTHING YOU THIS APPORPRIATEIN HERE. TUTORING STUDENTS FROM A CLASS IN AN INFORMAL WAY, OFFICE HOURS, PhD, POST DOC, FELLOW ONE‐ON‐ONEMENTORING, SITTING ON Ph.D. ADVANCEMENT TO CANDIDACYEXAMS.

START KEEPING THIS RECORD RIGHT AWAY!!  DEPARTMENTALLIBRARY COMMITTEE?  SEMINAR SERIES? GRAD SELECTION?

WON’T BE LIKELY TO HAVE TOO MUCH SERVICE HERE….

AGAIN, START KEEPING THE RECORDS!  SPOKE AT YOUR  KID’SSCHOOL  ABOUT SCIENCE? SAT ON A SCIENCE FAIR JUDGING PANEL?(IF YOU HAVEN’T DONE THESE SORTS OF THINGS, START THINKING ABOUT IT)

VOLENTEERED AT THE FOOD BANK?  PUT IT IN!!

I WAS AN L.A. COUNTY  “CALL FIRE FIGHTER” FOR TWELVE YEARS.WENT INTO EVERY PROMOTION FILE.

START KEEPING THE RECORDS!!  REMEMBER THIS IS ONLY SINCE YOU JOINED THE UCLA FACULTY.   DID YOU GET A TEACHING  AWARD?  DID THE RESIDENTS VOTE YOU THE MOST ATTRACTIVE? KNOWLEDGEABLE? LIKELY TO SUCCEED?

START KEEPING THE RECORDS!!  REMEMBER THIS IS ONLY SINCE YOU JOINED THE UCLA FACULTY..  ALL AWARDS, INTRAMURAL, EXTRAMURAL, FOUNDATIONS, ETC. SHOULD ALL BE INCLUDED.   

START KEEPING THIS RECORD RIGHT AWAY!!   IT WON’T MEANMUCH IN A FOURTH YEAR REVIEW, OR ASSIST‐ASSOC PROF; RESEARCH IS THE IMPORTANT THING.  BUT IT CAN’T HURT…

START KEEPING THIS RECORD RIGHT AWAY!!   IT WON’T MEANMUCH IN A FOURTH YEAR REVIEW, OR ASSIST‐ASSOC PROF; RESEARCH IS THE IMPORTANT THING.  FOR A GOOD JOURNAL, ITWILL INDICATE SOME DEGREE OF PROFESSIONAL RECOGNITION.

START KEEPING THIS RECORD RIGHT AWAY!!   IT WON’T MEANMUCH IN A FOURTH YEAR REVIEW, OR ASSIST‐ASSOC PROF; RESEARCH IS THE IMPORTANT THING.  BUT IT CAN’T HURT…

REMEMBER, YOU CAN ADD ANYTHING YOU WANT.  JUST KEEPYOUR RECORDS.  GIVING  INVITED SEMINARS AND INVITED LECTURES AT MAJOR SOCIETY MEETINGS IS A STRONG INDICATOROF PROFESSIONAL  ACCOMPLISHMENT AND RECOGNITION. I ADVISE MY MENTEES TO HAVE THEIR FRIENDS AT OTHER  INSTITUTIONS TO INVITE THEM – SO THEY CAN MEET INFLUENTIALPEOPLE AND LET  OTHERS KNOW ABOUT THEIR WORK.

NOTE THIS OPPORTUNITY.  DON’T ABUSE

NOTE THIS OPPORTUNITY.  YOU CAN LOOK AT THE FILE BEFORE DEPT REVIEW.YOU CAN ADD COMMENTS AND MATERIAL.DON’T ABUSE

YOU  SHOULD BE INFORMED OF THE DEPARTMENTAL RECOMMENDATION AND THE SUBSTANCE  OF THE COMMENTS.

YOU  SHOULD ALSO BE INFORMED OF THE DEPARTMENTAL  VOTE.

YOU CAN REQUEST  A COPY OF THE DEPARTMENTALRECOMMENDATION.

YOU CAN ADD A REBUTTAL , OR ANY SORT OF COMMENT YOU WISH, AFTER YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD OF THE DEPARTMENTAL  RECOMMENDATION.  THESE COMMENTS WILL BECOME A PART OF THE DOSSIER, TO GO TO THE DEAN, THE AD HOC ACADEMIC  SENATE COMMITTEE, AND THE VICE‐CHANCELLOR REVIEW OF THIS EVALUATION.

READ THIS PAGE, AND FOLLOW ITS INSTRUCTIONS!! IT TELLS YOUHOW TO FORMAT YOUR BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR THE DOSSIER.

YOUR SELF‐STATEMENTTEACHING

My own perspective on this is to first provide a statement about how you feel about the importance of teaching, then to follow that with your philosophy of teaching. For example, I point out that I teach medical students and graduate students with different objectives, and with different methodologies.  The important point, however, is for the review committees to know (1) that you do an adequate amount  of teaching and (2) that the quality of your teaching is good.  But I think revealing your motivations is a good thing.

Then, of course, you want to quantify your teaching contributions by detailing the courses in which you have participated, the numbers of lectures you give, the topics you covered,  how you approach the subjects, new courses, etc.  Include mentoring  grad students, post‐docs, fellows, others.

I think it is also quite reasonable to indicate what impact you think you had in the course.

Be sure that the file contains your student evaluations and your peer evaluations. When you review the file with your administrator for the department, ask if these docs are present.

If a student, fellow, etc sent a note of special thanks, you can –as you know – see that it is included in the file.

YOUR SELF‐STATEMENTRESEARCH  (only published stuff)

At this stage, this is the most important part of your file. You are not talking to a group of peers, in the sense of a submitted manuscript; you are talking to a committee that has some experts and some non‐experts.

Describe your overall area of interest, expertise and publications in an introductory paragraph.

Pick (depending on how many publications you have on the dossier) several examples and describe  for each(1) the question you were asking (2) its place in “the big picture”. Tell, without being too technical, the results you obtained. Tell the reader why the results are important –how they changed the perception in a field, for example.

If you have independent, peer‐reviewed grant support, make a point of describing this in your self‐statement. If you had a great priority score (10th percentile or lower) let the reviewers know it!!

In any collaborative study, point our your role – and try to indicate why it is critical to the result.  Ask your colleagues, on collaborative studies, to send a letter/note to be included in the dossier that indicates your indispensable  contribution.

YOUR SELF‐STATEMENTSERVICE

This will not be a very important part of the review; if your chair/division chief has done a good job, s/he will have protected you from sitting on too many committees.

However, if you have been on any search committees, participated in any department committees, etc, do put them into the self‐statement.  Community service counts some here, but institutional service (to UCLA) or service to the scientific community – organizing a meeting, sitting on a grant review panel, etc. should go into your statement.

GOOD LUCK IN THE 

FUTURE!!