School of Medicine Mid-Cycle Review Process

Information

The Associate Dean for Faculty Recruitment, Affairs and Development will determine a timetable for each newly hired faculty member with regards to the approximate year of the tenure/promotion decision and the midpoint of that term. For example, the maximum probationary period for awarding tenure is seven (7) years. Therefore, the midpoint should be no later than three (3) years. However, faculty can request a mid-cycle review at any time, including follow-up reviews.

Mid-Cycle Review Generic Timeline

Statistics for Success

The Office of Faculty Recruitment, Affairs and Development tracks the success and failure rates of faculty promotion and tenure in conjunction with participation in the Mid-Cycle Review process.

Below is the poster supporting these data which was presented at the Association for American Medical Colleges (AAMC), Group on Diversity and Inclusion (GDI) and Group on Faculty Affairs (GFA) Joint Professional Development Conference, June 12-14, 2023.

Process

1. During January of the review year, the campus department chair and the faculty member will be notified the Associate Dean for Faculty Recruitment, Affairs and Development electronically by via Workflow Manager, that a mid-cycle review is appropriate. Included with the notification will be a link to the Mid-Cycle Review Policy (SOM OP 20.22) and a link to Faculty Success (formerly known as Digital Measures). Faculty who do not wish to participate should click the appropriate link in the invitation email.

2. The faculty member who plans to participate should closely review the policies and, through discussion with their chair, identify the area of “excellence” and “meaningful participation” of the faculty member undergoing mid-cycle review. The participating faculty member will complete their application through Faculty Success (formerly known as Digital Measures). The deadline for completion of the application is March 31 of the evaluation year, and an electronic copy of the completed application is submitted electronically to the Office of Faculty Recruitment, Affairs and Development.

3. The Office of Faculty Recruitment, Affairs and Development will contact the Department Faculty Review Committee, and provide them the link to Qualtrics to access the faculty member’s application, the appropriate table from the SOM OP 20.21, Faculty Tenure and Promotion, and the peer evaluation survey. The membership of each faculty review committee will consist of all members of the department faculty on all campuses who have reached the level of advancement under consideration. That is, all Professors consider those cases involving all ranks; Professors and Associate Professors consider those cases involving promotion to the rank of Associate Professor; and all tenured faculty consider tenure decisions. The Department Faculty Review Committee will be asked to evaluate the mid-cycle review with the same rigor as they examine regular tenure/promotion portfolios. In the case of small departments where it is not possible to form a review committee of at least three departmental faculty, the Associate Dean for Faculty Recruitment, Affairs and Development will choose a committee of at least three faculty of appropriate rank from other departments.

4. The members of the departmental Mid-Cycle Review Committee will complete the evaluation and submit their vote on the faculty member’s credentials. To ensure an accurate outcome, it is important that the committee vote on the portfolio as it is presented, rather than on projected productivity of the faculty member. Three outcomes of the vote are possible:

1. The faculty member is “on track” for tenure/promotion
2. The faculty member is “off track but deficient in only one or two areas".
3. The faculty member is “off track and deficient in several areas". In the case of a vote for “off track,” the specific areas in which the faculty member was found deficient should be identified and recommendations made to strengthen the area(s).

5. The completed evaluation must be submitted electronically no later than April 30th of the evaluation year. The Office of Faculty Recruitment, Affairs and Development collects the evaluations and the Associate Dean for Faculty Recruitment, Affairs and Development provides the evaluation results to the faculty member under review as well as the campus department chair. It is important to emphasize that these evaluations are not binding for final tenure/promotion decisions.

6. The mid-cycle review will provide a reasonable assessment for the faculty member that will aid in designing individual development programs. The outcome of the mid-cycle review will generate different degrees of intervention:

1. A vote of “on track” would require only ongoing reinforcement of a faculty member’s existing strengths.
2. A vote of “off track” with one or two deficiencies might require minimal remediation if the faculty member has potential of addressing these points in due time.
3. A vote of “off track and deficient in several areas” is more serious. In this circumstance, the Campus Department Chair and Associate Dean for Faculty Recruitment, Affairs and Development should consult with the faculty member to design a program to ameliorate the identified deficiencies. The Associate Dean for Faculty Recruitment, Affairs and Development will arrange a meeting with the faculty member to discuss the results of the mid-cycle review and design a program for development where deficiencies are identified. If necessary, the Associate Dean for Faculty Recruitment, Affairs and Development will arrange a meeting with the department chair to discuss the faculty member’s results and the development program. The campus department chair will follow-up with the faculty member regularly to discuss their progress.