I. Policy
II. Purpose and Responsibility of the Review Committees
III. Maintenance of the Committee’s Effectiveness
IV. Procedures
A. General
B. Appointments
C. Promotions
D. Assessment of Evidence
V. Criteria for Appointment, Promotion and Appraisal (APM 210-1-d)
A. Teaching
B. Professional Competence and Activity
C. Creative Work
D. University and Public Service
VI. The Report
Synopsis of Academic Personnel Manual Section 210-2(pdf)
Issuance of Revisions to APM Section 210
Instructions to Review Committees which advise on actions concerning the Professor of Clinical (X) Series.
I. Policy
In their deliberations and preparations of reports and recommendations, academic review and appraisal committees shall be guided by the policies and procedures set forth in the respective "Instructions" which appear below.
II. Purpose and Responsibility of the Review Committees
The quality of the faculty of the University of California is maintained primarily through objective and thorough appraisal, by competent faculty members, of each candidate for appointment or promotion. Responsibility for this appraisal falls largely upon the review committees nominated by the Council on Academic Personnel and appointed by the Chancellor or a designated representative. It is the duty of these committees to ascertain the present fitness of each candidate and the likelihood of the candidate’s pursuing a productive career. In judging the fitness of the candidate, it is appropriate to consider professional integrity as evidenced by performance of duties. (A useful guide for such consideration is furnished by the Statement on Professional Ethics issued by the American Association of University Professors. A copy of this statement is appended to these instructions for purposes of reference.) Implied in the committee’s responsibility for building and maintaining a faculty of the highest excellence is also a responsibility to the candidate for just recognition and encouragement of achievement.
III. Maintenance of the Committee’s Effectiveness
- The membership, deliberations, recommendations and report of the review committee are strictly confidential. The Chairperson of each such committee should remind members of the committee of the confidential nature of the assignment. This should be kept in mind in arranging for all written or oral communications; and when recommendations with supporting documents have been forwarded, all copies of preliminary drafts should be destroyed. Under the provisions of Section 160 and 220 of the Academic Personnel Manual, after the administrative decision, the candidate is entitled to receive from the Chancellor a copy of the ad hoc committee report (without disclosure of the identities of members of the review committee), as well as copies of the reports submitted by the Council on Academic Personnel and the pertinent administrative officers.
- The whole system of academic review by committees depends for its effectiveness upon each committee’s prompt attention to its assignment and its conduct of the review with all possible dispatch, consistent with judicious and thorough consideration of the case.
- The Chairperson of the review committee has the responsibility of making sure that each member of the committee has read and understands these instructions.
IV. Procedures
A. General
Recommendations concerning appointment, promotion, and appraisal normally originate with the Department Chairperson. The letter of recommendation should provide a comprehensive assessment of the candidate’s qualifications together with detailed evidence to support this evaluation. The letter should also present a report of the Department Chairperson’s consultation with the members of the department, including any dissenting opinions. In addition to the letter of recommendation, the Department Chairperson is expected to assemble and submit to the Chancellor an up-to-date biography and bibliography, together with copies of research publications or other scholarly or creative work.
B. Appointments
The Department Chairperson should include in the documentation opinions from colleagues in other institutions where the nominee has served and from other qualified persons having firsthand knowledge of the nominee’s attainments. Extramural opinions are imperative in cases of proposed appointments of persons from outside the University.
C. Promotions
Promotions are based on merit; they are not automatic. Achievement, as it is demonstrated, should be rewarded by promotion. Promotions should be based on consideration of comparable work in the candidate’s own field or in closely related fields. The department and the review committee should consider how the candidate stands in relation to other people in the field outside the University who might be considered alternative candidates for the position. The Department Chairperson shall supplement the opinions of colleagues within the department by letters from distinguished extramural informants.
D. Assessment of Evidence
The review committee shall assess the adequacy of the evidence submitted. If in the committee’s judgment the evidence is insufficient to enable it to reach a clear recommendation, the committee chairperson, through the Chancellor, shall request amplification. In every case all obtainable evidence shall be carefully considered.
If, in assessing all obtainable evidence, the candidate fails to meet the criteria set forth in Section 210-1-d, the committee should recommend accordingly. If, on the other hand, there is evidence of unusual achievement and exceptional promise of continued growth, the committee should not hesitate to endorse a recommendation for accelerated advancement.
Contributions to teaching, research and scholarship, and service that promote equity, diversity, and inclusion are encouraged and should be given due recognition during the faculty merit and promotion process as outlined in Appendix 41.
V. Criteria for Appointment, Promotion and Appraisal (APM 210-1-d)
The policies and procedures set forth in APM-210-1(a), (b), (c), and (e) shall govern the committee in the confidential conduct of its review and in the preparation of its report. The committee should refer to APM-275 for policies on the Professor of Clinical (X) series.
The review committee shall judge the candidate with respect to the proposed rank and duties, considering the record of the candidate’s performance in
1. teaching;
2. professional competence and activity;
3. creative work; and
4. University and public service.
The Department Chair is responsible for documenting the faculty member’s division of effort among the four areas of activity. The Chair should also indicate the appropriateness of this division to the position that the individual fills in the department, school, or clinical teaching faculty.
Appointees in the Professor of Clinical (X) series are to be evaluated in relation to the nature and time commitments of their University assignments.
The criteria set forth below are intended to serve as guides for the review committee in judging the candidate, not to set boundaries to the elements of performance that may be considered.
Clinical teaching, professional activity, and creative work may differ from standard professorial activities in the University, but can be judged on the basis of professional competence, intellectual contribution, and originality.
A. Teaching
Excellent teaching is an essential criterion for appointment or advancement. Clinical teaching is intensive tutorial instruction, carried on amid the demands of patient care and usually characterized by pressure on the teacher to cope with unpredictably varied problems, by patient-centered immediacy of the subject matter, and by the necessity of preparing the student to take action as a result of the interchange. Nevertheless, the criteria suggested in the instructions for the regular professor series are applicable:
"...the candidate’s command of the subject; continuous growth in the subject field; ability to organize material and to present it with force and logic;...spirit and enthusiasm which vitalize the candidate’s learning and teaching; ability to arouse curiosity in beginning students and to stimulate advanced students to creative work; personal attributes as they affect teaching and students; the extent and skill of the candidate’s participation in the general guidance and advising of students... "
In addition, the clinical teacher should be successful in applying knowledge of basic health science and clinical procedures to the diagnosis, treatment, and care of a patient in a manner that will not only assure the best educational opportunity for the student, but also provide high quality care for the patient.
For appointment to a title in this series, the appointee should have a record of active participation and excellence in teaching, whether for health professional students, graduate students, residents, postdoctoral fellows, or continuing education students. Peer evaluation of teaching is required in all cases of formal review for merit advancement or promotion. The specification of the meaning of "peer review" varies by department, each department having established its own guidelines for developing the requisite peer review of teaching.
For promotion to or appointment at the professor rank, the appointee should be recognized as an outstanding clinical teacher. Most candidates will have designed educational programs at a local level, and some will have designed such programs at a national level.
B. Professional Competence and Activity
There must be appropriate recognition and evaluation of professional activity. Exemplary professional practice, organization of training programs for health professionals, and supervision of health care facilities and operations comprise a substantial proportion of the academic effort of many health sciences faculty. In decisions on academic advancement, these are essential contributions to the mission of the University and deserve critical consideration and weighting comparable to those of teaching and creative activity.
1. Standards for Appointment or Promotion
For entry level positions, the individual should have three or more years of training and/or experience post M.D., Ph.D. or equivalent terminal professional degree. In addition, an appointee should show evidence of a high level of competence in a clinical specialty.
For promotion to or appointment at the Associate Professor rank an appointee should be recognized at least in the local metropolitan health care community as an authority within a clinical specialty. A physician normally will have a regional reputation as a referral physician; another health professional normally will have a regional reputation as evidenced in such work as that of a consultant.
For promotion to or appointment at the Professor rank, the appointee will have a national reputation for superior accomplishments within a clinical specialty and may have a leadership role in a department or hospital. Appointees may receive patients on referral from considerable distances, serve as consultants on a nationwide basis, serve on specialty boards, or be members or officers of clinical and/or professional societies.
2. Evaluation of Clinical Achievement
Evaluation of clinical achievement is both difficult and sensitive. In many cases, evidence will be testimonial in nature and, therefore, its validity should be subject to critical scrutiny. The specificity and analytic nature of such evidence should be examined; the expertise and sincerity of the informant should be weighed.
Overly enthusiastic endorsements and cliché-ridden praise should be disregarded. Comparison of the individual with peers at the University of California and elsewhere should form part of the evidence provided. Letters from outside authorities, when based on adequate knowledge of the individual and written to conform to the requirements cited above, are valuable contributions. Evaluation or review by peers within the institution is necessary. The Chair should also seek evaluations from advanced clinical students and former students in academic positions or clinical practice.
If adequate information is not included in the materials sent forward by the Chair, it is the review committee’s responsibility to request such information through the Chancellor.
C. Creative Work
Many faculty in the health sciences devote a great proportion of their time to the inseparable activities of teaching and clinical service and, therefore, have less time for formal creative work than most other scholars in the University. Some clinical faculty devote this limited time to academic research activities; others utilize their clinical experience as the basis of their creative work.
An appointee is expected to participate in investigation in basic, applied, or clinical sciences. In order to be appointed or promoted to the Associate or full Professor rank, an appointee shall have made a significant contribution to knowledge and/or practice in the field. The appointee’s creative work shall have been disseminated, for example, in a body of publications, in teaching materials used in other institutions, or in improvements or innovations in professional practice which have been adopted elsewhere.
Evidence of achievement in this area may include clinical case reports. Clinical observations are an important contribution to the advancement of knowledge in the health sciences and should be judged by their accuracy, scholarship, and utility. Improvements in the practice of health care result from the development and evaluation of techniques and procedures by clinical investigators. In addition, creative achievement may be demonstrated by the development of innovative programs in health care itself or in transmitting knowledge associated with new fields or other professions.
Textbooks and similar publications, or contributions by candidates to the professional literature and the advancement of professional practice or of professional education, should be judged as creative work when they represent new ideas or incorporate scholarly research. The development of new or better ways of teaching the basic knowledge and skills required by students in the health sciences may be considered evidence of creative work.
The quantitative productivity level achieved by a faculty member should be assessed realistically, with knowledge of the time and institutional resources allotted to the individual for creative work.
D. University and Public Service
The review committee should evaluate both the amount and the quality of service by the candidate to the department, the school, the campus, the University, and the public, paying particular attention to that service which is directly related to the candidate’s professional expertise and achievement. The Department Chair should provide both a list of service activities and an analysis of the quality of this service.
The Standing Orders of The Regents provide: "No political test shall ever be considered in the appointment and promotion of any faculty member or employee." This provision is pertinent to every stage in the process of considering appointments and promotions of the faculty.
VI. The Report
- The report of the review committee forms the basis for further review by the Council on Academic Personnel (or equivalent) and for action by the Chancellor and by the President. Consequently, it should include an appraisal of all significant evidence, favorable and unfavorable. It should be specific and analytical and should include the review committee’s evaluation of the candidate with respect to each of the qualifications specified above. It should be adequately documented by reference to the supporting material.
Each review committee member is not necessarily expected to evaluate each item in the total bibliography, and the review committee overall is not necessarily expected to appraise every such item as long as representative works are evaluated. In its report, the ad hoc review committee should provide its own independent analysis and assessment of the research and/or creative activity and should not merely summarize the opinions expressed in the letters of reference and by the department. - The review committee has the responsibility of making an unequivocal recommendation. No member should subscribe to the report if it does not represent that member’s judgment. If the committee cannot come to a unanimous decision, the division of the committee and the reasons therefore should be communicated either in the body of the report or in separate concurring or dissenting statements by individual members, submitted with the main report and with the cognizance of the other committee members.
- Care should be taken in the preparation of the ad hoc committee report to preserve and protect the identity of those individuals who have submitted confidential evaluations. Reference to statements made by these individuals may only be included in a coded format, e.g., "letter writer #4 states...", or "the author of the August 1, 1994 letter acknowledges....".
* * * *
See Appendix 5, "Instructions to Review and Appraisal Committees" for the AAUP
Statement on Professional Ethics referred to in the first section of these instructions.
Revised 10/13/99
Web page updated 9/9/19
