Annual Memo on Academic Advancement – 2021

---

September 17, 2021

By Lori Kletzer, Campus Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor 
By Stefano Profumo, Chair, Senate Committee on Academic Personnel 

To: SENATE FACULTY

Annual CAP/CPEVC Memo On Academic Advancement – 2021

Dear Colleagues:

As the new academic year begins, we write to address frequently asked questions, provide information on new policies, and emphasize priorities and expectations related to the senate faculty merit and promotion process.

Reviews Impacted by COVID-19

Understanding that the pandemic has impacted everyone and that the impacts may have been more severe for some faculty, personnel reviews in 2021-22, 2022-23, and 2023-24 should include consideration of the impact of the pandemic in accordance with the May 11, 2021 memo^[1] from the CP/EVC and the CAP Chair. We strongly encourage faculty to include a separate statement of COVID-19 impacts, and to come up for review at the normative time. For the first review in this three-year period, Senate faculty whose productivity was impacted by COVID may be awarded an off-scale salary increase equal to one step, in lieu of a merit increase, based on reasonable and effective performance on any balance of research, teaching, and service. Please refer to the memo^[2] for additional details.

Above Scale Actions

Please see the October 8, 2020 memo^[3] from CAP and the CP/EVC for guidelines for above scale actions. As a reminder, the criteria for initial and further advancement above scale are highly elevated per systemwide policy, APM 220-18-b(4). There is not an expectation that faculty must continue to advance beyond step 9, although continued outstanding achievement should be recognized. Further above scale advancement must be based on new evidence of merit and distinction. A further above scale review may have an outcome that is “satisfactory” without salary increase if limited to continued excellence. The Special Salary Practice does not apply to above scale actions.

Accelerations from step 8 to above scale will only be considered in exceptional cases, and in those cases the salary is increased by the movement from step 8 to step 9, plus salary equivalent to 11% of the published step 9 rate; in the rarest of cases, an unusually exceptional file could be considered for movement from step 8 to step 9 plus an additional 13.75% of step 9 salary increase when advancing to above scale.

Inclusion of Prior Bio-bibliography

We now ask that the entire annotated bio-bibliography from the previous review be included in the current review as a PDF document. This document can be downloaded from the previous review in DivData, then uploaded to the current review, by either the candidate or the department review manager. See instructions here. For the first review since appointment, the CV submitted with the job application is requested. 

This may not represent a change for many departments, which have already been providing the entire prior bio-bibliography. Reviewers do not automatically have access to prior review records in DivData, so the prior bio-bibliography is a useful and important reference document.

External Letters for Promotion Reviews of Teaching Professors

Review of an assistant teaching professor for security of employment (promotion to associate teaching professor), or of an associate teaching professor for promotion to teaching professor, requires external letters. The external letter process largely parallels that for ladder-rank faculty, but there are a few key differences. Letters should be from faculty at other institutions at a rank equal or above the proposed rank for the candidate (i.e., at the associate rank or higher for a promotion to associate teaching professor, or at the full rank for promotion to full teaching professor). For a teaching professor review, a minimum of three letters is expected, of which at least one should be from the list of the candidate’s suggestions and two from the list of departmental suggestions. All three of these should be relatively independent reviewers (see this communication^[4] on independent letter writers). Where a non-independent letter is critical, for instance for a candidate who held a teaching position prior to coming to UCSC and would like a letter from their former institution, this can be in addition to the three independent letters.

Letter writers should be selected for their ability to evaluate the candidate’s scholarly or professional activity and teaching portfolio. Because of the emphasis on teaching, writers may be at teaching-intensive institutions. One possible pool of letter writers includes teaching faculty at other UC campuses. Another pool are experts in the pedagogy of a particular field, e.g., those teaching in fields such as engineering or life sciences pedagogy. When a candidate has an active disciplinary research portfolio, one of the letters could be focused on the research, while the others should be more focused on teaching and pedagogical innovation. Solicitation letters for reviewers of the candidate’s teaching should specify the expectations of the teaching professor track at UCSC, including the specific expectations of associate and full teaching professors, and what kind of evidence will be included in the file. In most cases, the solicitation of additional internal letters at UCSC is neither necessary nor recommended, unless the candidate has done extensive consulting with or service for a unit other than their own department.

Teaching Professors and Teaching Across the Curriculum

Ladder faculty are expected to regularly teach at all levels across the curriculum, as well as mentor graduate students. Teaching professors may have a more limited range of teaching assignments, and there is no blanket requirement of teaching across the curriculum. The specific teaching expectations should be articulated in the department letter. Graduate mentoring– including supervising teaching assistants and graduate student instructors– is not a requirement for teaching professors, although it should be duly recognized if it does occur, in accordance with APM 210-3.d(1).

Teaching Excellence Documentation from Canvas

All evidence of teaching excellence must be submitted as static files that will not change over time; please do not submit URLs of websites or Canvas pages that might be updated or could change from time to time. Rather, screenshots may be submitted as PDFs, and a document could provide a description of a course site with embedded screenshots. Another option is a video walkthrough of a Canvas site with voiceover narration providing description and context while the video displays the course site. A template for self-evaluation and peer review of Canvas course sites, particularly for remote and online courses, is also available. Additional more general suggestions for providing evidence for teaching excellence are available in this CITL guide.

Step and Salary for Initial Appointment of Assistant Professors

Faculty being appointed into their first tenure-track position should generally be appointed at assistant professor step 1 or step 2. While there was a point in history when the use of off-scale was constrained, so that an argument for a higher step would be made in order to increase salary, we no longer have such constraints on off-scale, and thus the step of appointment should be based on career progression, not on salary considerations. Step 1 is generally appropriate for a faculty candidate who is just finishing their degree and has not yet established a publication record. Step 2 is appropriate for appointments of candidates who have already established a publication record. Step 3 should be used when the candidate already has made notable progress toward tenure, and if they continued their research productivity, it would be reasonable for them to be reviewed for tenure in their fourth year. Step 4 should be used only for advanced assistant professors with substantial time in another comparable position and significant progress toward tenure.

Regardless of the step proposed, the department should provide an explanation of the recommended salary.

Extension of the Special Salary Practice

The special salary practice will continue in 2021-22. The guidance from last year^[5] remains valid (including the Guidance for Teaching Professors^[6]), although the Guidance for COVID-Impacted Reviews^[7] also applies in 2021-22.

Submission of Documents as PDFs

Documents other than videos or other files with special formats should be submitted as PDFs. This includes all standard documents such as department letters and teaching tables, as well as the candidate’s work submissions. Use of URLs is strongly discouraged in files, as they may not be static, and too often they lead to out-of-date pages or the links become broken. Sometimes there is a login page that blocks reviewers from being able to access the files. Please upload all publications as PDFs, and all other evidence as PDFs or appropriate static file types. Files that are not accessible through a provided URL will not be considered by reviewers.

Independence of Letter Writers

For a major review involving external letters, the majority of the letters should be from independent letter writers, as described in this communication^[8]. Department-suggested solicited letters should generally be from fully independent letter writers, and any known connections must be disclosed in the confidential list of letter writers. For candidate-suggested solicited letters, current and past research collaborations or professional relationships should be disclosed by the candidate, and also included on the confidential list of letter-writers. 

Importance of Service at Multiple Levels

Faculty at the associate and full ranks should generally have service at multiple levels, including department, campus, and the profession/discipline. Campus-level service includes Senate service. Tenured and security of employment faculty are encouraged to regularly be involved with the Senate, as Senate participation is critical for the functioning of shared governance.

Works in Progress

Works in progress (not yet accepted for publication) are discouraged from submission except for tenure reviews, reviews where the candidate does not have a sufficient amount of materials that have been published/accepted, or where the work spans multiple review periods (e.g., chapters of a book in progress or versions of a computer game). When a work in progress is submitted for review, appropriate evidence of the work needs to be included in the file, such as a draft manuscript. For promotion cases in the “book disciplines,” where the primary scholarly component of the file is a book, please see the guidance in the 2020-21 CP/EVC-CAP memo^[9].

Caution with Protected Information

Department letters should take appropriate caution to avoid disclosing any confidential or protected information, which includes leave reasons (e.g., details about medical or family leave) and protected statuses (e.g., disclosing demographics of individual students, such as in the diversity discussions).

Contributions to Diversity Are Not Solely Based on Demographics

Contributions to diversity are actions that promote diversity, equity, and inclusion. Discussions about contributions to diversity should include the actions taken to promote diversity, reasons for the actions, and the results or effects of the actions. In particular, please avoid simply listing demographics of students mentored as contributions to diversity. Merely mentoring students from underrepresented groups is not sufficient. There should be discussion of what particular actions were taken to support these students and how those actions led to improved outcomes.

Retention Actions

Retention actions require review by CAP and are the authority of the CP/EVC, so sufficient time should be allowed for the review process. The 2011 memo^[10] provides guidelines for retention actions. We have sometimes encountered more aggressive measures taken by competing institutions to not provide a formal offer until a verbal agreement is given by the candidate, at which point it would be too late for us to make a retention offer. As a result, we allow some increased flexibility on what constitutes a bona fide competing offer. Sufficient details must be presented via emails or other documentation so that the parameters of the competing offer are clear. This information must include the proposed salary and rank, and typically include items such as startup and course releases. In proposing a retention offer, the initiating department must provide a clear explanation of the recommended salary. Retention offers are generally not approved for more than the competing salary offer.

Additional Tips

For additional tips and recommendations, please see the Committee on Academic Personnel webpage on the Academic Senate website: https://senate.ucsc.edu/committees/cap-committee-on-academic-personnel/index.html.The Academic Personnel Office offers workshops related to the academic personnel process on a scheduled basis, as well as chair development opportunities.  See https://academicpersonnel.ucsc.edu/workshops-trainings/ for opportunities and times, as they are posted.

Sincerely,

Stefano Profumo, Chair, Senate Committee on Academic Personnel

Lori Kletzer, Campus Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor

cc:
Academic Senate Office
Committee on Academic Personnel
Deans
Department Chairs
Department Managers
Divisional Academic Personnel Coordinators

^[1] CP/EVC and CAP Chair to Senate Faculty, 5/11/21, Re: Addressing Impacts of COVID-19 in the Faculty Personnel Review Process

^[2] CP/EVC and CAP Chair to Senate Faculty, 5/11/21, Re: Addressing Impacts of COVID-19 in the Faculty Personnel Review Process

^[3] CP/EVC and CAP Chair to Senate Faculty, 10/08/20, Annual CAP/EVC Memo on Academic Advancement 2020

^[4] CP/EVC to Deans and Department Chairs, 8/29/19, Re: Campus Expectations for Solicited External Letters in Major Advancement Actions

^[5] CP/EVC and CAP Chair to Senate Faculty, 10/08/20, Annual CAP/EVC Memo on Academic Advancement – 2020

^[6] CP/EVC and CAP Chair to Senate Faculty, 10/08/20, Guidance for Evaluation of Teaching Professors and for the Application of the Campus Special Salary Practice

^[7] CP/EVC and CAP Chair to Senate Faculty, 5/11/21, Re: Addressing Impacts of COVID-19 in the Faculty Personnel Review Process

^[8] CP/EVC to Deans and Department Chairs, 8/29/19, Re: Campus Expectations for Solicited External Letters in Major Advancement Actions

^[9] Interim CP/EVC and CAP Chair to Senate Faculty, 5/04/20, Re: Expectations for Promotion in the “Book Disciplines”

^[10] CP/EVC to Deans, Department Chairs, et al., 5/31/11, Re: Ladder-Rank Academic Personnel Actions