A Glimpse into the College of Engineering Promotion and Tenure Advisory Committee

1
A Glimpse into the College of EngineeringPromotio
n and Tenure Advisory Committee

• Prof. R. Bruce Darling, Dept. of Electrical
  Engineering
• Former PTAC Chair over 2001-2002
• Presented to CoE ADVANCE Program, Sept. 10, 2003

2
PT Advisory Council Membership

• One member from each of the 10 College of
  Engineering Departments.
• 3-year term for each member, 1/3 of council
  rotates on/off each year.
• Chair is a member in their 3rd year.
• Meetings each Wednesday afternoon from 300 to
  500pm.
• Eligible faculty are full professors who will
  honor a commitment to meet each week and
  participate fully.
• Email alias for whole committee pt_at_engr
• A faculty member in the same department as the
  candidate participates in discussions as a
  resource, but abstains from voting and any stance
  of advocacy for the candidate.

3
Charter

• Established through Section 24-54 of the faculty
  code
• The dean shall be advised by a committee or
  council of the college or school. This advisory
  group, elected by the faculty of the college or
  school, shall consider each case presented to it
  and submit its recommendations with reasons
  therefore to the dean. In a departmentalized
  school or college, when a candidate for promotion
  is under consideration, any member of the
  committee or council who is a member of the
  candidates department may be excused.

4
Procedure

• Dossier is submitted by the department to the
  dean, who forwards it to the PTAC.
• Dossier is copied and distributed to the PTAC
  members for thorough review prior to the meeting.
  (Cases that have not been properly prepared can
  be returned to the submitting department, if
  necessary.)
• The case is scheduled for a specific PTAC
  meeting.
• The dossier is discussed in detail,
  point-by-point
• Research
• Teaching
• Service
• Outside referees letters
• Candidates personal statement
• Chairmans letter
• Departments internal review, if performed
• Chairman is interviewed to answer any outstanding
  questions.
• PTAC members vote on the case home department is
  a mandatory abstention.
• Recommendation is submitted to the dean all case
  materials are destroyed.

5
Interaction with Candidate

• New procedures as of 10/11/2000
• Candidates are responsible for preparing their
  own dossiers.
• Candidates can include any material they feel
  should be considered into the dossier.
• Candidates shall include a self-assessment or
  self-advocacy statement.
• If a departmental PT advisory committee is used,
  their initial report must be in writing and
  shared with the candidate. The candidate can
  provide a written response to it within 7 days.
  A response must be provided to the faculty prior
  to their vote.
• The chairmans letter must be summarized to the
  candidate, who within 7 days can respond in
  writing to it. This response must be provided to
  the College PTAC prior to their meeting.
• Referee names and vote counts are NOT to be
  revealed to the candidate! A redacted report and
  chairmans letter are provided to the candidate.
  
• Candidates can suggest outside referees, BUT the
  PT standards require referees which have not
  been suggested in this manner.

6
Selection and Contact with Referees

• Procedure for selection must be documented.
• Why this institution? (What is its
  ranking/relationship?)
• Why this person? (What are their
  qualifications?)
• What relation does this referee have with the
  candidate?
• All contact with each referee must be documented.
• Candidates role in the selection process must be
  documented.
• Email is acceptable hardcopy is best.
• Phone conversations cannot be used other than to
  inquire or prompt a referee to send a letter.
• See the website for an acceptable draft referee
  letter.
• Try to get the referees to make direct
  comparisons and state whether the candidate would
  be promoted at their institution.
• Assemble your own list of referees BEFORE asking
  the candidate!
• Use the standard template for soliciting
  referees do not bias the referee with a leading
  question or other communications. Simply
  transmit the dossier to the referee and let them
  do the rest.

7
Class A and Class B Outside Referees

• Class A (Gold Standard) Outside Referees
• A minimum of three are required.
• They cannot be suggested by the candidate (no
  cronies).
• They cannot be connected to the candidate (no
  former advisors, no former students, no co-PIs,
  no funding agency heads, no co-authors).
• They must be active in the candidates field (no
  retirees).
• In general, a Class A Outside Referee must be
  respected in the field, irrefutable, and have no
  possible conflict of interest with seeing the
  candidate promoted.
• Class B Outside Referees
• Encompasses all others (can include co-authors,
  co-PIs, former students, and any others who can
  provide valuable insight into the case.
• A maximum of five may be used.

8
The Candidates Statement

• This is one of the most informative parts of the
  dossier!
• Candidates should work with their chairs and
  mentors to construct an accurate, complete, and
  lucid, narrative portrayal of their record.
• It should state where they are going as well as
  where they have been
• It is the best place to clearly indicate what the
  scientific or technical impact of their work has
  been.
• It is also the best place for a candidate to
  indicate what part of joint papers, projects, or
  awards were contributed by them, as opposed to
  their co-investigators or co-authors.

9
The Candidates Dossier

• Usually prepared by the candidate, but they
  should be assisted by their department.
• Follow the format on the website!
• Dont hesitate to use graphics to explain trends
  or patterns, but be sure to include the raw data,
  too.
• Always explain the basis for the data, e.g. were
  the teaching ratings the raw or the adjusted
  scores?
• When in doubt as to which section to include a
  contribution, be safe and put it both places so
  that it does not get overlooked.

10
The Candidates Dossier - Research

• Bottom line The PTAC is looking for
  documentation of the IMPACT of the research.
• Contrary to urban folklore, there is NO specific
  threshold number on published papers or research
  grant dollars.
• Indicators of research impact
• Fully reviewed papers published in the top
  journals of the field.
• Fully reviewed conference papers presented at the
  top meetings of the field.
• MS and PhD students successfully trained in the
  field.
• Endorsement of the research by competitive
  funding agencies.
• Demonstrated technology transfer to industry or
  commercial world.
• The dossier should explain the scope and manner
  of the candidates research field, the
  candidates position within the field, and the
  position of the leading researchers.

11
The Candidates Dossier - Teaching

• Three measures of teaching effectiveness
• Student evaluations.
• Peer evaluations.
• Self evaluations.
• Scope of the teaching enterprise
• Large classroom, required course, typically
  undergrads.
• Small classroom, elective course, typically
  grads.
• Laboratory, skill-building, survey, or
  theoretical.
• Individual instruction MS and PhD students,
  undergraduate research students, career guidance.
• Collaborative teaching with colleagues.

12
The Candidates Dossier - Service

• Service to the department, college, and
  profession is expected however, excellence in
  service alone is NOT sufficient for promotion
  and/or tenure.
• (Excellence in teaching and research are the
  criteria.)
• A university is self-organizing and
  self-governing ergo, participation in these
  processes are indicators of a facultys
  suitability for a long-term career within the
  university.
• It is necessary that all faculty be able to lead
  and to last within the university environment
  service provides an early indicator of this.
• The PTAC is looking for a demonstration of
  engagement and participation in the enterprise of
  the university and the professional field of the
  candidate.

13
The Chairs Letter

• See the website for specific contents
• http//www.engr.washington.edu/personnel/pt_web/pt
  _d.htm
• More generally, the letter should contain
• Key points of the candidates record
• Explanation of successes and failures
• Interpretation of circumstances, trends, and
  future promise
• Justification for P and/or T in relation to
  College standards and criteria
• Dont contradict the remainder of the dossier!
• Dont fail to address begging questions!
• Document the tangibles as much as possible!
• Dont hesitate to use superlatives, but be level
  in their use!
• Work with the candidate to learn all of the facts!

14
The Chairs Interview

• This should be minimal IF the dossier and chairs
  letter are well-prepared and obvious questions
  have been addressed.
• Common PTAC questions
• Why promote now? (As opposed to last year or
  next?)
• What is the candidates most important
  contribution and why?
• On multi-investigator awards or multi-author
  papers, what fraction was contributed by the
  candidate?
• Where is the candidate likely to be in 5 years?
• How come your numbers or dates do not match the
  dossier?
• Why did some of your faculty vote no or abstain?
• How does the candidate fit into the departmental
  strategic plan?
• Why is the candidate being promoted to this rank
  or is working along this track? (Mainly for
  lecturer or research appointments.)

15
Some Final Points

• The College promotes dossiers, not people.
• ONLY documented facts contribute to a case.
• Here-say anecdotes do not contribute to a case.
• Passionate and animated advocacy performances by
  the chair do not contribute to a case.
• The College PTAC procedures are an open
  architecture, but each specific case is fully
  confidential.
• Email should not be used to discuss case
  specifics.
• Discussions on general policies, procedures, and
  timelines are encouraged.

16
A Key to Success

• The preparation of a successful dossier should be
  treated as a research project unto itself
• The candidate, and particularly the departmental
  committee and chair, must all flesh out the
  supporting facts, design a proper slate of
  referees, interpret (not just recite) their
  comments, and place the overall case into the
  context of the candidates home department and
  field of research.
• Conclusions should be drawn and supported by the
  data contained in the dossier.
• The presented case should be logically
  compelling.