Meeting of Assistant Professors Discussion of Promotion and Tenure July 25, 2011

Meeting of Assistant Professors

Discussion of Promotion and Tenure

July 25, 2011

Agenda

• Review of Faculty Tracks

• Mentoring committees (including third- and sixth-year reviews)

• Promotion expectations for researchers

• Promotion expectations for education

• Demonstration of Academic Portfolio

Mentoring Committees

Mentoring Committees

• All full-time Assistant Professors must have a mentoring committee.

• The goal of the committee is to provide the junior faculty member with a critical assessment of his/her progress.

• Two senior faculty, including one from the same department.

• Meet annually.• The committee must provide annual written reports to

the faculty member, the department Chair and (where appropriate) the Program Coordinator/Division Director.

Audience Response (Mentoring Committees)

1. My primary faculty appointment is in aA. Clinical department

B. Basic science department

2011 Faculty Affairs Survey Question 1

2. My faculty track isA. Non-tenure eligible

B. Tenure-eligible



3. I have a mentoring committeeA. Yes

B. No



4. I have found it easy to identify mentors within my department

Strongly StronglyDisagreeDisagreeNeutral Agree Agree

A B C D E



5. I have found it easy to identify mentors outside of my department


A B C D E



6. I am satisfied with the advice provided by my mentoring committee




A B C D E

N/A

F

7. I am comfortable reaching out to individual members of my committee for advice




A B C D E

N/A

F

8. The number of annual meetings with my mentoring committee is generally

A. None

B. 1

C. 2

D. 3

E. 4+

F. Other



9. I receive my mentoring committee report annually

A. Yes

B. No

C. N/A



10. I meet with my Chair annually to review my mentoring committee feedback

A. Yes

B. No

C. N/A



Questions on Mentoring

Three and Six Year Reviews

Third- and Sixth-Year Reviews

• Reviews are conducted for all full-time faculty• The Dean’s office notifies the Chair when a review is due• The review is conducted by the Chair and the

Departmental Appointments and Promotions Committee• If tenure is considered unlikely, the Chair meets with the

faculty member to discuss his/her options• The Chair notifies the Dean and faculty member of the

outcome of the meeting in writing

Audience Response:(Promotions and Tenure)

11. I am familiar with the revised policies and procedures for appointment, promotion and tenure*.

A. Yes

B. No.


*URL


12. I understand what I need to do to prepare for my 3rd and 6th year reviews


A B C D E


13. Challenges with preparing for my 3rd and 6th year reviews include (check all that apply):A. I have not experienced any challenges

B. Uncertainty of how to prepare

C. Meeting with my Chair

D. Convening my mentoring committee

E. Other



Tenure DecisionsTenure Decisions

• GrantsGrants • NIH Grants, including evidence of renewalNIH Grants, including evidence of renewal • Peer reviewed Peer reviewed publications (especially 1st or publications (especially 1st or

last-author publications)last-author publications)• Innovative technologiesInnovative technologies• Non-peer reviewed publicationsNon-peer reviewed publications• Book Book chapterschapters• AbstractsAbstracts• PresentationsPresentations

Questions on 3- and 6- Reviews and Expectations for Promotion

Audience Response (Performance Expectations for Research Faculty)

In 2009, the School of Medicine accepted the recommendations of the AEC and implemented the Policy on Performance Expectations for Research Faculty, which defined expectations for research faculty productivity, adopting metrics utilized at peer institutions. The process for evaluating research faculty involves multiple steps and engagement of the faculty, Chairs, and the Dean’s Office.

2011 Faculty Affairs Survey Page 14

Expectations for Research Faculty (AEC)

• Basic and clinical science departments

• 60% extramural coverage of research compensation

• Policy on Performance Expectations for Research Faculty– http://webdoc.nyumc.org/nyumc/files/efaa/attachments/PolicyonPe

rformanceExpectationsforResearchFaculty_FINAL.pdf

http://webdoc.nyumc.org/nyumc/files/efaa/attachments/PolicyonPerformanceExpectationsforResearchFaculty_FINAL.pdf

http://webdoc.nyumc.org/nyumc/files/efaa/attachments/PolicyonPerformanceExpectationsforResearchFaculty_FINAL.pdf

INSERT FLOW DIAGRAM OF CALCULATION OF EFFORT


14. More than 25% of my total effort is allocated to conduct researchA. Yes

B. No



15. I am familiar with the recommendations of the Academic Excellence CommissionA. Yes

B. No



16. I understand how Departments allocate effort for School approved education, administration and research efforts as described in the policyA. Yes

B. No



17. I understand how my efforts have been allocatedA. Yes

B. No



18. I am satisfied with the allocation of my research, education and administrative efforts


A B C D E


N/A

F


19. I meet with my Chair annually to review my progress towards extramural fundingA. Yes

B. No

C. N/A


Questions on Research Expectations

Promotion to Rank of Associate Professor based upon excellence in education

…. As members of the academic community they should publish the results of their observations…Exceptional candidates may also qualify for promotion based upon evidence of distinguished contributions to the educational mission without publications. Such evidence, which should be documented in an academic portfolio…beyond what is expected from the average faculty member ..…

2010 Revisions to Recognize Excellence in Teaching

• Promotion as an educator on tenure track remains

• Criteria added to non-tenure tracks

• Recognition of teaching excellence without requirement for publications or extramural reputation

Education Expectations (“Artman”)

• In order to be considered for credit “in excess of Artman II”, a faculty member must first fulfill his/her expected teaching obligations through the following:– •Minimum of 200 effort hours annually. Of the 200 hours,

• At least 40 hours of Type I of teaching must be in formal courses in undergraduate medical education (UME)

• At least 40 hours of Type I of teaching or thesis advising must be in formal courses in the graduate school (Sackler Institute)

• Guidelines for Education Effort– http://webdoc.nyumc.org/nyumc/files/efaa/attachments/FINAL_G

UIDELINES_FOR_EDUCATION_EFFORT_AEC_POLICY.pdf

http://webdoc.nyumc.org/nyumc/files/efaa/attachments/FINAL_GUIDELINES_FOR_EDUCATION_EFFORT_AEC_POLICY.pdf

http://webdoc.nyumc.org/nyumc/files/efaa/attachments/FINAL_GUIDELINES_FOR_EDUCATION_EFFORT_AEC_POLICY.pdf

20. I am familiar with the “Artman” teaching expectations for facultyA. Yes

B. No


Audience Response(Education)

21. I participate in the teaching of scheduled coursesA. Yes

B. No



22. The schedule courses in which I teach are for (check all that apply)A. Medical students

B. Graduate students

C. Residents/fellows

D. Students at Washington Square

E. Other



Revisions 2010

“Therefore, to be considered for promotion, documenting the scholarship of education requires demonstration of accomplishments, which should take the form of an academic portfolio. Course leadership and design, the judgment of students, trainees, and peers, and meritorious publications may also be considered when a faculty member's teaching is assessed.”

Audience Response (ePortfolio)

23. I am familiar with the ePortfolio (academic portfolio)

A. Yes

B. No



24. I use the ePortfolio (academic portfolio) to document and track my accomplishments

A. Yes

B. No



24. I find the ePortfolio application easy to use


A B C D E


N/A

F

Questions on Education

Academic ePortfolio

Sabrina LeeAssistant Director

Division of Educational Informatics

Documents

Meeting of Assistant Professors Discussion of Promotion and Tenure July 25, 2011