Appointments, Promotion & Tenure
2020-2021
February 6, 2020| Rosenstiel Medical Science Building Conference Room 4139
Welcome!
How are Criteria for Promotion and Tenure Established?
• Faculty Senate is responsible for the policies and procedures as outlined in the Faculty Manual (miami.edu/facultysenate)
• Requirements for faculty promotion and tenure in the Miller School of Medicine are determined by the Faculty Council (medicalcouncil.miami.edu)
2
How Did the New APT Processes Come About?
• The MSOM Faculty Council initiated a revision process for the MSOM Council Bylaws
• A working group of approximately 40 faculty from across the MSOM (all tracks, all ranks) reviewed existing criteria and developed a novel way to objectively establish promotion criteria
3
Bylaws Revision• Promotion and Tenure Task Force presented revised
promotion and tenure criteria to the Bylaws Revision Committee.
• The Bylaws Revision Committee sought input from the full Faculty Council and made additional revisions.
• Faculty Council gave initial approval in May, 2019.• Faculty Senate reviewed for consistency with the
Faculty Manual; minor changes made.• Faculty Council approved final Bylaws, accepted by
Dean Ford in August, 20194
What is the process?
5
Faculty member asks to be considered
Faculty member discussed with division chief or
department chair
Some departments have internal
advisory committee review
Packet prepared with outside letters,
Departmental Review and Vote
MSOM Appointment, Promotion, & Tenure
(APT) Committee Reviews and Votes
Chair’s have opportunity for
appeal of negative or split APT votes
Dean reviews APT recommendation and
makes Dean’s recommendation
University Academic Personnel Board
(APB) Reviews and Votes
Provost Reviews Recommendations,
makes Final Decisions
University Board of Trustees Reviews and Makes Final
Decisions on Tenure
Individual/Department
Miller School of Medicine
University
APT Process Overview/TimelineAPT process Time-Line Supporting documents
Survey Faculty for Promotion Jan-2020Information Sessions Feb-2020APT Committee Meeting - Initial Appts and Mid-Point Mar-May-2020
Collect surveys and prepare faculty list by Department Feb-2020
Faculty Affairs works with Departments to compile information and solicit letters
Feb -April 2020
Faculty members need to provide suggestions for reviewers' name, CV, Personal Statement, 3 Publications and/or Edu portfolio
Vetting list of reviewers with Chair / designee Feb -April 2020 Initial list of reviewers
and Curriculum Vitae
APT Process Overview/TimelineSolicitation letters sent to external reviewers March-May 2020
APT solicitation letters, CV, APT guidelines, clinical summary form, teaching evaluation
Receive and review external reviewer letters April-June 2020 External reviewer letters
Bio-Sketch preparation for external reviewers June-July 2020
External reviewer biosketch and cover page with arm's length review questions
Compile information; the departments coordinate and schedule voting meetings with the faculty
May-July 2020
Copies of P and T files (e.g., Personal Statement, CV, Reviewer letters with cover sheets, publications, teaching evaluation)
APT Process Overview/TimelineFinal Curriculum Vitae for package Jun-2020 Curriculum Vitae UM
templateScholarly Material Review form Jun-2020 3 Publications
Department Faculty Meeting for voting Jun-2020 Copies of P and T files
Departments give final vetting list of faculty candidates for August-November Promotion meetings to faculty affairs
Jun-2020
DF-15s Due 1-Jun-2020
Letter of support from the Chair 1-Jun-2020
Memo to APT Committee specifically highlighting faculty portfolio summary and noting chair recommendation.
APT Process Overview/TimelineSummary of recommendation of the voting faculty 1-Jun-2020
Memo to APT Committee specifically noting discussion of meeting.
Files to Faculty Affairs 1-Jun-2020 Final APT File
Faculty Affairs uploads files to Share Point June-July, 2020 Final APT file
School of Medicine APT Committee Meetings August-November, 2020 Final APT file
School of Medicine APT Committee Appeals Meeting
August-November, 2020 Final APT file
APT Files with committee summary for Dean's input and recommendation 1-Nov-2020 Final APT file + Committee
Recommendations
APT Process Overview/TimelineAPT Files, including Dean's recommendation, to Coral Gables 1-Dec-2020 Final APT file + Dean
review
Gables Appointment and Promotion Board Jan -Feb 2021 Final APT file + Dean review
All files to the Provost Feb-2021 Final APT file + Dean review
Board of Trustee Review Feb-2021 Final APT file + Provost
Announcement of Results by Provost and Gables May-2021
Table 1 Approvalof Dean & Provost
Vote ofEligible Faculty
Chair Review
Committee Review
DeanReview
APBReview
ProvostApproval
PresidentApproval
Trustees Approval
Instructor, CE
TrackX X
Assistant,Professor, all Tracks
X X
Associate, Professor, Professor,
all non-tenuretracks
X X X X X X
Tenure-Earning
(Assistant & AssociateProfessor)
X X X X X X X X X
Award of Tenure
(Associate Professor &Professor)
X X X X X X X X X
Review Steps for Each Track and Rank
Faculty Tracks and RanksAppointments and Promotions
• Instructor: – Only for individuals who have not completed training (e.g., Fellows) or allied
health professionals involved in clinical training (e.g., some ARNPs)• Assistant Professor
– Tenure-earning appointment requires Dean, Provost prior approval– All other tracks require department vote, chair support, Dean support
• Associate Professor– Tenure-earning must be promoted to Associate Professor no later than 5th year– All tracks require department vote, APT review, Dean support, APB review,
Provost decision; Tenure-related cases required President and Board of Trustees review and approval
• Professor– All tracks require department vote, APT review, Dean support, APB review,
Provost decision; Tenure-related cases required President and Board of Trustees review and approval
Getting Started: Seek Advice and Feedback from Others
• Meet with your chair or division chief early in the process to gain his/her support and perspective
• Share materials with a colleague, preferably one who has already successful gone through the process, and who doesn’t know you or your area well to be sure it is clear and interpretable
13
Summary ofAchievements
CV inUM
Format
PersonalStatement
Five (5) External
Letters (at least 2
recommended by Chair)
EducatorPortfolio
ClinicalPortfolio
Scholarship, Funding, Clinical,
Teaching, & Administrative
Matrices
Research X X X X X NA X
Clinical Educator X X X X X X X
EducatorX X X X X N/A X
Tenure-Earning or Award ofTenure
X X X X X Clinical FacultyOnly
X
Promotion Packet Components
Personal Statement/Career Assessment
• Recommended length: 2-3 pages (2 is preferred)• Illustrate progressive advancement and impact: Tell your story, but do so
concisely• Suggested outline:
– Paragraph 1 – Early career and roots in science and teaching– Paragraph 2 – Development of your particular expertise (in research,
education, administration, clinical care)– Paragraph 3 – Recognition of expertise by others (papers, panels,
journal reviews, advisory and editorial boards)– Paragraph 4 – Comment on other areas (e.g. teaching, administration,
service)– Paragraph 5 – Vision for your future – how will you continue to grow,
excel, and increase scope of impact
15
External Reviewers• You will be asked to provide 8-10 reviewer names that may be contacted by
your Chair for a letter of evaluation. You are required to have 5 “arm’s length” letters for your promotion package. At least 2 must be from individuals identified by your chair and not by you.
• Reviewers should be:– academic leaders who can provide neutral expert opinions on your accomplishments,
stature, and potential for future success.– at a rank at least equal to that which you aspire. Letters from Senior Leaders in non-
academic institutions will be included in your file, but will NOT be considered as one of the 5 core letters.
– neutral to you (should NOT be former mentors, preceptors, colleagues or collaborators).• Confidentiality is imperative. Once the reviewer list has been submitted, the candidate cannot
be informed as to who has responded or what response was received.• Faculty Affairs will email the solicitation requests, once approved by the candidate’s chairman,
unless the Department indicates that they will handle the solicitation process themselves. If this is the case, the Department is required to follow-up with Faculty Affairs and provide weekly updates.
• You may have letters of support from internal colleagues and/or collaborators at other institutions but they will not count towards the required 5 letters for your packet.
16
External LettersExclusions
• The following are NOT considered arm’s length– Previously or currently employed by the University of Miami– Former or current mentors, supervisors, or preceptors– Former students, fellows, residents, classmates, or other trainees, including
those for whom you have served on a masters or doctoral committee– Colleagues from the same division or department at a prior or current
institution.– Collaborators on grants, contracts, publications, abstracts, conference
presentations, posters, or symposia. An exception includes individuals who are site PIs on multi-center trials, grants, or publications and the investigators are not part of a steering committee and interaction is limited to editing or reviewing project outcomes and/or manuscripts
– Individuals who have interacted substantially with the candidate on regional, national, or international panels, task forces, study sections, or professional organization leadership teams
– Individuals who regularly refer patient directly to you– Individuals on corporate boards or in business relationship with you
17
MSOM Promotion and Tenure CriteriaFaculty Council Bylaw Revision August, 2019
• Considerations for promotion– Evidence of trajectory of contribution– Evidence of Scholarship for all tracks– Evidence of Research funding for tenure-earning, research
tracks– Evidence of Clinical Innovation (clinical-educator track)– Evidence of Teaching excellence– Evidence of Reputation – Evidence of Service – Meets Citizenship Requirements
Scholarship
• Emphasis is on:– Quantity and Quality– Impact – Trajectory (increasing) over time
19
ScholarshipAssistant to Associate Professor
Track Minimum Matrix Score (since last appointment or last 5 years
Minimum # Peer-reviewed Publications in past 5 years
# Publications as First or Senior Author in past 5 years
H Index (Qualitative Measure- state source- Google Scholar preferred)
Tenure-Earning 6.0 5 4 (impact >3.0)
Research 8 Minimum average 1/year
2 (Impact > 3.0)
Clinical Educator (cfte<70%)
5 4 2 (n peer-reviewed, indexed journal)
Clinical Educator(cfte>70%)
3 3 1 (in peer-reviewed, indexed journal)
Educator 6 Minimum average 1/yr1
NA NA
Award of Tenure 12 Minimum average 2/year
7 (Impact >3.0)
20
1Paper, book/book chapter, or published curriculum
ScholarshipAssociate Professor to Professor
Track Minimum Matrix Score (since last appointment or last 5 years
Minimum # Peer-reviewed Publications past 5 years
# Publications as First or Senior Author in past 5 years
H Index(Qualitative Measure of Impact-state source- Google Scholar Preferred)
Tenure-Earning NA NA NA
Research 10 Minimum average 2/year
4 (Impact > 3.0)
Clinical Educator (cfte<70%)
7 8 4 (in peer-reviewed, indexed journal)
Clinical Educator(cfte>70%)
5 5 2 (in peer-reviewed, indexed journal)
Educator 8 Minimum average 2/year1
Award of Tenure Career 22, Last 5 years 12
10 8 (impact >3.0)
211Papers must be on education research or published curriculum
Clinical Impact
• Clinical Portfolio Components– Scope of Clinical Practice
• Clinical Narrative• Productivity (wRVU)• Supervisor evaluation of clinical performance• Peer evaluations of clinical performance
– Patient experience and satisfaction
22
Clinical Impact (continued)
– Commitment to ongoing growth• Self Improvement• New Skills Acquired• Role in new models of patient care• Role in efficiency and quality of practice
patterns• Create work and activities related to patient
care– Meeting quality of care metrics
23
Clinical Impact (continued)
– Clinical Leadership– Professional contributions– Clinical publications and presentations– Clinical honors and awards
• Emphasis is on– Clinical leadership– Clinical innovation
24
Clinical Impact and InnovationAssistant to Associate Professor
Track Exceeds Clinical Target for cfte
Exceeds Patient Satisfaction Benchmarks
Provides Clinical Administrative Leadership
Tenure-Earning Yes (if clinical) Yes (if clinical) Yes (if clinical)
Research NA NA NA
Clinical Educator (cfte<70%)
Yes Yes Yes
Clinical Educator(cfte>70%)
Yes Yes Yes
Educator NA NA NA
Award of Tenure Yes (if clinical) Yes (if clinical) Yes (if clinical)
25
Clinical Impact and InnovationAssociate Professor to Professor
Track Exceeds Clinical Target for cfte
Exceeds Patient Satisfaction Benchmarks
Provides Clinical Administrative Leadership
Provides Evidence of Innovation in Clinical Care
Tenure-Earning Yes (if clinical) Yes (if clinical) Yes (if clinical) Yes (if clinical)
Research NA NA NA NA
Clinical Educator (cfte<70%)
Yes Yes Yes Yes
Clinical Educator(cfte>70%)
Yes Yes Yes Yes
Educator NA NA NA NA
Award of Tenure Yes (if clinical) Yes (if clinical) Yes (if clinical) Yes (if clinical)
26
Education and Teaching
• Teaching is what defines someone as a faculty member
• Emphasis is on – Engagement with learners– Quality of teaching and progress of
learners
27
The Educator Portfolio(Educator, Clinical-Educator, Tenure-Earning)
Teaching
Patient Care
Research
TeachingAssistant to Associate Professor
Track Evidence of Active Teaching
Average learner teaching evaluation score
Peer-evaluations (3) rated excellent, outstanding, or exemplary
Served on Educational Committee or holds Educational Leadership position
Evidence of innovation in teaching
Tenure-Earning Clinical, formal teaching, mentor
>3.6/5.0 Yes
Research Clinical, formal teaching, mentor
>3.6/5.0 Yes
Clinical Educator (cfte<70%)
Clinical, formal teaching, mentor
>3.6/5.0 Yes Yes
Clinical Educator(cfte>70%)
Clinical, formal teaching, mentor
>3.6/5.0 Yes Yes
Educator Formal Teaching Program or
Mentor
>3.6/5.0 Yes Curriculum development or
educational administration
Award of Tenure Clinical, formal teaching, mentor
>3.6/5.0 Yes
30
TeachingAssociate Professor to Professor
Track Evidence of Active Teaching
Average learner teaching evaluation score
Peer-evaluations (3) rated excellent, outstanding, or exemplary
Served on Educational Committee or Educational Leadership position
Evidence of innovation in teaching
Tenure-Earning Clinical, formal teaching, mentor
>3.6/5.0 Yes
Research Clinical, formal teaching, mentor
>3.6/5.0 Yes
Clinical Educator (cfte<70%)
Clinical, formal teaching, mentor
>3.6/5.0 Yes Yes
Clinical Educator(cfte>70%)
Clinical, formal teaching, mentor
>3.6/5.0 Yes Yes
Educator Formal Teaching Program or
Mentor
>3.6/5.0 Yes Significant Curriculum
development or ed administration
Award of Tenure Clinical, formal teaching, mentor
>3.6/5.0 Yes31
Reputation
• Emphasis is on – Recognition outside UM for
• Clinical contributions and excellence• Research contributions• Advocacy Contributions• Professional contributions
32
ReputationAssistant to Associate Professor
Track Regional National International
Tenure-Earning X
Research X
Clinical Educator (cfte<70%)
X
Clinical Educator(cfte>70%)
X
Educator X
Award of Tenure X
33
ReputationAssociate Professor to Professor
Track Regional National International
Tenure-Earning
Research X
Clinical Educator (cfte<70%)
X
Clinical Educator(cfte>70%)
X
Educator X
Award of Tenure X
34
Regional Reputation Examples
• Participation on local, state, or regional research boards
• Leadership in regional professional society• Invited platform presentations, symposia, or
workshops at regional meetings• Participation as author on regional policy • Participation in at least one local or regional
advocacy initiative resulting in measurable change
35
National Reputation Examples• Participation on federal, state, or foundation
research study sections• Leadership in a national professional society• Invited platform presentations, symposia, or
workshops at national meetings• Participation as author on national practice
guidelines• Participation in at least one national advocacy
initiative that results in measurable policy change
36
International Reputation Examples
• Participation on international research or policy panels
• Leadership in international professional society• Invited platform presentations, symposia, or
workshops at international meetings• Participation as an author on international practice
guidelines• Participation in at least one international advocacy
initiative resulting in measurable policy change37
Service
• Evidence of service to the University, local community, regional community, national community, or international community by at least one of the following:– Active, documented participation on at least one Department,
School, or University Committee– Active documented participation on a local, state, regional,
national, or international policy board– Active documented participation on a local, regional, or national
not-for-profit foundation or agency board
38
Citizenship
• Individuals eligible for promotion or award of tenure are expected to be role models for citizenship in the Division, Department, School, and University.
• Faculty on any track who are in violation of the Zero Tolerance Policy for Mistreatment of Learners or found to be in violation of Department, School, or University standards of professional behavior will not be considered for promotion.
39
Weighting of ContributionsScholarship Funding Education Clinical
ImpactReputation Service
Tenure-Earning-Research
25% 25% 20% NA 20% 10%
Tenure-Earning-Clinical Component
20% 20% 20% 10% 20% 10%
Educator 20% 0% 60% NA 10% 10%Research 30% 30% 10% NA 20% 10%Clinical Educator 10% 0% 30% 30% 20% 10%
Special Considerations• Track Changes
– Requests for track changes must be made before annual department vote, and require department vote and chair support
– Track changes involving tenure-earning track require department vote, Dean approval, and Provost approval, and may require APT & APB review
– Individuals at the rank of Professor on any track may be considered for the Award of Tenure at any point (no time clock) with the prior approval of the Dean and Provost. In this case, there is no terminal notice if the Award of Tenure is not approved.
• Time at Rank– Time at rank is not a criterion for promotion
• Rank or Tenure at Another Institution– Rank or tenure at another institution does not guarantee the same rank or tenure at UM.
Each case must undergo the standard review process.• Early Consideration for Promotion or Tenure
– Candidate must exceed the minimum requirements that would be expected for someone 5 years at rank
• Clinical Productivity or Administration– Clinical productivity and administration are significant contributions to the MSOM, but are not
by themselves sufficient for academic promotion. Promotion is based on evidence of clinical innovation, scholarship, teaching excellence, reputation, and service.
Faculty Assessment Forms
43
44
45
46
47
48
Thank You!
Faculty Affairs Contacts:Joan St. Onge, MD, MPH, Senior Dean for Faculty Affairs-(305)243-9638Preston Pugh, Executive Director-(305) 243-7106Mitzi Wilkinson, Director, Faculty Affairs-(305) 243-6551Diana Mondesir, Sr. Manager, Business Operations for Faculty Affairs-(305) 243-6461Ann Cata, Programs Manager, Graduate Medical Education-(305) 243-1847Lydia Sanchez, Administrative Assistant for Faculty Affairs-(305) 243-6551
Top Related