Promotion and Tenure at the University of Virginia School of Medicine

1
Promotion and Tenure at the University of
Virginia School of Medicine
Emilie Rissman, PhD Chair UVa SOM Promotion and
Tenure Committee
2
Objectives for This Workshop

• (1) To demystify the SOM PT process
• (2) For faculty members to understand the
  criteria they must fulfill for each stage of
  promotion
• (3) To help candidates get their materials in the
  best possible shape for the SOM PT committee

3
Common Questions about PT

• What are the different faculty tracks?
• What are the criteria for promotion or tenure on
  my track?
• How can I find out where I stand regarding
  promotion tenure?
• Where can I get help with my portfolio?
• Who are the members of the PT committee?

4
Objective 1 to demystify the PT process
I still have room for a second opinion
5
Where can I read about the guidelines for
promotion or tenure?

• SOM PT guidelines are on the web (updated)
• http//www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/intern
  et/faculty-dev/pandt/home.cfm
• FAQs about PT now available on the web
• Note the print version of UVa SOM Faculty
  Handbook is out of date--dont use

6
Tracks

• Tenure eligible
• Academic Investigator (AI)
• Clinician Investigator (CI)
• Clinician Educator (CE)
• Academic Educator (AE)
• Tenure ineligible
• Clinical Faculty (CF)
• Research Faculty
• Independent Research (RF/IR)
• Research Support (RF/RS)
• Instructional Faculty (IF)

7
Faculty Tracks Typical Effort
Allocation--Tenure Eligible

• Academic Investigator majority of effort (80)
  devoted to research variable amount of teaching
• Clinician Investigator 50-80 of effort devoted
  to research (protected time) variable amounts of
  patient care and teaching
• Clinician Educator 80 of time devoted to
  patient care and teaching (at least 20
  non-clinical time protected) scholarship
  required
• Academic Educator 50-70 of time devoted to
  patient care and/or medical education 30-50 of
  time devoted to scholarly activities with
  research focused on medical education (MD or PhD)

8
Faculty Tracks Typical Effort
Allocation--Non-tenure Tracks

• Clinical Faculty majority of time devoted to
  clinical service and teaching scholarship is
  optional and variable
• Research Faculty two tracks on each, majority
  of time is devoted to PI research teaching is
  optional
• Independent Research
• Research Support
• Instructional Faculty majority of time devoted
  to teaching or service (clinical or other)

9
When can I be promoted? PT Timeline

• Tenure-eligible tracks
• Assistant Professor 6 years
• Associate Professor 4 years (maximum)
• Associate Professor with tenure time to next
  promotion not mandated
• Professor
• Non-tenure-eligible tracks
• must be in rank for minimum of 5 year before
  being considered for next promotion
• no maximum time

10
The Timing of Promotion and Tenureassistant
professors on tenure-eligible tracks

• must be promoted to Associate Professor by end of
  the 6th year on UVa faculty a faculty member who
  can to UVa from an Assistant Professor position
  may be able to go up for earlier promotion
• promotions portfolio must be prepared after only
  5 years on the faculty
• first promotion is usually to Associate Professor
  with Term (i.e., without tenure)
• if meets criteria for both promotion and tenure,
  may be request both at same time (double jump)
• tenure eligibility continues for 4 years
  (maximum) after promotion to Associate Professor
  with term
• a faculty member hired as an Associate Professor
  has only 4 years of tenure eligibility

11
Time off-the-clock

• Must be requested from the Dean by your Chair
• Granted in one-year increments
• Granted for various reasons, such as
• change in professional responsibilities
• personal illness
• childbirth, child care
• illness of a child, parent, spouse
• Should be requested when needed, not after the
  absence from duties has occurred
• Should not be requested after faculty member is
  nominated for promotion or tenure

12
The SOM Promotion Tenure Committee

• Members about 15 tenured full professors more
  clinicians than scientists few department chairs
• Task to evaluate faculty nominated for
  promotion or tenure by applying the written
  promotion guidelines as consistently as possible
• Values broad perspective confidentiality
  fidelity to the PT criteria consistency
  constructive interactions with chairs, chiefs,
  and candidates

13
Results from 2006-2007 PT Committee

• 77 candidate packets were sent to the SOM PT
  committee
• 70 approved in initial round (91) with 7
  disapproved
• 5 appealed, of which 4 approved and 1
  disapproved
• Overall success rate at the SOM PT level
• 74 / 77 96

14
The Review Process of the SOM PT Committee

• Candidate is assigned a primary and a secondary
  reviewer from among the committee members
• Entire committee evaluates each promotions
  portfolio and votes on each candidate makes
  recommendation to Dean
• members from the same department or who feel they
  have a conflict abstain from vote
• Dean notifies chairs of the Committees
  recommendations

15
review process (cont)

• Candidate may appeal negative recommendation to
  Dean based on (1) new information or (2) modified
  request/action (such as promotion only no
  tenure or expedited track change and assessment
  based on criteria for the new track)
• PT Committee makes its recommendations to the
  Dean
• Dean makes recommendations to the Provost
• The Provosts PT Committee may review the Deans
  recommendations
• Candidates may appeal negative recommendations to
  Provosts Committee based only on procedural
  improprieties
• The Provost makes recommendations to the BOV

16
Timetable for Review 2008-2009http//www.healthsy
stem.virginia.edu/internet/faculty-dev/PandT/timel
ine0809.cfm

• May 2008 Department chairs review faculty and
  decide who must and who should come up for
  promotion.
• July-August Dean requests letters from all
  referees
• (criteria for referee names at
  http//www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/internet/facu
  lty-dev/PandT/documents/P-T_LtrsofRef_Criteria_200
  7.pdf)
• Candidates must submit updated CVs to be sent to
  the referees
• Letters must be received from 5
  external-independent referees
• Candidates must submit a minimum number of names
  of external-independents referees
• 5 if seeking promotion to associate professor
  with term
• 7 if seeking tenure or promotion to full
  professor
• Recommendation submit names of 10
• Chair must submit full addresses, phone and fax
  numbers, and e-mail addresses for all referees
• Maximum number of referee names allowed 20
  total

17
timeline (cont)

• September Department review (summary and vote
  required)
• October 15 Departments submit completed
  portfolios to the Dean
• November December PT Committee considers
  candidates and makes recommendations to Dean
• about January 1, 2009 Dean sends SOM PT
  summaries to chairs
• January SOM appeals process
• Late January PT Committee considers appeals
  and submits final recommendations to the Dean
  
• about February 2 Dean submits recommendations
  to Provost
• Spring Provosts PT Committee considers
  candidates
• Late Spring BOV approves Provosts
  recommendations

18
Objective 2 faculty understand criteria they
must meet for each stage of promotion
Actually it was more of a lateral move than a
promotion
19
?
Two tracks are not shown on chart Academic
Educator (new tenure-eligible track) and the two
Research tracks (Independent Research and
Research Support)
20
Criteria for promotiontenure-eligible tracks

• Key words EXCELLENCE and TRAJECTORY
• Assistant to Associate excellence in one area
  (clinical care, medical education, research) and
  local regional reputation
• Associate to Tenure excellence in two areas
  plus continuing scholarship and emerging national
  reputation
• Tenure to Professor sustained excellence in two
  areas plus significant sustained scholarship and
  national international reputation
• Same criteria apply to non-tenure tracks, but
  generally excellence is expected in only one area

21
Example Clinician Investigator

• Promotion to Associate Professor documented
  excellence in research funding (NIH K Award or
  equivalent) scholarship (peer-reviewed papers)
  nascent national reputation board certification
• Award of Tenure documented excellence in
  research plus another area (education or clinical
  care) NIH funding as PI additional scholarship
  national reputation
• Promotion to Professor more of the above
  sustained NIH funding and scholarship national
  and international reputation

22
Example Academic Investigator

• Promotion to Associate Professor documented
  excellence in research NIH (or equivalent)
  funding scholarship (peer-reviewed
  publications) nascent national reputation
• Award of Tenure documented excellence in
  research plus another area maintained NIH
  funding (renewal of grant second grant or the
  award of a group grant (PPG, etc.) additional
  scholarship national reputation
• Promotion to Professor more of the above
  sustained NIH funding continuing scholarship
  national and international reputation
• (Note Being PI of a project in a PPG or SCOR
  is regarded as equivalent to being PI of an NIH
  R01.)

23
Example Clinician Educator

• Promotion to Associate Professor documented
  excellence in one area scholarship
  local/regional reputation board certification
• Award of Tenure documented excellence in two
  areas additional scholarship regional/national
  reputation
• Promotion to Professor all of the above plus
  significant scholarship national reputation
• Note Professor is a big jump from Associate in
  that substantially more scholarship and national
  reputation are required.

24
Example Academic Educator

• Promotion to Associate Professor documented
  excellence in education scholarship
  local/regional reputation
• Award of Tenure documented excellence in
  education and one other domain additional
  scholarship regional/national reputation
• Promotion to Professor all of the above plus
  significant scholarship national/international
  reputation.
• Note Professor is a big jump from Associate in
  that substantially more scholarship and national
  reputation are required.

25
Criteria for promotion non-tenuredClinical
Faculty track

• Promotion to Associate Professor documented
  excellence in one area scholarship optional
  local/regional reputation board certification
• Promotion to Professor documented excellence in
  one area substantial scholarship national
  reputation
• Note Professor is a big jump from Associate in
  the level of scholarship and national reputation
  required.
• ___________
• CFs may do clinical care, teaching, research,
  institutional service, etc. They are evaluated
  according to their job descriptions, but credit
  is given for all of their accomplishments.

26
Criteria for promotion non-tenured Research
Faculty Independent Research

• Promotion to Associate Professor documented
  excellence in independent research (as PI) NIH
  funding scholarship significant national
  reputation
• Promotion to Professor all of the above
  sustained NIH funding national and international
  reputation
• _____________
• Accomplishments in other areas (e.g., teaching
  or clinical) are taken into account but not
  required.

27
Criteria for promotion non-tenured Research
Faculty Research Support

• Promotion to Associate Professor documented
  excellence in research (as co-investigator)
  scholarship evidence of significantly enhancing
  the research programs of other UVa faculty
  members
• Promotion to Professor all of the above
  sustained funding as co-investigator national
  reputation
• _________________
• A Research FacultyResearch Support faculty
  member may move into a RFIndependent Research
  appointment. The Committee tries to judge each
  candidate on his/her total record of
  achievements.

28
Criteria for promotion non-tenuredInstructional
Faculty

• Promotion to Associate Professor documented
  excellence in the area of the job description
• Promotion to Professor not an option

29
Documenting Excellence
30
Documenting Excellence in Research

• Judgments of peers funding from nationally
  competitive sources, esp. NIH external letters
• Research Productivity Papers in peer-reviewed
  journals quantity is considered, quality is
  weighted more heavily than quantity
• Impact of Research journal rankings, citations,
  invitations to speak at national meetings and
  other institutions, letters from leaders in the
  field that specify candidates contributions to
  field
• Ability to attract students and fellows and
  evidence of productive interactions with other
  investigators

31
Excellence Funding AI CI tracks

• Assistant to Associate one external grant
  (e.g., R01 for AI K award for CI)
• Associate to Tenure continuing funding (2nd R01
  or competitive renewal for AI 1st R01 for CI)
• Tenure to Professor sustained funding track
  record of secure funding
• Note Funding can be R01-equivalents (program
  project, center grant, DOD, NSF, American Heart,
  American Diabetes, etc.)

32
Criteria for Collaboration
The School of Medicine has the following
criteria for the evaluating candidates
involved in team science 1. The curriculum
vitae contains evidence of research
scholarship in peer-reviewed journals of
significant impact and sustained, successful
competition for hypothesis-driven, extramural
funding (NIH, AHA, NDF). Co-investigator or
project investigator on a PPG is counted like a
R01 investigator of other type (with significant
time and effort) will be valued. The
bibliography may include middle-authored
publications, and non-PI roles on grants should
be explained with annotations giving the
candidates specific contribution to projects.
33
criteria for collaboration (cont)

• Letters from collaborators speak to the unique
  and invaluable contribution made by the candidate
  to the success of the research. External
  referees acknowledge the candidate's national
  reputation and recognition as a "collaborator's
  collaborator or "researcher's researcher."
• 3. Letters about the candidate should discuss how
  this particular collaboration generates synergy,
  creates innovative research networks and/or
  institutional opportunities beyond the expected
  product of the individual, and independent
  research.
• 4. First-author scholarly publications may
  include application development, instructive
  descriptions of interdisciplinary methodologies,
  commentaries, or chapters.

34
How publications are evaluated (no formula, no
absolute number!)
He should have published.
35
Evaluating publications

• More weight is given to first- and senior-
  (corresponding) author papers.
• Quality is as important as quantity.
• Special attention is paid to the papers published
  at UVa and since the last promotion.
• The quality of journals is relevant. We look at
  journal rankings and impact factors published by
  ISI. Impact factors differ by field. We realize
  they are not perfect and that they differ by
  fields.

36
evaluating publications (cont)

• Citations to the candidates papers tell us the
  impact the candidates publications have on
  his/her field. We know that publications in some
  fields garner more citations than others.
• Un-refereed publications (chapters, invited
  articles) are also considered but are given less
  weight.
• Electronic publications are more difficult to
  judge we recommend publication in print
  journals if possible.

37
Documenting Excellence in Education

• Didactic Teaching quantity and quality
  evaluations by students, residents, or fellows
  (compared to other instructors) evaluations by
  peers teaching awards in the department or SOM
  development of new courses leadership of
  courses responsibility for innovations
• Training in Laboratory and Clinical Research
  attracting students, residents, and fellows to
  collaborate in your activities evaluations by
  them posters and papers presented by them at
  national meetings papers co-authored by them
  awards won by students, residents, or fellows

38
excellent in education (cont)

• Clinical Training directing residency or
  fellowship program innovations in training
  initiating a new fellowship papers, posters,
  presentations co-authored with students,
  residents, or fellows awards won by residents
  or fellows evaluations by students, residents,
  or fellows

39
Documenting Clinical Excellence

• Some suggested criteria for clinical excellence
• (see details at http//www.healthsystem.virginia.
  edu/internet/faculty-dev/PandT/documents/Clinical-
  Excellence-Criteria.pdf )
• Productivity 50 of MGMA scale other
• Adherence to practice standards specialty
  specific
• Patient satisfaction scores
• Institutional performance standards
• Outcome measures specialty specific
• Practice improvement innovations
• Scholarly activity
• 360-degree evaluations

40
clinical excellence (cont)

• A physician is recognized as a clinical leader
  who is a recognized authority in a clinical
  specialty. He/she is repeatedly requested to
  instruct other physicians through consultations,
  lectures, seminars, visiting professorships, and
  invited writings. He/she is known across the
  clinical services as the person to talk to about
  patient problems.
• A physician is recognized as a superior
  consultant who is attentive to the needs of the
  patient and of the referring physician
  (evaluations and letters from referring
  physicians are useful for PT).

41

• As an alternative to traditional research, a
  physician may establish a new field or a new
  school of thinking in clinical medicine, adapt a
  major application of new knowledge to the
  clinical setting, develop or improve a diagnostic
  or therapeutic technique, design or implement a
  new program of patient care and/or education,
  develop patient education materials, pursue
  health services research, or create a new and
  innovative mode of health care delivery. (This
  is called scholarship of application.)
• Scholarship of application ideally results in
  peer-reviewed publications and presentations at
  regional or national meetings and other
  institutions.

42
Documenting Excellence in Service (e.g.,
Committees)

• In general, service on departmental or SOM
  committees is NOT highly weighted!
• There are exceptions, such as being chair of
  important departmental or SOM committees, Academy
  of Distinguished Educators (for CE track),
  residency program director.
• Committees do vital work, but no one was ever
  denied promotion for refusing assignment to
  internal committees.
• Dont be afraid to refuse to serve on a committee
  that doesnt interest you.
• Do serve on committees that interest you and
  whose work will affect your functions, but they
  may not help you be promoted.

43
How Scholarship is Evaluated

• Peer-reviewed publications (highest weight)
• Quantity especially since appointment or since
  last promotion
• Quality ranking of journals citation history
• Weighted more heavily first- and
  senior-(corresponding) author publications

44
evaluating scholarship (cont)

• Publications that may not be peer-reviewed
• Chapters (is it in a well-respected book?)
• Invited reviews and comments (quality of
  journal?). This is evidence of reputation.
• Electronic publications are currently hard to
  evaluate Beware! (This is evolving.)
• Note Scholarship that does not result in some
  sort of publication is more difficult to
  evaluate.

45
Indicators of Regional/National/ International
Reputation

• Service on a study section or grant review panel
  of a regional or national agency
• Membership on editorial boards of major journals
• Invited reviews and articles
• Invited talks at regional/national/ international
  symposia and at other institutions visiting
  professorships
• Officer, chair, or member of a committee of
  regional or national professional or scientific
  society

46
Objective 3 To help candidates get their
materials in the best possible shape for the
PT committee
47
General Advice

• Keep good records start maintain a file of
  information on excellence (awards, grateful
  patient letters, student evaluations, etc.).
• Be certain that what you do fits with your track
  and your job description confer with division
  head/chair.
• Seek advice from mentors, including members of
  the PT committee.

48
Promotions Portfolio

• Curriculum vitae annotated (see details at
  http//www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/internet/facu
  lty-dev/PandT/documents/CV-Format.doc)
• Personal statement (one page) (see examples at
  http//www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/internet/facu
  lty-dev/PandT/pstatement.cfm
• Documentation of excellence in primary area
• Document of excellence in secondary area(s)
• Documentation of scholarship, including 3
  publications (pdf files)
• Documentation of service (local, regional,
  national)
• Letters from internal and external referees
  note the new requirements for minimum and maximum
  number of names to be submitted

49
CV Pointers from the AAMC

• Curriculum Vitae - Tips and Strategies
• Tips
• Structure and format
• Format be consistent don't be repetitive be
  concise include a page number and name header on
  all pages be neat
• Don't include SSN, age, gender, race, religion,
  political affiliation, marital/parental status,
  disability or national origin explanation of why
  you're leaving your present job salary history
  DEA numbers
• Date alignment because CVs are read left to
  right, avoid placing dates on the left margin as
  doing so emphasizes the date as opposed to the
  activity
• Reverse chronological order present position
  is listed first same for honors, publications,
  etc.
• Font, paper, printing
• Font use 12-18 point font size for name (the
  largest font size you use)
• 12-14 point font for headings 10-12 point font
  for text. Don't use too many fonts
• pick one and use it throughout
• Paper use white/off-white 24-lb paper and a
  matching envelope
• Printing/typesetting use a laser printer
  never use a dot-matrix printer
• Proofing
• Proof VERY carefully and dont rely ONLY on
  automatic spell check

50
AAMC pointers (cont)

• Strategies for keeping current
• Update materials at least semi-annually
• Collect things in real time as they happen
• Use holding files with folders (electronic or
  paper-based) for each of the sections
• Keep publications as submitted, in press, and
  published (keep the same system for your teaching
  portfolio)
• Keep a running header with the most current
  version
• If you maintain different versions of your
  documents for different purposes, update them at
  the same time or keep clear notes about what
  you've updated and what you haven't. Keeping a
  base file, then running "compare documents" will
  do much of that work for you, provided you save a
  redlined version and note on other documents the
  need to update them for consistency.
• NOTE Be honest!

Available at http//www.aamc.org/members/facultyde
v/facultyvitae/fall05/cv_portfolio.htm
51
How to list journal articles on CV for PT
citation analysis, journal rankings, and author
contribution

• You need to provide special information about
  your papers published at UVa
• Impact Factor (IF) of the journal
• Rank of that journal (ranked by IF) in its field
• The ISI "Web of Science" website (can be found
  from HSC Library homepage) can be used to get the
  full citations to your published papers and the
  journal impact factors and rankings. Phone or
  e-mail Karen Knight in the Library if you need
  help with this.
• Contribution to paperif you are neither the
  first author nor the corresponding author,
  explain briefly what you contributed to the paper

52
Examples of how to list papers in your CV for PT
(in these citations, you are U.V. Afacmemb)

• An asterisk () indicates the corresponding
  author. When you are neither the first nor the
  corresponding author, briefly state your
  contribution to the paper.
• Schmaltzcroft C, Schniklefritz PE, and Afacmemb
  UV. A new class of dopamine receptors in the
  median eminence. Neurosci 511234-1246, 2000.
• Cited 23 times, IF 6.096, Rank 17
  of 194 Neuroscience journals. Over half the
  experiments were done in Dr. Facmembs lab by his
  technician.
• Afacmemb UV, Schmaltzcroft C, Schniklefritz PE.
  Dopamine inhibits firing of pyramidal cells in
  neocortex. J. Clinical Neurosci. 67234-245,
  2001.
• Cited 13 times, IF 2.045, Rank 80
  of 194 neuroscience journals rank 3 among 25
  clinical neurology journals.
• Schmaltlzcroft C, Afacmemb UV, and
  Schnicklelfritz PE. Quantification of dopamine
  receptor density in the cerebellum. J.
  Neurobiol. 56123-456, 2003.
• Cited 5 times, IF 3.145, Rank 54 of
  194 Neuroscience journals. Dr. Facmemb provided
  the antibodies used to estimate dopamine receptor
  density and the experiments demonstrating
  antibody specificities were done in his
  laboratory.

53
Personal Statement

• Use active voice, not passive voice.
• Think about the audience. This document may be
  sent to the people that are asked for letters.
• Cover the highpoints, dont go into too much
  detail on any one point.
• Cover how you define yourself start with the
  most important part of your job, end with a short
  summary.
• Examples at http//www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/
  internet/faculty-dev/PandT/pstatement.cfm

54
Educational Documentation

• Do not include PowerPoint slides of your lectures
  unless this is something really novel.
• Do include student evaluations, quantification of
  your performance as compared with other
  instructors.
• Ask the course director if they are collecting
  this information and if not tell them it is
  important for your next promotion.
• For CI and AI candidates your post docs and
  graduate students in the lab are a reflection of
  your excellence in education. Include
  documentation of how these folks are doing, where
  they are now, etc.

55
Referee Letters

• Letters from independent external referees (at
  least 5) from individuals at proposed rank or
  higher who have not been formally associated with
  the candidate, some referees should be suggested
  by the chair independent of the candidate. List
  sent by the chair to the Dean
• Additional external referees who have been
  associated formally with the candidate some of
  these dont hurt
• Letters from internal referees no set number
  required
• External letters should tell us what
  contributions the candidate has made to his/her
  field
• Internal letters should tell us what the
  candidate has contributed to UVa SOM

56
Referee Letters Tips

• Letters are typically requested from people you
  trained with.
• Types of people to ask
• Co-authors, but these are counted differently
• Those in your field, know your work
• People you have invited in to give grand rounds
  or a seminar
• Who have higher rank than you do
• People you may know from committees (study
  section, societies) or service
• From equivalent or high-ranked institutions
• NAS, Nobel winners ! Famous people

57
Summary Sheet Used by PT Committee
BACKGROUND EDUCATION TRAINING BOARD
CERTIFICATIONS ACADEMIC POSITIONS REVIEW OF
CURRENT POSITION (including effort
distribution) EDUCATIONAL CLINICAL .
RESEARCH GRANTS
58
summary sheet (cont)
PUBLICATIONS Peer-reviewed
papers
Chapters, invited publications,
etc. REPUTATION (Area, State, Regional,
National) INSIDE LETTERS OUTSIDE
LETTERS PUBLICATIONS SUBMITTED (List and brief
evaluation) CANDIDATE'S MAJOR ROLES AT UVa AND
IN THE WORLD CONTRIBUTIONS OF CANDIDATE'S
SCHOLARSHIP NATURE AND SIGNFICANCE SUMMARY
59
How a consultation might be helpful

• Am I on the right faculty track?
• Am I a reasonable candidate for promotion or
  tenure at this time?
• What are my strengths and weaknesses vis-à-vis
  promotion/tenure?
• How can I better document my accomplishments?
• Can my promotions portfolio be polished?

60
Before submitting your portfolio, you are
encouraged to consult PT Committee members

• We want you to understand the PT guidelines and
  to know how you stand with respect to the
  criteria for promotion and to construct your
  portfolio in the best possible way.
• PT Committee Members, 2008-2009
• Emilie Rissman, Biochemistry and Molecular
  Genetics (Chair)
• Mark Abel, Orthopedics (Vice-Chair)
• Victor Baum, Anesthesiology
• David Brautigan, Microbiology
• Mark Conaway, Health Evaluation Sciences
• Jim Garrison, Pharmacology
• Suzanne Holroyd, Psychiatry
• Bea Lopes, Pathology
• Stephen Park, Otolaryngology HNS
• Thomas Platts-Mills, Internal Medicine
• Rob Sawyer, Surgery
• Mark Shaffrey, Neurosurgery
• Judy White, Cell Biology

61
Other able consultants

• Veterans of PT Committee
• Larry Phillips, Neurology (former chair)
• Howard Kutchai, Physiology (former chair)
• Sim Galazka, Family Medicine
• Jim Bennett, Neurology
• Peggy Shupnik, Internal Medicine
• Stacey Mills, Pathology
• Bob Bloodgood, Cell Biology
• Peyton Taylor, OB/GYN
• Dick Santen, Internal Medicine
• Ann Beyer, Microbiology
• George Rich, Anesthesiology
• Tom Daniel, Surgery
• John Hanks, Surgery
• Sharon Hostler, Interim Vice President and Dean

62
Good Luck!

• Emilie Rissman, PhD
• Chair, PT Committee
• Phone [phone]
• E-mail efr2f_at_virginia.edu