OAPD - Letters Of Evaluation for Appointment and Promotion

Transcript

• 00:00This is our latest in
• 00:02series of of, presentations
• 00:04on different aspects
• 00:05of the,
• 00:07promotion review process and forms
• 00:09and documents. This is one
• 00:10that I would say probably
• 00:12gives people,
• 00:14the most anxiety in terms
• 00:15of coming up with,
• 00:18people who are going to
• 00:19serve as evaluators or referees
• 00:21for their promotion review. So
• 00:23I'm gonna go through a
• 00:25lot of, kind of detail
• 00:26on this. A lot of
• 00:27this is on our OAPD
• 00:29website.
• 00:30So as you know, our
• 00:31school, like most academic institutions,
• 00:34requires
• 00:35letters of evaluation as important
• 00:38part of the, appointment and
• 00:39promotion process.
• 00:42Our school requires a specific
• 00:44number and a specific types
• 00:45of letters for promotions or
• 00:47for new appointments to advanced
• 00:49rank.
• 00:51Here at at Yale and
• 00:53at a lot of places,
• 00:55when candidates are reviewed for
• 00:56promotion,
• 00:57they're not allowed to request
• 01:00those letters from referees,
• 01:03in the same way that
• 01:05you might do what or
• 01:06you might have done when
• 01:07you were applying for a
• 01:08job here as a,
• 01:11associate research scientist or assistant
• 01:13professor.
• 01:15You're not allowed to kind
• 01:16of have conversations
• 01:17with these evaluators
• 01:19or check-in with them
• 01:20about, whether they're willing to
• 01:22write a letter for you.
• 01:23So it's a little bit
• 01:24different than, sort of letters
• 01:26for a job hiring process.
• 01:30With some exceptions, which I'll
• 01:31describe in a in a
• 01:32few slides, all of your
• 01:34evaluators,
• 01:35should be at or above
• 01:37the rank you are being
• 01:38reviewed for,
• 01:40and that's because they're judging
• 01:41you as an
• 01:43more senior expert in the
• 01:45field typically,
• 01:47and they're evaluating
• 01:48your standing, your contributions,
• 01:49and your reputation in the
• 01:51field in comparison
• 01:53to other faculty that they
• 01:54may know who are on
• 01:55a similar track or a
• 01:56similar stage in their career.
• 01:58And in order to make
• 01:59that evaluation,
• 02:00they need their first they
• 02:02need to be,
• 02:03kind of at least as
• 02:04expert as all of you
• 02:05are to evaluate that.
• 02:07So if you're being reviewed,
• 02:09for associate professor, it means
• 02:11that all of your evaluators
• 02:13must be associate professors or
• 02:15full professors,
• 02:17with a few exceptions as
• 02:18I said, which I'll cover
• 02:19in a few slides.
• 02:21I can't overstate how important
• 02:23these letters of evaluation
• 02:25are,
• 02:25and choosing the right people
• 02:27and
• 02:28consulting with colleagues in your
• 02:30department about
• 02:32possible people who might serve
• 02:34as expert evaluators
• 02:35of your contributions,
• 02:37to the field.
• 02:40So I'll I'll start by
• 02:42focusing on some important distinction
• 02:44between two different types of
• 02:46letters,
• 02:47which are important to academic
• 02:49reviews, in most universities.
• 02:52This is part of the
• 02:53process I'd say that faculty
• 02:56typically have the most questions
• 02:58about.
• 02:59We made some modifications
• 03:01to these definitions a few
• 03:02years ago to loosen some
• 03:04of the rigidity and the
• 03:06definitions that we had been
• 03:07historically using.
• 03:09And also to be,
• 03:10more consistent with how our,
• 03:12peer institutions have evolved in
• 03:15in thinking about these letters.
• 03:17But in general,
• 03:19non arms length,
• 03:20evaluators
• 03:21have usually worked directly with
• 03:24you, currently or recently
• 03:26in some capacity or collaborated
• 03:28with you, and they're generally
• 03:30gonna be positively biased in
• 03:32favor of your being promoted,
• 03:34which is fine.
• 03:36Arms like the valuators
• 03:38really should have no current
• 03:39or direct relationship with you
• 03:41and
• 03:42they should be considering themselves
• 03:44to be impartial or unbiased
• 03:46judges of your case
• 03:48for promotion.
• 03:49Having said that, it's always
• 03:51preferable I think
• 03:53for people who might be
• 03:54serving as arms length referees
• 03:56to know who you are.
• 03:57That isn't always the case
• 03:59and it doesn't have to
• 04:00be, but
• 04:01in our experience that people
• 04:02have at least like met
• 04:03you at professional meetings or
• 04:05maybe
• 04:07been on a committee with
• 04:07you, their likelihood of of
• 04:09writing a letter kind of
• 04:10increases and if they they
• 04:11have no idea who you
• 04:13are,
• 04:14but that's fine to include
• 04:15some people who you've never
• 04:17met as well.
• 04:19There are a number of
• 04:20ways,
• 04:21people may know you that
• 04:22do not
• 04:23preclude there being,
• 04:25considered arms length referees and
• 04:27I will spend a little
• 04:29bit more time on that
• 04:30in a few slides.
• 04:32So on our website, we
• 04:33have a bunch of different,
• 04:36files or documents
• 04:38related to this.
• 04:40And before I summarize some
• 04:41of the the definitions of
• 04:42evaluators, I just wanted to
• 04:44make people aware of these.
• 04:46You can go on our
• 04:47website and read these
• 04:49through. I'm I'm gonna summarize
• 04:50some of this today,
• 04:52but I'd say if you're
• 04:53going to be reviewed for
• 04:54promotion
• 04:55for,
• 04:56like for what would be
• 04:57January first two thousand seventeen,
• 05:00I really strongly advise you
• 05:02to review all of the
• 05:03the materials on the website
• 05:05as you start thinking about
• 05:06who's going to be writing
• 05:07letters.
• 05:09The proceed the procedure document
• 05:10we have is is longer.
• 05:12It's a bit more focused
• 05:13on guiding
• 05:14faculty affairs staff with this
• 05:16process but,
• 05:17might be worth, faculty reviewing
• 05:19as well.
• 05:20And then there's a shorter
• 05:22guidance document that helps you
• 05:24decide whether someone might be
• 05:26non arms length or arms
• 05:27length.
• 05:28And then there are three
• 05:29existing forms,
• 05:31that have also been revised
• 05:32which I'll show you parts
• 05:33of and some coming slides.
• 05:36In addition a few years
• 05:37ago,
• 05:39we revised
• 05:40these, email letter solicitations
• 05:43that we send out to
• 05:44evaluators,
• 05:45that invite people to evaluate
• 05:47you on the track and
• 05:48the rank that you're being,
• 05:50considered for and I'll I'll
• 05:51show examples of that in
• 05:53a minute.
• 05:55So as I mentioned, there's
• 05:56typically an expectation that a
• 05:58referee,
• 05:59is at or above the
• 06:00rank you are being proposed
• 06:02for for promotion.
• 06:04There are some exceptions to
• 06:06this. For example,
• 06:08leaders at the National Institutes
• 06:10of Health or
• 06:11executive leaders of major organizations
• 06:14in your field or senior
• 06:16scientists at institutes or industry,
• 06:18who do not have a
• 06:20professor appointment
• 06:21are allowed and the guidelines
• 06:23that are on the website,
• 06:25spell this out and indicate
• 06:27that there really shouldn't be
• 06:28more than two
• 06:30of these people for most
• 06:31tracks.
• 06:39There's a couple of documents
• 06:41that are used in the
• 06:42review process
• 06:44that,
• 06:45these two questions appear on.
• 06:48And they are really the
• 06:49overarching
• 06:50principles of what Yale and
• 06:52most other institutions
• 06:53mean by,
• 06:54an impartial
• 06:56or arms length referee versus
• 06:59a non arms length or
• 07:00a favorably
• 07:02biased
• 07:03referee, if you will. The
• 07:05first is, does the referee
• 07:07have a past or present
• 07:09professional or personal relationship with
• 07:11you,
• 07:12that could impact their actual
• 07:14or their perceived ability to
• 07:15provide an impartial review?
• 07:17And then could that referee
• 07:19or perhaps the program where
• 07:21they are,
• 07:22be perceived as benefited benefiting
• 07:25from a successful or unsuccessful
• 07:27outcome of your review?
• 07:29So if either of these
• 07:30questions as you're going through
• 07:31your list you you come
• 07:33up with a yes answer,
• 07:35then usually
• 07:36that referee,
• 07:38should be thought of as
• 07:39being a non arm's length
• 07:40referee.
• 07:41If both are no,
• 07:43then they're probably an arm's
• 07:45length referee, and if you
• 07:47have any uncertainty about it
• 07:48one way or the other,
• 07:49it's always worth consulting with,
• 07:52faculty colleagues or with our
• 07:54office about,
• 07:56which they may be.
• 07:59So this is a list
• 08:00of the typical characteristics
• 08:02of arms length referees. This
• 08:04this,
• 08:05document is on the website.
• 08:09And generally,
• 08:11arms length evaluators have no
• 08:13current direct relationship with you,
• 08:16and would consider themselves as
• 08:17I said to be impartial
• 08:18or unbiased judges of your
• 08:20case for promotion.
• 08:22As I've mentioned before, it's
• 08:24it's it's usually best if
• 08:26those arms length referees kinda
• 08:28know who you are or
• 08:29maybe have met you,
• 08:30because it increases their chances
• 08:32of writing letter but they
• 08:33don't have to know you.
• 08:35And then so this is
• 08:36really a list of,
• 08:37from the guidance document on
• 08:39the website of,
• 08:41what we consider character typical,
• 08:43characteristics
• 08:44of what could be considered
• 08:45an arm's length referee. So
• 08:47obviously, they if they've never
• 08:49known you
• 08:50or met or trained or
• 08:52worked with you,
• 08:53they'd be arm's length. But
• 08:55there are also many ways
• 08:56in which an arms length
• 08:57referee,
• 08:59may may know you or
• 09:00have,
• 09:01have worked with you in
• 09:02some way,
• 09:04but they'd still be considered
• 09:06impartial. So
• 09:08people who've read your work,
• 09:10people you've interacted with at
• 09:12meetings,
• 09:13people that you've served together
• 09:14on committees, or if you've
• 09:16done peer reviews for an
• 09:18editor of a journal,
• 09:21or done other kinds of
• 09:22peer reviewing,
• 09:23or participated,
• 09:25you know, as
• 09:26a presenter within a symposium,
• 09:28typically those are gonna be
• 09:30allowable as arm's length referees.
• 09:33If you've co presented with
• 09:35them at meetings or have
• 09:37published with them, then they're
• 09:38not, but just being,
• 09:40kind of working with people
• 09:41in the same space doesn't
• 09:43make someone,
• 09:44non arms length of ref
• 09:45referees.
• 09:47But for the most part,
• 09:47this is gonna be a
• 09:48group that's evaluating you,
• 09:51on your contributions
• 09:53based on the documents that
• 09:55get sent to them without
• 09:56also having knowledge of of
• 09:58of of very much knowledge
• 10:00of of who you are.
• 10:02So that's why we really
• 10:03emphasize in some of our
• 10:04other talks,
• 10:05you know, high quality,
• 10:07well organized
• 10:09CV and CV part two,
• 10:12and other kinds of documents.
• 10:15Non arms length evaluators have
• 10:16worked directly with you, currently
• 10:19or in the recent past
• 10:20in some capacity.
• 10:22And as I said, they're
• 10:22generally gonna be positively biased
• 10:24in favor of, you're being
• 10:26promoted. They're people that
• 10:28have worked closely with you.
• 10:29Their opinions about you obviously
• 10:31are valuable, but they're typically,
• 10:33you know, gonna write a
• 10:34fairly positive letter.
• 10:36So these are people like,
• 10:38you know, people that you've
• 10:38co authored manuscripts
• 10:40with or if you've co
• 10:42presented
• 10:43a paper,
• 10:44or or or co kind
• 10:46of created a panel discussion,
• 10:49if you've co edited a
• 10:50book with them,
• 10:52if you wrote a book
• 10:53chapter for somebody else, that's
• 10:56that typically is gonna be
• 10:58fine as an arm's length
• 10:59referee, but if you're the
• 11:00co editor of a book
• 11:01or your co author of
• 11:02a chapter obviously
• 11:04that's gonna be non arm's
• 11:05length.
• 11:06Co instructors of courses,
• 11:10research collaborators on grants,
• 11:13supervisors,
• 11:14mentors, mentees, faculty at the
• 11:16same institution. All of these
• 11:18are typically,
• 11:20considered,
• 11:21non arms length
• 11:24referees with some exceptions, which
• 11:26I'll kind of go through
• 11:27now.
• 11:29After I had conducted this
• 11:31peer benchmark
• 11:33peer benchmarking project a few
• 11:35years ago,
• 11:37just to see how other
• 11:38peer institutions were,
• 11:41considering these these letters, you
• 11:43know, and how that's evolved
• 11:44over time. We made some
• 11:45modifications
• 11:46to how we consider arms
• 11:48length and non arms length
• 11:50referees,
• 11:51where we thought we were
• 11:52being maybe a bit too,
• 11:54restrictive.
• 11:55So as again, assuming that
• 11:57those two overarching questions I
• 11:59mentioned before
• 12:00are answered no, meaning the
• 12:02person considers themselves in partial
• 12:04or wouldn't or their institution
• 12:06wouldn't benefit from your promotion.
• 12:09Assuming those answers are no,
• 12:11if the only relationships that
• 12:13you've had with referees
• 12:15are as co contributors
• 12:17to
• 12:17kind of large either multi
• 12:19authored projects or multi contributor
• 12:23guidance documents or things like
• 12:25that,
• 12:26and you're one of more
• 12:28than twenty five contributors to
• 12:30that,
• 12:31that they they can be
• 12:32considered an arms length referee.
• 12:34We do see this as
• 12:35people particularly are are engaged
• 12:37in large collaborative research projects
• 12:40or large collaborative
• 12:41consensus guideline
• 12:43development. If that's your only
• 12:45relationship
• 12:46with them, they can can
• 12:48be considered at arms length,
• 12:50even though your name is
• 12:51sort of appearing in the
• 12:52same author list.
• 12:54So we we we call
• 12:55that limited in scope,
• 12:57and usually it means that
• 12:59they can do an impartial
• 13:00review.
• 13:01The other allowance we make,
• 13:03are for certain relationships
• 13:05which otherwise would be considered
• 13:07non arms length but because
• 13:09there's they they are distant
• 13:11in time,
• 13:13that we will consider them,
• 13:15arms length referees for a
• 13:16certain number of of categories.
• 13:19So in general, if ten
• 13:20or more years have elapsed,
• 13:23since you have served in
• 13:25one of these this is
• 13:26that same non arms length
• 13:27referee list as before but
• 13:29I bolded in italics
• 13:31the categories where
• 13:33if you've had this relationship
• 13:35with them, but it's greater
• 13:36than ten years ago,
• 13:38they can be considered,
• 13:40arms length.
• 13:42The ones that are unbolded
• 13:44are ones that, you know,
• 13:45once someone has served in
• 13:47that role for you or
• 13:48has had that relationship with
• 13:49you, they they are always
• 13:51gonna be considered non arm's
• 13:52length.
• 13:53A thesis or,
• 13:55advisor from your graduate school
• 13:57or from your medical school
• 13:59has a vested interest in
• 14:01your success, and so they
• 14:02are always gonna be, considered
• 14:05non arms length. You can
• 14:06use them, but they're they're
• 14:07not gonna be thought of
• 14:08as being,
• 14:09impartial.
• 14:16So this is a form,
• 14:17that we send out,
• 14:20when we solicit letters of
• 14:21evaluation.
• 14:23And if you're going up
• 14:24for associate professor,
• 14:26your department will do that
• 14:27letter solicitation.
• 14:29If you're going up for
• 14:30professor,
• 14:32the school does it. Our,
• 14:34see you know Karen and
• 14:35Ingrid are both on the
• 14:36call today.
• 14:38They will be the ones
• 14:39who are doing that on
• 14:40behalf of the Dean.
• 14:42But when we send those
• 14:44requests out, there's a form
• 14:46that, we ask all evaluators
• 14:48to complete in addition to
• 14:50providing the letter. This is
• 14:52just a portion of the
• 14:53form.
• 14:54But as you can see
• 14:55it leads off with those
• 14:57two
• 14:58foundational questions which help,
• 15:00think through whether someone is
• 15:02impartial or or or or
• 15:04could be perceived as benefiting
• 15:05from your advancement.
• 15:07And then it essentially lists
• 15:09most of those items that
• 15:11I had on those two
• 15:12prior forms
• 15:13and asks,
• 15:15the referee to check off
• 15:17relationships that may have had
• 15:19with you.
• 15:20And you can see in
• 15:21the, parentheses for these two
• 15:22sample items how we try
• 15:24to get at this issue
• 15:26of,
• 15:27someone who maybe has had
• 15:28a limited in scope relationship
• 15:30with you,
• 15:32or has had a,
• 15:34essentially a non arm's length
• 15:35relationship with you, but
• 15:37that goes back greater than
• 15:38ten years. So these are
• 15:40just a couple of sample
• 15:41items. So we really,
• 15:43not all referees will send
• 15:45this back to us, unfortunately.
• 15:47And so sometimes we have
• 15:48to kinda read through their
• 15:49letter to make sure that
• 15:50they don't say something that
• 15:52would,
• 15:53make us question whether they
• 15:54are arm's length or not.
• 15:56So this form kinda goes
• 15:58out. And, obviously, a a
• 15:59nonarm's length person is gonna
• 16:01be checking off, you know,
• 16:02a number of these boxes.
• 16:06One of the other, I
• 16:07think important
• 16:09changes that we made,
• 16:11to the guidelines for the
• 16:13led letters, a few years
• 16:15ago.
• 16:15For years, for for as
• 16:17long as Julie Buchanan has
• 16:19been
• 16:20been running the office we've
• 16:22had guide we had guidelines
• 16:25that would allow you to
• 16:26have some of your non
• 16:27arms length letter writers be
• 16:29from other departments than your
• 16:30own but you were not
• 16:32allowed to have,
• 16:34referees from your own department.
• 16:36And kind of based on
• 16:37that, peer benchmarking,
• 16:40sort of project that I
• 16:41did. We found that, a
• 16:43lot of our peer institutions
• 16:45were were
• 16:48allowing a certain number from
• 16:50people who worked directly with
• 16:52you and and particularly
• 16:54for
• 16:55faculty who have significant clinical,
• 16:58or educational
• 16:59responsibilities.
• 17:01And that's because sometimes though
• 17:03your external
• 17:04letter writers
• 17:05at other institutions
• 17:07and they'll say it right
• 17:08in their letter, I I
• 17:09don't have,
• 17:11I I I I'm not
• 17:12able to evaluate their clinical
• 17:14skills or
• 17:15other than seeing them present
• 17:17at a conference once, I
• 17:18really can't evaluate their teaching.
• 17:21So so opening this up
• 17:23a little bit to evaluations
• 17:25from faculty who know you
• 17:26really well from your department
• 17:29was really important for,
• 17:31for some of the tracks.
• 17:32The restriction
• 17:33against,
• 17:36letters from within your department
• 17:38still is the case if
• 17:40you're going up on the
• 17:40clinician scientist investigator
• 17:42or traditional track.
• 17:45And and also if you're
• 17:46going up on the research
• 17:47ranks or the adjunct ranks,
• 17:49those you can have them
• 17:50from people outside your department
• 17:52but not from within the
• 17:54department.
• 17:55However, for faculty again who
• 17:57have significant clinical or educational
• 17:59responsibilities and and we think
• 18:01of those as being either
• 18:02on the academic clinician track
• 18:04or the clinician educator scholar
• 18:06track.
• 18:07We encourage people to get,
• 18:09to have
• 18:10a maximum of two of
• 18:12these letters of the non
• 18:14arms length letters,
• 18:16being from colleagues who are
• 18:17gonna comment on your,
• 18:19clinical and or educational
• 18:21skills.
• 18:22So for those two tracks,
• 18:24ladder tracks and for our
• 18:27voluntary clinical tracks,
• 18:29you can have a couple
• 18:30of these letters from,
• 18:33from from folks in your
• 18:34department.
• 18:36They have to they have
• 18:37to meet those other criteria
• 18:38of being at a higher
• 18:39rank though. That's an important
• 18:41piece of this. The other
• 18:42piece of this, which is
• 18:43sometimes we encourage people to
• 18:44think carefully about
• 18:46these folks is if they
• 18:48write a letter of evaluation
• 18:50for you, they shouldn't be
• 18:52the one who's advising you
• 18:54on who,
• 18:56to select as referees on
• 18:58this form that I'll go
• 18:59over in a minute.
• 19:00And they should really not
• 19:03be participating
• 19:04in the department
• 19:05committee
• 19:07discussion and vote about your
• 19:08case.
• 19:10Their,
• 19:11their letter really is the
• 19:13most important evaluation
• 19:15and it's it's given a
• 19:16lot of weight.
• 19:17But for them to also
• 19:19be contributing to the committee
• 19:20discussion,
• 19:23it this sort of, kind
• 19:24of adds to it. So
• 19:26they can be in the
• 19:26meeting,
• 19:28and, you know, they can
• 19:29kinda be there for that,
• 19:30but they're they're really not
• 19:31supposed to be contributing or
• 19:33or voting on that.
• 19:36So I'm just gonna walk
• 19:38through a couple of the
• 19:39forms and this is one
• 19:41that you will,
• 19:42is is on our website
• 19:43and you would kind of
• 19:45review carefully,
• 19:46depending on which track and
• 19:49rank you are being,
• 19:51reviewed for.
• 19:52Again, we did make a
• 19:53couple of relatively minor changes
• 19:56to
• 19:57the number and types of
• 19:58evaluation
• 19:59required for some of the
• 20:00tracks.
• 20:01But I'm just gonna I'll
• 20:02start out with these three
• 20:04tracks which we sometimes call
• 20:05the research intensive tracks.
• 20:08We did not make any
• 20:10changes
• 20:10from how we've had this
• 20:12for a number of years,
• 20:13to the number of referees
• 20:15that are solicited.
• 20:17How many the minimum number
• 20:19of arms length versus non
• 20:20arms length that we need
• 20:22depending on if you're going
• 20:23up for associate professor
• 20:25or for full professor. So
• 20:27as you can see for
• 20:28for all three of these
• 20:29tracks for full professor,
• 20:32we still need,
• 20:33six referees,
• 20:35that we would solicit
• 20:37that would be recommended by
• 20:38your department usually in consultation
• 20:41with you.
• 20:43Most departments do it that
• 20:44way. You know, the the
• 20:45chair or some other leader
• 20:46or your mentor,
• 20:48might have some ideas about
• 20:50who would be good people
• 20:51to write letters about you,
• 20:52but you can have input
• 20:54into that. And if they
• 20:55suggested someone that you know
• 20:58would just not write a
• 20:59fair or positive letter, you
• 21:01can tell them I really
• 21:02would rather you not include
• 21:03that person. So you have
• 21:05input into this.
• 21:06But there are there are
• 21:07supposed to be a number
• 21:09of referees that your department,
• 21:11recommends and all of those
• 21:12department,
• 21:14recommended
• 21:14referees are should be arms
• 21:16length.
• 21:18So we solicit six of
• 21:19those and then we also
• 21:21solicit six that you would
• 21:23be primarily responsible for identifying.
• 21:27And we ask, for two
• 21:28arms length and and four
• 21:30arms length letters. And then
• 21:31to complete, the review for
• 21:33professor, we need a minimum
• 21:35of eight back,
• 21:37with, six of those being,
• 21:40arms length.
• 21:41We have, haven't and and
• 21:43don't require
• 21:45quite as many letters for
• 21:46associate professor,
• 21:48term reviews.
• 21:49So it's somewhat,
• 21:51less onerous for for those
• 21:52reviews. But again, we also
• 21:54for these research intensive tracks,
• 21:56we do need,
• 21:59a good balance of arms
• 22:00length and non arms length
• 22:01referees.
• 22:05And then for what we
• 22:06sometimes call the clinically intensive
• 22:08tracks, clinician, educator, scholar, and
• 22:10academic clinician,
• 22:12we for the professor reviews,
• 22:15we also require,
• 22:17that the department supply us
• 22:19with six arms length referees
• 22:21and then five arms length
• 22:22referees for associate professors.
• 22:25Just like the three other
• 22:26tracks.
• 22:27The modification that we made
• 22:28a few years ago were
• 22:30on the,
• 22:31letters that you as the
• 22:32candidate would be recommending in
• 22:34terms of how many arms
• 22:35length versus non arms length.
• 22:38We didn't change that for
• 22:40the clinician educator scholar professor.
• 22:42So just like for the
• 22:44research intensive tracks, we require
• 22:47a similar amount of
• 22:49arms length and non arms
• 22:50length
• 22:52referees that are suggested and
• 22:54received.
• 22:55For the associate professor, we've
• 22:57kind of reduced the number
• 22:58of arms length
• 23:00and increase the number of
• 23:01non arms length that from
• 23:03before
• 23:04for the associate professor reviews
• 23:06and then reduce them somewhat
• 23:08further for
• 23:10the arms length referee requirements
• 23:12for the academic clinician
• 23:14reviews. Just, you know, based
• 23:15on our experience,
• 23:17those
• 23:19letters sometimes can be quite
• 23:21hard to get
• 23:22for academic clinicians, particularly if
• 23:24they're academic clinicians who,
• 23:26you know, because there's no
• 23:27scholarship,
• 23:28requirement.
• 23:29Their their work has not
• 23:30gotten out into the field
• 23:32in the same way that
• 23:33it has for other faculty.
• 23:34So the arms length referees
• 23:36for
• 23:37academic clinician reviews,
• 23:39can be a little bit
• 23:40more challenged. So we did
• 23:41some modification
• 23:42on those, but we we
• 23:44still do, and you can
• 23:45see for associate professor, we
• 23:47need six letters and two
• 23:49of them have to be,
• 23:51arm's length.
• 23:56And then just, just because
• 23:57I know we we typically
• 23:59get a fair number of
• 24:00folks on these seminars who
• 24:02are on the research ranks,
• 24:04for research
• 24:06adjunct and voluntary ranks or
• 24:08what we sometimes call the
• 24:09non ladder ranks,
• 24:10we essentially just tried to
• 24:12make the number consistent
• 24:14across all three of those
• 24:15ranks.
• 24:17So for the senior ranks,
• 24:19whether that's
• 24:20senior research scientist professor,
• 24:22adjunct, or clinical professor,
• 24:24we ask that the departments,
• 24:27departments recommend four arms length
• 24:29and that the candidate,
• 24:31can recommend three arms length
• 24:33or non arms length.
• 24:35And then for those senior
• 24:36ranks we require four letters
• 24:38come back,
• 24:40one of which has to
• 24:41be arms length.
• 24:43And then for the mid
• 24:44ranks,
• 24:45research scientist, associate professor adjunct,
• 24:48and associate clinical professor.
• 24:50We do solicit arm's length
• 24:52referees, but we can move
• 24:54forward with a review as
• 24:55long as we have three
• 24:56letters come back that are
• 24:58either arm's length or non
• 24:59arm's length.
• 25:02And again, for the voluntary
• 25:03clinical
• 25:05ranks,
• 25:06the,
• 25:07they can a couple of
• 25:08them can be from your
• 25:09own from your own department.
• 25:13So this is a piece
• 25:14of
• 25:15one of the important forms
• 25:17that we have people fill
• 25:19out. I'd say this is
• 25:20probably a form that
• 25:22creates,
• 25:23you know, some anxiety for
• 25:24faculty to create.
• 25:26It really is one that
• 25:27you should you know find
• 25:29a couple of colleagues in
• 25:30your,
• 25:31more senior colleagues in your
• 25:33department to kind of help
• 25:34you think through who would
• 25:35be
• 25:37good people for
• 25:38to be listed as your
• 25:40referees.
• 25:41And on this form you
• 25:43list the names, ranks,
• 25:45institutions,
• 25:47email addresses,
• 25:50and other kinds of contact
• 25:51information
• 25:52for all of your referees.
• 25:55In the fifth column of
• 25:56the table,
• 25:57we would ask you
• 25:59to describe any relationship you
• 26:02have with the potential referee.
• 26:03So if it's arms length,
• 26:05I don't think even think
• 26:06you have to complete that.
• 26:08But if it if it
• 26:09is someone that is arm's
• 26:11length
• 26:12because,
• 26:15there's been that,
• 26:16they they meet that criteria
• 26:18because it's been greater than
• 26:19ten years, Sometimes putting that
• 26:21explanation in there is a
• 26:23is is helpful. So you
• 26:24might say,
• 26:26this was a secondary mentor
• 26:28of mine,
• 26:30from,
• 26:31from medical school.
• 26:33Or this person taught a
• 26:35course that I was in
• 26:36when I was in graduate
• 26:37school and it was fifteen
• 26:39years ago. So you would
• 26:40include that within there.
• 26:44The other thing which isn't
• 26:45on this form is we
• 26:47ask people,
• 26:49I would say particularly on
• 26:51the clinically intensive tracks,
• 26:53to
• 26:54include an optional list of
• 26:56referees that we can solicit
• 26:58if,
• 26:59we don't get enough come
• 27:01back in our initial solicitation.
• 27:04That sometimes happens and
• 27:06so we really ask people
• 27:08upfront
• 27:08in addition to the the
• 27:10minimum required that you you
• 27:12have for this department section
• 27:14and the candidate section
• 27:16on that,
• 27:17last page of an optional
• 27:19list
• 27:20is include some additional,
• 27:22arms length and non arms
• 27:24length referees, particularly the arms
• 27:25length ones. If you can
• 27:27come up with some additional
• 27:28names,
• 27:29because again for the
• 27:31I'd say particularly for the
• 27:32academic clinician and clinician educator
• 27:34scholar tracks, sometimes those can
• 27:36be harder
• 27:37to get people to respond
• 27:38to. So if we have
• 27:39some extras,
• 27:41then our office or your
• 27:43department can go out for
• 27:44those right away. Some some
• 27:46departments
• 27:47just go out for everything
• 27:48that's on on the list
• 27:50right away,
• 27:52in hopes that, you know,
• 27:53we'll get enough back to
• 27:54be able to move forward
• 27:55for that. We went to
• 27:57that a couple years ago
• 27:58because we were finding that
• 28:01if we didn't have it,
• 28:02our going back to the
• 28:04department and saying could you
• 28:05talk to the faculty member
• 28:07to see if they've got
• 28:08some more names and and
• 28:09doing that back and forth
• 28:10just added to the anxiety
• 28:11level because
• 28:13because, you know, the the
• 28:14faculty member knew, you know,
• 28:16know knew that
• 28:18the list that they had
• 28:19provided had not really,
• 28:21generated all that they needed.
• 28:22So
• 28:23the optional names allows us
• 28:25to just kind of do
• 28:26that and move forward with
• 28:27that without,
• 28:29adding to the anxiety level.
• 28:33And then, just last slide
• 28:35to,
• 28:36before we kinda open it
• 28:37up for questions.
• 28:39When we send out the
• 28:41solicitation
• 28:42letter with that
• 28:44evaluator
• 28:45relationship form that had all
• 28:47has has all the check
• 28:48boxes.
• 28:49We in that solicitation
• 28:51letter, it is specific
• 28:54to the rank and the
• 28:55track. So there's there's different
• 28:57templates. I think we have
• 28:58all Julie, I think we
• 28:59have all of these on
• 28:59the website. So people are
• 29:01interested in it. You may
• 29:02have you may have to,
• 29:04sign in with your NetID.
• 29:06I can't remember if it's
• 29:07behind,
• 29:08that sign in. But you
• 29:10can see what goes out
• 29:11and I think some and
• 29:12again, I would encourage people
• 29:13to look at those letters,
• 29:16these template letters because,
• 29:18this is what is going
• 29:19to be asked of your
• 29:21evaluators.
• 29:22So I just put up
• 29:23this one which is for
• 29:24professor on the clinician educator
• 29:26scholar track.
• 29:28So you can see that
• 29:29we're really asking for
• 29:31for things that are really
• 29:33focused on all three mission
• 29:36areas.
• 29:37Since the clinician educator scholar
• 29:39track people have to excel
• 29:41in all three of those
• 29:42areas.
• 29:43And I also put this
• 29:44one up there just because,
• 29:47when one's going up for
• 29:49professor on this track
• 29:51you can see that the
• 29:52scholarship criteria
• 29:55is listed first
• 29:57and we just want people
• 29:58to be aware of that
• 29:59when people are going up
• 30:00for professor on this particular
• 30:02track
• 30:04scholarship and being having a
• 30:06national reputation for your scholarship
• 30:09is really an important consideration.
• 30:11And in ways that's not
• 30:13it's a little bit different
• 30:14when people are going up
• 30:15for associate professor on the
• 30:17c e on that clinician
• 30:18educator scholar
• 30:19track. There as long as
• 30:21you're sort of you've got
• 30:22some trajectory,
• 30:24and I think scholarship in
• 30:25that template is listed third
• 30:28in that. So people,
• 30:30referees are asked to talk
• 30:32about your clinical
• 30:33excellence, your educational
• 30:34excellence and and then your
• 30:35scholarly,
• 30:38you know, excellence.
• 30:39For professor, it gets flipped
• 30:41a bit. So they still
• 30:42need to be commenting on
• 30:44your clinical and educational excellence.
• 30:47But scholarship really gets a
• 30:49lot of weight in these
• 30:50professor CES track reviews.
• 30:53They'll they'll all they're also
• 30:55asked to comment on,
• 30:58any leadership or administrative roles
• 31:00that you have
• 31:01and also comment on,
• 31:03your professionalism
• 31:05and
• 31:06ethics and any
• 31:09professional conduct issues that hardly
• 31:11ever comes up
• 31:13in a letter of evaluation.
• 31:15Usually
• 31:16the people who agree to
• 31:17write a letter for you
• 31:18are writing
• 31:21rather glowingly about you or
• 31:23at least positively if not
• 31:25glowingly.
• 31:27It's pretty rare
• 31:29for us to see a
• 31:30letter that
• 31:32is
• 31:34just quite negative about someone.
• 31:36I'd say we
• 31:38see
• 31:39maybe two of those a
• 31:41year. It's really unusual.
• 31:44Most
• 31:45academics,
• 31:46I think have the decency.
• 31:47If they don't think highly
• 31:49of you, they're just gonna
• 31:51decline writing the letter.
• 31:53They'll usually say I'm too
• 31:55busy to do this or
• 31:56whatever. But it's it's,
• 31:59it's it's helpful that they
• 32:00do that because
• 32:02a really damning letter is
• 32:04is is a problem. We
• 32:05do get letters that come
• 32:07back,
• 32:08where,
• 32:10you know, it's not like
• 32:11flat out negative, but there's
• 32:13a bit of
• 32:14a sort of damning with
• 32:15faint praise,
• 32:17as and sometimes we get
• 32:18those that that come back
• 32:20where the evaluator just doesn't
• 32:22seem to have, you know,
• 32:23the ability to speak glowingly.
• 32:26Most of the letters that
• 32:27come back are gonna be
• 32:28really positive and and help
• 32:30people with their promotions.