Transcript Preparing for Promotion - Medical College of Wisconsin

Preparing for Promotion
Advice from the
Rank & Tenure Committee
Karen Marcdante, MD
Medical 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
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)
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
The Tracks: Expected Effort
ClinicianEducator
Traditional
Scholarship
Teaching
Service
The Tracks: Expected Effort
Academic
Clinician
Research
Scholarship
Teaching
Service
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!
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 proposed
Updated CV
Updated portfolio (CE/AC tracks +?)
Names of referees
Two representative publications
Number of referees
Research Clinician
Educator
Path
Path
Academic
Clinician
Path
Traditional
Assoc
Professor
Internal
External
4
5
4
2
4*
2
4
5
Professor
Internal
External
4
7
4
4
6*
2
4
7
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
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 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
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 committee
Consider annotations as needed
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
CV Examples
30 hours/year Introduction to Clinical Medical (M1)
(the Medical Interview)
10 hours/year Bioethics Small Group Facilitator (M2)
7 hrs/rotation
8 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
4
3.5
All U.K. Faculty
3
2.5
All Year 3 & 4
COM Faculty
All Pediatric
Faculty
Dr. Chris Nelson
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
96-97
97-98
Student Teaching Evaluations: Dr.
Nelson compared to other faculty
Portfolio Example: Clinical
Section's Patient Volume
Year gone on
sabbatical
1100
1000
900
800
No. of Pts
700
600
500
400
1999
2000
2001
2002
Year
2003
2004
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
Portfolio Example:
Academic Clinician - QI
90
80
70
60
50
Implementation
of protocol
Percent
40
receiving
enteral
feeds
30
20
10
0
July
October
January
April
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
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 Board
Positive 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 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
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
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
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)
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