To: Senate Faculty
Annual CAP/CPEVC Memo On Academic Advancement - 2023
Dear Colleagues:
As the new academic year begins, we write to address some frequently asked questions and clarify expectations and priorities for the Senate faculty merit and promotion process.
CLARIFICATIONS
COVID-Impacted Reviews
The May 11, 2021 guidance on COVID-impacted reviews continues to apply. The exception for an off-scale salary increase equivalent to a step in lieu of a merit/promotion (described in that earlier memo) may only be granted once. We clarify now that it does not have to be at the first review after the time of the memo; the exception may be granted at a later review for the duration of this guidance as long as such an exception has not been previously granted to the same faculty member.
New Appointments
In our system of ranks and steps, steps are intended to signify progression toward the next promotion. The step for an appointment should be based on demonstrated productivity. At the Assistant level, Step 1 should be used for appointments without progress beyond the thesis work, e.g., no papers yet accepted at a journal/conference or no progress on a book manuscript. Step 2 applies to someone just or recently finishing graduate school, with a minimal amount of published work or a basic plan for their book manuscript. Step 3 should only be used when a candidate has made substantial progress toward tenure, as evidenced by published work or progress on a major project such as a book manuscript. One way to think about “substantial progress” is that if the candidate were to maintain their productivity, it would be reasonable for them to be ready for tenure at their second review, in lieu of a mid-career review (they still have the full tenure clock available if they need it, unless they have served time in an equivalent position on a UC campus). Step 4 is used for candidates who have significant experience as an Assistant Professor at another institution and are relatively close to being ready for tenure; it would be surprising if they did not have a tenure review by their fourth year. Step 5 is used only rarely, for candidates who are on the cusp of tenure at their current institution and who already have a strong case for tenure.
Preemptive Retentions
As a reminder, our campus policy on retention-based salary increases (CAPM 400.220.9.c.) requires written evidence of an outside offer from a competing institution. This is typically, but not always, an offer letter; evidence of a specific salary offer is expected. In compelling circumstances, on a case by case basis, we are willing to consider retention-based salary increase requests in which the candidate is at a late stage of the hiring process but has not yet received a formal offer. The current expectation is that a candidate will have been invited for a campus interview or be further along in the recruitment process. Please be sure to consult with your dean before initiating a retention review.
College Provost and Department Chair Service
System and campus policy (APM 245, CAPM 316.245) recognize the academic leadership of a department chair as a “significant academic activity” and allow that leadership to count toward research and/or teaching in a personnel review, counting beyond the service category. This fungibility is in recognition of the reduced time that a chair may have for research and teaching activity, so the leadership may help fill in or top off these categories. The quality and quantity of the leadership factors into this review. Campus practice is to count College Provost service equivalently, i.e., academic leadership as a College Provost may count toward research and/or teaching, and should not be evaluated solely as service.
Student Experience of Teaching Surveys (SETS)
The “Personnel Review Teaching Table” summary of quantitative SETS responses can now be generated within Blue by department staff. Instructions for accessing and modifying these reports are posted at this link. For SETS from 2022-23 onwards, the Academic Senate now requests tables for three questions: the instructor used course time effectively to support my learning; the instructor explained concepts in ways that supported my learning; lectures and other instructor-produced presentations (e.g. video-recorded lectures) were well structured and had clear goals. The automated tables will include all data going back to Summer 2018, however only courses from the review period should be included in the file. We recognize that 2023-24 is a transition year and that some files may be going forward with a single question from 2022-23; this is acceptable if a file has already been acted on for this year; where a file has yet to be acted on by a department, we request tables for the above three questions for SETS from 2022-23 onwards.
The 22-23 SETS may include courses that were impacted by the fall 2022 UAW labor strike. As always with exceptional outside events that affect the classroom, including Covid, campus reviewers will be cognizant of the unique challenges faced by students and instructors during this time. Faculty are welcome, but not required, to provide additional context in their personal statements.
Please ensure that all SETS from the review period are included in each review dossier, including summer session courses when applicable.
Confidentiality and ChatGPT
All contents of faculty review files should be treated as confidential information and should not be shared beyond those immediately involved with the review. Third-party software, including AI programs such as ChatGPT or Bard, typically does not guarantee confidentiality, and therefore no aspect of a review file should be shared with third-party software (unless the software is explicitly licensed by UCSC with a confidentiality clause).
REMINDERS
Community-Engaged Scholarship
We value and recognize contributions to community-engaged work in research, teaching, and service. The campus has recently published guidelines for the assessment of community-engaged scholarship across the three areas in personnel review. We want to acknowledge the full scope of community-engaged scholarship, and this guidance provides more structure for the evaluation of this type of work. We also recognize our own campus as a possible community under the framework of community-engaged scholarship.
External Letters
Starting in 2023-24, all review files with external letters should contain at least one letter from a faculty member at another UC campus. Career Equity Review files should contain at least two such letters. As a reminder, this memo provided consolidated guidance on external letters. When any campus expectation for types or numbers of letters cannot be met, the department must include an explanation.
Career Equity Review
We remind faculty that Career Equity Review can be requested in cases when a faculty member believes that their rank and step are seriously inconsistent with their accomplishments in their discipline (see Campus Academic Personnel Manual 412.000). Requests for Career Equity Review can be made at the following times: when on the call for or requesting review for promotion to full Professor, advancement to Professor Step 6, or advancement to Professor Above Scale.
Work-in-Progress
Campus practice on submitting work-in-progress has not changed. It has been clarified in a series of documents since 2016. See: https://apo.ucsc.edu/news-events/campus_memos/10-08-20-evc-cap-annual-memo.html; CAP's "Top Ten Tips” (point #3); Best Practices for Personnel Reviews in Text-Based Disciplines (Humanities Division and Social Sciences Division)
To remind faculty of existing guidelines: works-in-progress (not yet accepted for publication) are discouraged from submission in personnel files except for: tenure reviews, reviews where the candidate does not have sufficient material that has been published/accepted, or where the work spans multiple review periods (e.g., chapters of a book in progress, or conference papers and articles drawn from the major work in progress, rough cuts of a feature-length film, or versions of a computer game). Publications are generally counted once, so plan to put them in your file when they will have the most impact. When a work in progress is submitted for review with appropriate evidence, such as a draft manuscript, credit will only be given once for that work. When chapters of a book in progress are submitted, they are credited at that review and will generally not be credited again in future reviews. Future files should be clear about what has previously been submitted and what has changed.
Teaching Professors
Teaching Professors (those in the Lecturer with Security of Employment series) were moved in 2018 to the rank and step system by changes in systemwide policy. This move necessitated changes in the review process for faculty in this series. See three documents:
- On guidelines for these reviews, please refer to the 2020 CAP/EVC Guidance for evaluation of Teaching Professors and for the application of the campus Special Salary Practice, which still applies.
- On letter solicitation for Teaching Professor reviews, see the Updated and Consolidated Guidance on External Letters.
- On Career Equity Reviews for Teaching Professors, see Campus Academic Personnel Manual 412.000, revised September 23, 2023, to expand eligibility for Career Equity Review to Teaching Professors, effective with the 2023-24 review cycle.
RESOURCES
- For additional tips and recommendations, please see the Committee on Academic Personnel (CAP) webpage on the Academic Senate website: https://senate.ucsc.edu/committees/cap-committee-on-academic-personnel/index.html.
- The Academic Personnel Office offers regularly scheduled workshops related to the academic personnel process, as well as ad hoc meetings by request: https://apo.ucsc.edu/training/index.html
- The Special Salary Practice continues unchanged for 2023-24. Please take advantage of the Salary Calculator tool to ensure that salary recommendations are being calculated correctly.
- The CALL, distributed May 1 of each year, includes a Summary of Review Eligibility. Early files– reviews that come forward prior to eligibility– are generally not approved. If you are not listed on the 2023-24 CALL for advancement and think you may be eligible, please consult with your divisional academic personnel coordinator.
- Please review APO’s Department Chair Toolkit which includes the salary calculator, department file preparation worksheet, and other tools to ensure file is presented accurately and will not get sent back for corrections.
Sincerely,
Maureen Callanan
Co-Chair
Committee on Academic Personnel
Susan Gillman
Co-Chair
Committee on Academic Personnel
Lori Kletzer
Campus Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor
cc:
Academic Personnel Office
Academic Senate Office
Deans
Department Chairs
Department Managers
Divisional Academic Personnel Coordinators
