The Well Prepared Candidate
Jim Germida, Vice-Provost Faculty Relations
www.usask.ca
The University Review Committee
Who is the University Review Committee?
• Nine tenured or continuing status employees nominated by
the Nominations Committee of Council and approved by
Council with the length of their term specified to ensure a
reasonable turnover of membership
• The Provost and Vice-President Academic, or designate is the
Chair
• Two Faculty Association representatives who serve strictly as
observers with voice, but no vote
The University Review Committee
• Reviews College recommendations for the renewal of probation from
College renewal and tenure committee and all college
recommendations for the award of tenure and
• Promotion to the ranks of Professor and Librarian, and approves them if
they are not inconsistent with the standards of the department, college
and university. [Article 15.9.4 (v)]; [Article 16.4.4 (vi)]
• Provides “second level review” of recommendations for tenure,
renewal of probation and promotion to professor for nondepartmentalized colleges
• Receives and adjudicates on appeals from faculty denied renewal of
probation, tenure and promotion to professor
The University Review Committee
•
Now has the ability to recommend a 2-year extension to
the probationary period if the appeal is unsuccessful. Only
one extension of probation will be permitted. The
extension can be granted by either URC or the Renewals
and Tenure Appeal Committee. [Article 15.9.4 (vii)]
•
Submits to the President for transmission to the Board its
recommendations for renewal, tenure and promotion.
[Articles 15.9.4 (viii)/16.4.4. (viii)]
Some URC Statistics: 2014/15
Renewal of Probationary Period: 36 cases
36 positive recommendations
0 negative recommendations
No appeals
Tenure & Continuing Status: 42 cases
39 positive recommendations
1 negative recommendation
1 successful appeal
2 extensions of probationary period
Promotion to Full Professor: 24 cases
20 positive recommendations
4 negative recommendations
0 successful appeal
Total Cases: 102
Roles and Responsibilities
Deans and Department Heads
• Mentor and guide faculty for successful career progress; provide direction, and
feedback to faculty as they prepare their case files
• Manage case files to ensure sufficient and appropriate data is collected and
cases thoroughly documented
• Create awareness of, and adherence to, Department, College and University
Standards
• Provide leadership in the interpretation and consistent application of the
standards; focus on evidence and what it takes to be a tenured and promoted
member of our academic community
• Enforce deadlines and adhere to procedures
Communication
Colleges and Departments
• In several of the case files last year, it was apparent that the Department
Renewals and Tenure Committees’ overall support was not shared by the
College Review Committees’
• These differences, were typically apparent in the areas of interpretation of the
Standards, and, evaluation of a candidate’s scholarly record
• When such situations arise between a Department Renewals and Tenure
Committee and the CRC, it is the dean’s responsibility to communicate the
concerns to the department heads
• Subsequently, it is the department heads responsibility to communicate these
concerns to the candidates
Shared Responsibilities
• Selecting Referees: The University Standards state that
“the Department Head or Dean, in consultation with
committee members, should provide at least half of the
names on the list”.
• Teaching Evaluations: Both student and peer
evaluations are a mandatory part of the case file. The
requirements are a “series of evaluations, over a period of
time”.
Best Practices
Leading the Process
Mentorship: Showing new faculty the ropes
•
•
•
•
•
Guide them towards tenure & promotion
Advise on distribution of their time & efforts
Help in selecting graduate students and their supervision
Be a sounding board; be a constructively hard critic
New Research Mentorship Program for Faculty began July 1, 2012
We spend time and effort to recruit the best people we
could find – let’s spend a few moments to help them
survive the system and help us build the university.
Best Practices
Completing Forms
Forms
•
The votes need to add up - For tenure and promotion cases, a negative vote
in any one category should translate to a negative vote for the case
•
All categories should be accurately filled out to reflect the total number of
voting members present
•
Frequently the rationale provided by a department is reiterated by the
college, which suggests the CRC did not undertake their own assessment
•
Too often departmental and college committees provide only cryptic
arguments in their rationale for the judgments they are making, leaving URC
to intuit the unspoken reasoning
•
Even when the argument is more fully developed, there is frequently
inadequate reference to the precise language of the Standards
Best Practices
Procedures
The Process
•
Guide the discussion at the department level
Statements of rationale
• Must indicate the quality and significance of the candidate’s work and how
it was assessed
• Must explain the decision at the department level and include both
majority and minority views
• Must address all of the categories of assessment
• Must be directly and clearly linked to the appropriate standards. Direct
references to additional requirements in department and college standards
must be included
Best Practices
Procedures
Voting
•
“each member of a Committee, including the chair, shall have one vote”.
Members may vote on a particular candidate only if they have taken part in
the committee’s deliberations”
•
“a quorum shall be two thirds of the members of a committee taken to the
next highest integer. Employees on leave or excluded because of conflict of
interest shall not be counted in order to determine the size of committee if a
meeting has a quorum. However, an employee on leave who is a member of a
committee may, if present, participate and vote in the meetings of the
committee”
•
“the decision on tenure shall be by simple majority of those voting. The vote
of any member abstaining shall not be counted in support of either the
affirmative or negative view. A tie vote means the motion is lost”
[Articles 15.11.3/16.5.2]
Best Practices
Assessing Teaching
• The numerical scoring for student evaluations needs to be defined,
and the data should be summarized into an evaluative conclusive
statement
• Provide the department average score for similar classes as a
benchmark in the summation
• What courses were evaluated? How were student and peer
assessments conducted?
• Issues raised in the student evaluations need to be addressed in the
department’s rationale statement
Best Practices
Research
• This is creative, intellectual work which is in the public realm and which has
been subjected to external peer review
• Evaluation… at all ranks will address the quality and significance of the work
• An assessment of the candidate’s current and potential program of research
and scholarship or artistic work within the context of the discipline
• An indication of the quality of journals, other publications or venues
• An assessment of the adequacy of research funding support (if required)
Best Practices
Professional Practice
For Category 5: the 2002/11 University Standards state:
• Two components: Professional Practice; Scholarly Work “The evaluation
should reflect the balance between the two components”
• “Professional practice means mastery of the professional skills associated
with the discipline and their effective use in a discipline-appropriate
setting.” Examples of professional practice are to be provided by the
college
Best Practices
External Referees
• External reviewers “must be sufficiently at arm’s length from the candidate so
as to provide an objective assessment of performance…”
• There should be a clear concluding statement indicating whether or not the
referee was recommending the promotion or tenure action
• A clear statement of the period under review must be in the letter to external
referees
• The minimum requirements are three letters. Four letters are recommended.
In the event that the URC must set aside a letter for any reason, the minimum
requirement is still met to avoid the case being unnecessarily delayed
• The rationale from the department and the college should contain an accurate
evaluation of the letters, or, justification in the rationale if the committee
disagrees with, or, decides to disregard the opinion of one of the writers
Key Elements of A Successful
Case File
The Curriculum Vitae
•
Standardized c.v. using the form for faculty available at
http://www.usask.ca/vpfaculty/processes/president_review.php
•
For promotion – only include information up to June 30th of the
academic year. (Submissions in fall of 2015 should only include
material up to June 30, 2015)
•
For tenure, include all information up to and including the date
of submission
Teaching
• Include a statement of your philosophy of teaching
• A record of teaching roles should include both graduate and
undergraduate courses, practical or other field work and information on
your graduate students
• If your c.v. contains a complete record of your teaching roles (Item 9 in
the Standard c.v.) it is not necessary to repeat that here; simply reference
the appropriate sections of the c.v.
• You should have a summary statement of your understanding of the
results of the student and peer evaluations
• You should have a statement outlining your response to the results of the
teaching evaluations
Undergraduate Course Evaluation Tool
Q#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2
23
24
25
26
27
28
Question/Faculty member
Course intellectually challenging and stimulating
Learned something valuable
Subject interest increased because of course
Learned and understood subject materials
Instructor enthusiastic about teaching course
Instructor dynamic and energetic in conducting course
Instructor enhanced presentations with use of humor
Instructor’s style of presentation held interest during class
Instructor’s explanations were clear
Course materials well prepared and carefully explained
Proposed objectives agreed with those actually taught
Instructor lectures facilitated taking notes
Students encouraged to participate in class discussions
Students invited to share their ideas and knowledge
Students encouraged to ask questions and were given meaningful answers
Students encouraged to express own ideas and/or questions to instructor
Instructor friendly to individual students
Instructor made students welcome by seeking help/advice in/outside class
Instructor had genuine interest in individual students
Instructor adequately accessible to students during office hours or after class
Instructor contrasted implications of various theories
Instructor presented background or origin of ideas/concepts developed in class
Instructor presented points of view other than his/her own
Instructor adequately discussed current developments in field
Feedback on examinations/graded materials was valuable
Methods of evaluating student work were fair and appropriate
Examinations/graded materials tested course content
Required readings/texts were valuable
Readings, homework, laboratories contributed to appreciation and understanding of
29 course
Total 1 - 29
Avg first 29 questions
31 Compared with other instructors at U of S, rate this instructor
32 Overall instructor rating
A
4.01
3.98
3.62
3.71
4.40
3.92
4.12
3.20
3.23
3.27
3.60
3.99
4.66
4.61
4.49
4.52
4.98
4.58
4.51
4.45
4.17
4.20
4.33
4.40
3.12
3.50
3.14
4.05
B
4.47
4.63
4.16
4.53
4.88
4.65
4.07
4.15
4.28
4.89
4.84
4.81
4.27
4.28
4.51
4.22
5.13
5.03
4.89
4.85
4.53
4.61
4.62
4.79
3.91
4.24
4.12
4.40
C
4.65
5.06
4.78
4.89
5.00
4.89
4.22
4.17
4.89
5.17
5.22
4.67
5.00
5.11
5.17
5.12
5.33
5.29
4.89
5.12
5.00
5.11
4.94
5.39
4.39
5.00
5.06
4.73
D
5.13
5.00
5.13
5.38
6.00
5.75
5.50
5.25
5.13
5.25
5.38
5.75
5.75
5.38
5.63
5.38
5.88
5.63
5.63
5.13
5.25
5.25
5.38
5.63
5.63
5.25
5.50
4.50
E
4.71
4.94
4.65
4.88
5.18
5.06
4.88
4.35
4.71
4.53
4.59
3.94
4.59
4.94
4.94
4.71
5.35
4.94
4.71
4.33
4.75
5.00
5.00
5.41
4.59
4.82
4.53
3.83
F
4.93
5.21
5.07
5.50
5.50
5.57
5.29
5.29
5.21
5.29
5.29
5.36
5.08
5.38
5.46
5.46
5.71
5.85
5.50
5.54
5.15
5.50
5.43
5.36
5.50
5.50
5.07
5.18
G
5.42
5.58
5.32
5.26
5.73
5.74
5.72
5.61
5.47
5.55
5.47
5.67
5.61
5.58
5.61
5.55
5.65
5.70
5.48
5.57
5.39
5.40
5.30
5.42
5.37
5.47
5.40
5.09
4.16
4.68
4.50
4.50
4.41
5.00
5.17
116.92 131.44 142.76 155.95 137.27 155.18 159.30
4.03
4.53
4.92
5.38
4.73
5.35
5.49
3.1
3.31
Total 31 - 32 6.41
Avg questions 31 - 32 3.21
4.3
4.42
8.72
4.36
4.72
4.83
9.55
4.78
5.38
5.88
11.26
5.63
4.75
4.5
9.25
4.63
5.5
5.64
11.14
5.57
5.76
5.72
11.48
5.74
H
1
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
UG AVG
OVERALL
4.76
4.91
4.68
4.88
5.24
5.08
4.83
4.57
4.70
4.85
4.91
4.88
4.99
5.04
5.12
4.99
5.43
5.29
5.09
5.00
4.89
5.01
5.00
5.20
4.64
4.83
4.69
4.54
4.63
4.92
4.79
4.90
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.84
Undergraduate Courses Term 1 09/10 Academic Year
Questions 1 - 29
6.00
5.38
4.92
5.00
5.35
5.49
6
7
4.73
4.53
4.03
Rating
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
1
Average overall = 4.92
2
3
4
5
Undergraduate Courses Term 1 09/10 Academic Year
Questions 31 and 32
6.00
5.63
4.78
5.00
5.57
5.74
4.62
4.36
Rating
4.00
3.21
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
1
Average overall = 4.84
2
3
4
5
6
7
Scholarly Work
• The primary and essential evidence in this category is publication in
reputable peer-reviewed outlets, or, in the case of performance or
artistic work, presentation in reputable peer-reviewed venues
• The statement should state the nature of the candidate’s research
and future plans. It should address the quality and significance of
the work
• It should include an explanation of the candidate’s role in joint
publications, presentations, research grants
Scholarly Work Cont’d
• Specify percentage contribution; preferably correspondence
from other co-authors confirming this
• Discipline specific authorship order and involvement of
graduate students
• Candidates should annotate their CV and their contributions
Professional Practice
• A balance between the Professional Practice and Scholarly Work suggests an
assessable volume of work, or productivity, in each area
• There should be compelling evidence that the candidate has a sustained high
level of performance in the practice of the profession and established a
reputation for expertise in the field, AND, the candidate has made a
contribution to the creation and dissemination of knowledge through
scholarly work”
• The successful candidate will demonstrate and provide evidence of leadership
in the establishment and execution of a clearly defined program of
scholarship and a positive indication that the candidate will maintain activity
in scholarly work and professional practice”
Administration and Public Service
• Be specific; indicate role, contributions and degree of effort
• Explanation should identify purpose and impact of
contributions
• Ensure you are familiar with your units standards on the
necessity for Administration & Public Service
Thank you
Feel free to contact our office at anna.okapiec@usask.ca or by
phone at 966-8490 if you have any further questions