Communications | Appointment and Advancement
Annual CAP/CPEVC Memo on Academic Advancement – 2025
May 15, 2025
FROM:
CP/EVC LORI KLETZER
CAP CO-CHAIRS SUSAN GILLMAN AND GREGORY GILBERT
TO:
SENATE FACULTY
RE: Annual CAP/EVC Memo on Academic Advancement – 2025
Dear Colleagues:
As you begin to plan personnel actions for the 2025-26 review cycle, we write to address some frequently asked questions and clarify expectations and priorities for the Senate faculty merit and promotion process.
Past years’ memos are posted online at Academic Personnel Policy Communications.
*NEW* Criteria for Initial and Further Above Scale Advancement
Advancement to Above Scale in the Professor series occurs only after a distinguished career record, and further Above Scale actions must show new evidence of merit and distinction. There is no expectation that faculty continue to advance beyond Step 9, although the campus recognizes continued outstanding achievement in the form of salary increases at Step 9 (see also the last item in this memo). The Special Salary Practice does not apply at Above Scale. As per systemwide policy, APM 220-18-b(4), there is an explicit prioritization of research above other categories of review for initial and further Above-Scale actions, and therefore what is considered excellent research for Above Scale has a higher expectation than for all other ranks. Starting in review year 2025-26, Above-Scale actions may not include deficiencies (below expectations) in any category (i.e., there is no fungibility across categories). In order to create more consistency across campus for Above-Scale actions, we provide the following guidance to replace that in the 2020 Memo:
| % of Step 9 | Criteria |
| 16.50% | Exceptional in research (can reach exceptional with a major discipline-spanning award), outstanding or above in teaching and service. |
| 13.75% | Outstanding in research, outstanding or above in teaching and service |
| 11.00% | Outstanding in research, excellent or above in teaching and service |
| 8.25% | Excellent in research, outstanding or above in teaching and/or in service. |
For Teaching Professors the expectation is that teaching will normally be outstanding for an initial or further advancement above scale. Otherwise the framework remains the same, except that the research category is replaced by scholarly activity. For above scale for Teaching Professors, there is a heightened expectation for scholarly activity compared to expectations through Step 9. The expectation is that scholarly activity, whether pedagogical work or disciplinary research, should show new evidence of merit and distinction. For initial advancement above scale, the evidence of a distinguished career record must include evidence of significant impact of the candidate’s scholarly activity beyond our campus.
*NEW* Contributions to Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging in Reviews
Per APM 210-1 and 210-3, contributions to diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging shall be given due recognition within the context of research/creative activity (or scholarly/professional activity for a teaching professor), teaching, and/or service. Thus department letters should incorporate any such contributions into their assessment of research, teaching, and/or service, rather than in a stand-alone paragraph. Candidates may present all of their achievements in their personal statement in whatever ways they feel best conveys their accomplishments, and they should incorporate their contributions to diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging into the relevant areas of their personal statements rather than as a separate document.
Timeliness of Review Files
The Academic Personnel Office publishes deadlines by which candidates, departments, and deans must submit files to subsequent reviewers. These deadlines ensure that all files can be completed during the academic year. Late submission of files results in faculty not receiving critical performance feedback in a timely way; delays pay increases for faculty; increases workload for faculty and staff; and has a negative effect on morale. We ask that you always strive to meet these deadlines. Candidates are given a deadline to submit their complete set of required materials, reflecting the campus deadline or department deadline (if earlier), or to request an extension through the chair to the dean. If faculty are unable to meet departmental or campus deadlines, they should request an extension through their chairs to the dean.
We thank departments and divisions for their attention to deadlines in 2024-25 and ask all chairs and deans to continue to make faculty personnel reviews a top priority in the upcoming year. We receive regular updates on timeliness from APO, and deans can work with divisional academic personnel coordinators to track progress within the division. Deans and chairs should keep candidates apprised of the progress of their reviews, particularly when there has been a delay, and provide reassurance that delays are not indicative of problems with the file or what the eventual outcome might be. Likewise, we will ensure that files proceed in a timely manner through the CAP and central administrative review stages.
Special Salary Practice
The campus practice of awarding standardized off-scale salary increments in outstanding merit and promotion cases will continue for the 2025-26 review year for all Senate faculty. The special salary practice provides options for certain salary outcomes coded in DivData as G1, G2, AC, and A1 (the latter, acceleration plus an additional ⅓ step of off-scale). See the 2022 annual memo for a description of these options. In truly exceptional cases, it is possible to obtain an even greater outcome, such as an acceleration plus an additional ⅔ step of off-scale, or a two-step acceleration, but these outcomes are expected to be extremely rare. Non-standard merit/promotion recommendations and decisions are coded in DivData as GR (greater than normal) or AC (accelerated).
COVID-Impacted Reviews
Guidance for COVID-impacted merit reviews continues for reviews through 2026-27. The guidance provides allowances and flexibility for impacted faculty to meet expectations, but is not intended to change the threshold for assessment of an area as outstanding. The COVID exception for the equivalent of a step of salary in lieu of a step is also available through 2026-27, although it is available only once per person. COVID may have impacts on promotion reviews beyond 2026-27, in which case we ask that promotion reviews focus on the total body of work, rather than the amount of time it took to complete that work; while the expectations for promotion have not changed, additional time may be needed to meet those expectations due to the impact of COVID.
Community-Engaged Research
To follow up on the 2023 memo “Campus Expectations for Assessing Community-Engaged Scholarship in Academic Personnel Reviews,” we now take stock of new recommendations from this year’s review cycle. To demonstrate overall scholarly contributions, any of the following may be addressed: research rigor and knowledge creation, public communication, and policy impact. Documentation often goes beyond conventional scholarly forms (edited volumes, book chapters, and journal articles) to highlight research reports, collaborative websites, and creative activities. The goal is to showcase work that integrates scholarly contributions with advancing public knowledge about societal issues and effecting material change through intellectual engagement with policy makers and organizations. It is often the case that accessible modes of communication, intended for a broad public audience, best provide models of how to extend the influence of a public research university to underserved communities at UCSC and beyond. For promotion cases, soliciting external letters from community partners and organizations may not fit the usual timeframe for requests when there are concerns about continuity with community partners (for example, a community organization may disband after completing a project and may not be available for solicitation of an official letter at the time of a promotion review); department chairs should raise this issue in their regular personnel consultations with faculty doing community-engaged and public-facing work, so that if work with the community organization is completed before the review, the candidate could request a letter at that time if they are concerned about the ability to obtain a relevant letter at the time of their promotion review. When possible, it is better to follow the normal process of the candidate suggesting potential reviewers and the department soliciting the letters, and this alternative process is suggested only for the situations where it may not be possible to wait for the usual cycle of letter solicitation. If the candidate receives letters through this alternative process, these letters should be included by the candidate in their optional materials. Contributions to community-engaged outcomes should be described in the co-authorship statement or in the personal statement. Finally, it is clear that recognizing this community-oriented work often requires attention to the overlap between or among the three areas of research, teaching, and service, because the total impact may be less visible. (See next section)
Categorization of Research/Mentoring/Service Contributions
Evaluations of some kinds of contributions have not been placed consistently in assessments of research/creative activity, teaching and mentoring, or service. In particular, scholarly talks presented at conferences, universities, or public forums should be considered evidence of research/creative impact, and not as service. In contrast, organizing a conference or workshop should be evaluated as contributions to service. Participation in qualifying exams, dissertation committees, and other graduate-student activities should be evaluated as part of teaching and mentoring, not service. However, mentoring other faculty is considered service, rather than teaching and mentoring. For community-engaged work, which often crosses multiple areas, contributions should be described in terms of the overlap between and among the three areas of research, teaching, and service.
Documenting Teaching Effectiveness
Documenting teaching effectiveness must include multiple forms of evidence. Different kinds of teaching evidence are a primary means of reflecting pedagogical diversity within and across disciplines and therefore of ensuring equity in teaching assessment. One form of evidence must be student feedback, documented in the Student Experience of Teaching Survey (SETS), and including the standardized teaching table that summarizes the quantitative scores for questions on effective use of course time, explaining concepts in ways that support learning, and clear structure and goals of instructor presentations. The table is best provided as a stand-alone document rather than integrated into the department letter.
Importantly, however, the SETS do not need to be either the primary or first element documented or assessed. Incorporating student feedback as one part of a larger teaching narrative provides a better way to use the SETS, offsetting any potential for bias. There are numerous effective ways to document teaching effectiveness (including many outlined at the TLC webpage on demonstrating teaching effectiveness for personnel review). These include, but are not limited to: the personal statement as narrative of faculty-initiated changes, innovation, and improvements in courses, particularly reflecting on planned or implemented responses to student feedback, including responses to mid-quarter surveys; syllabi and illustrative assignments and classroom materials; CANVAS excerpts; peer reviews of teaching; contributions to addressing inequities in student success; and professional development activities to improve pedagogy.
Work In Progress
Research and creative products can receive full credit in only one personnel action, even when their development crosses over multiple review periods. The campus has already clarified how to handle the extended timeline in book-and text-based disciplines1 and now, here, provides further guidelines for article-based disciplines.
Peer-reviewed journal articles, book chapters, and conference proceedings (the latter in fields where they are valued as the equivalent of a journal article) are given credit after they have been accepted for publication. Manuscripts that are in preparation, submitted, in revision, or posted to non-reviewed repositories like arXiv prior to submission to a peer-reviewed journal, can be discussed and recognized as evidence of continuing research activity. They should not be included in the review file or labeled as “NEW” in the biobib until they reach a status that merits full credit in review. To help ensure that appropriate credit is given in subsequent reviews, the letters from the department and dean should clearly state that evaluation of research did not consider those in-progress contributions to be research products, and that once published, they are available for full credit in a future review.
In the arts, performance and exhibition-based creative works have their own milestones, including theatrical productions and film screenings, concerts and recordings as well as museum exhibits and catalogues. Documentation of these milestones across review periods, clarifying what is new and has not yet been reviewed, is essential to giving full credit to each of them.
1 See May 4, 2020 CP/EVC & CAP: Expectations for Promotion in the book disciplines and Annual CAP/EVC Memo on Academic Advancement – 2022 (point 7).
Clarification of requests for Career Equity Reviews (CER)
To better support faculty seeking a CER, we have several generic suggestions for helping faculty to make their case for a CER. A CER is intended to address a pattern of advancement issues after the initial appointment, so the CER request should focus on time at UCSC rather than on an initial appointment problem. The purpose of a CER is to recalibrate rank and step, not salary. CER requests reflect situations where the cumulative record warrants a recalibration for placement at rank and step, even though each previous review decision was deemed appropriate at the time.
Examples of some possible reasons supporting a CER request include:
- Certain works or contributions were undervalued or had a delayed impact.
- Changing norms regarding public scholarship that was undervalued as research in the past, delaying UCSC recognition of public-facing and other community-engaged scholarship.
- Disciplinary changes in kinds of scholarly forms that count as research documentation (e.g., shift to clusters of articles in disciplines that were once book-based; new forms of digital dissemination in humanistic disciplines).
- A pattern of sustained, low-visibility, or otherwise unrecognized or undervalued service beyond what is expected at rank/step.
- Field-building work that has accrued over the career, recognizable only in retrospect.
External letters: Two (2) letters are now expected (rather than recommended) from UC faculty in evaluation of CER requests.
Departments and deans should be clear about the justification for their rank/step recommendations.
It is important that faculty requesting a CER read the entire policy to be sure that their request fits within guidelines. In 2023, formal revisions were made to CAPM 412.000 to extend CER review to Teaching Professors and to extend the CER timeline for inter-campus appointments. See: Issuance of Revised Campus Academic Personnel Manual (CAPM) 412.000 | Career Equity Review.
Changes to Overlapping Step Policy at Tenure Promotion
Revisions to CAPM 407.690 were announced in the January 2025 Issuance of Revised Campus Academic Personnel Manual (CAPM) 407.690 | Overlapping Steps. Under the revised policy, normal promotion from Assistant Professor / Teaching Professor Step 5 is to Associate Professor/ Teaching Professor Step 1, with an off-setting amount of salary awarded as an off-scale increase. The promotion salary outcome will be the same as before the policy change, while the lower step assignment will allow more time for advancement within the Associate rank. The Senate and administration are continuing to discuss the overall issue and specific problems associated with advancement from Associate Professor 4 to Professor.
Salary-increase only guidance at barrier steps
Salary-increase only reviews may occur at a limited number of instances in personnel actions. These are cases in which candidates are at barrier steps where further step advancement is not possible without a major review: Associate Professor/Associate Teaching Professor, Step 4; Professor/Teaching Professor, Step 5; and Professor/Teaching Professor, Step 9. In all other cases, the recommendation and/or decision may be for a salary increase in lieu of merit or promotion, but the type of review conducted by the department must be a merit or promotion review. (CAPM 803.620). Note that faculty at Professor/Teaching Professor, Step 5 or higher who are on call for a Mandatory Review may request a performance review without advancement in step or salary instead (ref. CAPM 402.200). Service Policy (CAPM 407.690.C and 803.620.C) provides parameters for salary-increase-only cases. At Assistant 5, salary increases are not capped and follow the salary equivalent of the standard Special Salary Practice, but for Associate Professors and Professors, policy limits salary increases to a modest ⅓- or ⅔-step equivalent (a full step is allowed one time under the COVID exception).
In recent years, campus practice has not consistently followed the policy guidelines for how salary increases (without promotion) are given at barrier steps in situations where all three evaluation criteria meet expectations, or one or more evaluations are below expectations. After a review of outcomes in recent years and relevant policy, we provide the following guidance for clarity and consistency of the options for salary-only review outcomes at threshold steps (Table 1). If any single category is found to be seriously deficient, the result should be no salary increase (and an overall unsatisfactory review at Professor, Step 5 or above). When there are less serious deficiencies in the case of merit or promotion reviews that result in salary-only increases for faculty at Professor, Step 4 or below, ⅓-step salary increases are allowed for each category that meets expectations (“Excellent” or above). For faculty at Professor, Step 5 or above, there is no longer an expectation that every review will result in advancement, so the threshold for salary increases is higher and ⅓-step salary increases are allowed for each category that significantly exceeds expectations (“Outstanding”).
The following table shows corresponding salary increase (without rank or step advancement), given as salary-equivalent increases in lieu of advancement from the indicated rank and step. Below Expectations means anything less than Excellent (at expectation) in evaluation of the three personnel review categories.
| Evaluation | Assist 5 | Assoc 4 | Prof 5 | Prof 9 |
| Below Expectations x3 | none | none | none‡ | none‡ |
| Below Expectations x2 Excellent/Outstanding x1 | ⅓ step to Assoc 2 | ⅓ step to Prof 2 | none‡ | none‡ |
| Below Expectations x1 Excellent/Outstanding x2 | ⅔ step to Assoc 2 | ⅔ step to Prof 2 | none‡ | none‡ |
| Excellent x3 | 1 step to Assoc 2 | ⅔ step to Prof 2 | none | none |
| Excellent x2, Outstanding x1 | 1 step + ⅓ step to Assoc 3 | ⅔ step to Prof 2 | ⅓ step to Prof 6 | ⅓ of Step 9 |
| Excellent x1, Outstanding x2 | 1 step + ⅔ step to Assoc 3 | ⅔ step to Prof 2 | ⅔ step to Prof 6 | ⅔ of Step 9 |
| Outstanding x3 | 2 steps | ⅔ step to Prof 2# | ⅔ step to Prof 6# | ⅔ of Step 9# |
#Under the COVID exception, the ⅔ limit has been relaxed and can provide, one time only, an equivalent of a full step to Professor 2, Professor 6, or 11% of Step 9, respectively. However, campus practice suggests that this is unlikely to occur at Step 9.
‡ The final determination of whether a review is satisfactory or unsatisfactory per CAPM 402.200.B will rest with the final decision authority, with recommendations submitted by each review level.
Sincerely,
Greg Gilbert
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