PDF Files for Printing
(How to print PDF files)

5.0   PROMOTIONS CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES

5.1  Introduction

Promotion is the major way in which an institution recognizes and rewards a faculty member's contributions and academic achievements. A promotion is not a routine reward for satisfactory service but reflects a positive appraisal of high professional competence and accomplishment. Therefore, service time in rank is not in itself sufficient reason for promotion.

A candidate for promotion is evaluated by peers and appropriate administrators at several different levels. Care must be taken to ensure that each of these evaluations is conducted fairly and openly. To assure that this is the case, specific criteria and procedures at each level should be judged against the following goals:

5.1.1.   The promotion process shall recognize and reflect the individual faculty member's advancement in the areas of teaching, research/scholarly achievement, and service.

5.1.2 Faculty shall be made aware at the time of initial faculty appointment of the specific criteria by which they shall be evaluated for promotion and these criteria may be updated as required (1.1).

5.1.3  Responsibilities of those involved in the promotion process shall be clearly assigned and made known to those concerned.

5.1.4  Avenues for appeal shall be available and the appeals procedures made known to the individual faculty member.

5.2  Eligibility for Promotion

The time in rank necessary before being considered for promotion varies from school to school within the MCG. The following are guidelines of time requirements for promotion to the proposed rank (minimum time at which promotion could be awarded). The Board of Regents requires strong justification based upon performance criteria for accelerated promotion or promotion without a terminal degree in the candidate's discipline. Promotion at the first year of eligibility should be based upon exceptional performance.

Requirements for promotion to:

5.2.1  Assistant Professor - At least three years of full time academic experience or its equivalent at the Instructor level or non-teaching postdoctoral experience.

5.2.2  Associate Professor - At least four years of full time academic experience at the Assistant Professor level or equivalent responsibilities. Doctorate or its equivalent in training or experience is expected.

5.2.3  Professor - At least five years of full time academic experience at the Associate Professor level or equivalent responsibilities. Doctorate or its equivalent in training or experience is required.

5.2.4  Academic appointments made on or before October 1 shall be considered a full year appointment and shall be included in both the promotion eligibility calendar and as year one of the probationary tenure period. There is no prior credit toward promotion.

5.3  Criteria for Promotion

Recommendations to promote a faculty member must be made as a result of a thorough evaluation of performance in all areas of faculty activity. Such evaluations will be summarized in writing and placed in individual personnel folders by the Chairman of primary appointment or section chief. Faculty recognition and reward through promotion shall be based upon each faculty member's contribution to the defined mission and purpose of the Medical College of Georgia as undertaken and supported by the school and discipline in which the faculty member holds primary appointment. Therefore, it is recognized that the application and weighing of criteria for promotion and the means of fulfilling those criteria may vary among schools reflecting each school's unique mission and purpose. However, there are general guidelines that each candidate is expected to meet. Competence in all three areas with outstanding achievement in two of the three areas, one being research/scholarly achievement, is expected of all tenure track faculty. Competence in all three of the areas outlined below, with outstanding achievement in at least one of the three areas is expected of all non-tenure track faculty. The area(s) of outstanding achievement should be determined by the individual job assignment (e.g. based on area of greatest time commitment indicated in his/her letter of appointment or annual review).

5.3.1  Teaching Effectiveness: Documentation of teaching effectiveness should be based on the Educator’s Dossier and include three elements:

1. Citations of professional growth and development as a teacher/educator including but not limited to advanced degrees obtained since appointment; publications that show evidence of teaching effectiveness, such as textbooks, chapters in books, review papers, position papers, or editorials; and appointment to state, regional or national boards, or accreditation site visit teams.
2. Citations of teaching load, including but not limited to number of courses taught; level of responsibility in course development, management, evaluation, and revision; development of teaching materials or aids; and the number and level of students and fellows directed.
3. Citations of the effectiveness of teaching/learning activities, including but not limited to teaching awards; performance of students on external examinations and/or evaluations; and development of teaching protocols and aids that have been adopted by other institutions. The primary focus shall be upon the demonstrated quality of teaching as evidenced by teaching effectiveness. (This will be supported by student learning that has been measured against recognized competency based criteria. May be demonstrated by student and/or peer evaluation.)

5.3.2  Research/Scholarly Achievement:  Documentation of research/scholarly achievement should include evidence of original research and scholarship leading to significant advances in the discipline and to refereed publications in print, electronic, and multi-media formats.  The typical product of research is a peer-reviewed manuscript.  Scholarship is also demonstrated by the application or integration of existing knowledge in creative was that result in tangible or electronic products.  Consistent with other forms of scholarship, these products must be peer reviewed for quality and disseminated publicly.  Syllabi, instructional materials, and evaluation tools are examples of such scholarly products if they meet these criteria.

 Scholarly recognition is also reflected in the type, level and extent of extramural grant support, as well as by awards and citations of merit in the recognition of contributions to the field or discipline. Evidence of professional growth and development as a scholar may include but shall not be limited to appointment to review panels, to project review site visit teams, to committees or officership of academic societies, or to journal editorial boards; and consultantship to research institutions and agencies. The quality and significance of scholarship and research shall be supported by written evaluations by outside recognized experts in the field.

5.3.3  Service:  Documentation of service should include two elements: service to the public and service to the institution.

1. Service to the Public: As the health sciences university of the State of Georgia, the principal public service activity of the faculty should be in health care delivery, disease prevention, health promotion, and health education. However, other forms and types of public service should not be excluded, if germane to the mission and purpose of the institution, school and discipline in which the faculty member holds appointment. Demonstrated quality of service should include the level of activity, such as numbers and types of patients served and the number of students, house officers and fellows supervised in patient evaluation and health care delivery. Evidence of professional development should include certifications, licensures, boards, and citations of merit as well as evidence of special expertise such as intramural and extramural consultantships, and the development of innovative approaches to health care delivery, disease prevention, health promotion, and health education.
2. Service to the Institution: As members of the corps of instruction of the Medical College of Georgia, faculty are expected to be participants in the collegial functions of higher education. These include, but are not limited to, participation in departmental, school, and institutional faculty governing bodies; service on departmental, school, and institutional academic committees, including those concerned with student recruitment, admissions, and counseling; the development of and/or participation as a teacher in continuing education programs; and service on governmental and agency boards and commissions.

TENURE TRACK PROMOTION to:

Competence in all three areas with outstanding achievement in two of the three areas, one being research/scholarly achievement, is expected of all tenure track faculty.

3. Assistant Professor shall indicate satisfactory performance of all academic duties and demonstrated potential for further professional development. The candidate should be recognized locally as an expert in his/her field. (Specific expectations shall be outlined in the school FADPT documents.)
4. Associate Professor shall indicate a sustained record of professional achievement. The candidate shall have achieved regional recognition for accomplishments in his/her field. Outstanding achievement should be demonstrated in both areas of Research/Scholarly achievement and in Teaching. (Specific expectations shall be outlined in the school FADPT documents.)
5. Professor shall be reserved for those who have been accepted and recognized nationally or internationally for distinction and excellence of their professional achievements. Outstanding achievement should be demonstrated in all three areas: Research/Scholarly achievement, Teaching, and Service, as defined in 4.C.3 above. (Specific expectations shall be outlined in the school FADPT documents.)

In addition, it is expected that the general level of performance at each rank will be higher than that at lower ranks.

NON-TENURE TRACK PROMOTION to:

Competence in all three of the above areas, with outstanding achievement in at least one of the three areas, is expected of all non-tenure track faculty. The area of outstanding achievement should be determined by the job assignment. Conditions and expectations for any faculty appointment (tenure or non-tenure) shall be agreed upon in writing at the time of appointment and adjusted if necessary in accordance with the guidelines below (1.1).

6. Assistant Professor shall indicate satisfactory performance of all academic duties and demonstrated potential for further professional development. The candidate should be recognized locally as an expert in his/her field. (Specific expectations shall be outlined in the school FADPT documents).
7. Associate Professor shall indicate a sustained record of professional achievement. The candidate shall have achieved regional recognition for accomplishments in his/her field. (Specific expectations shall be outlined in the school FADPT documents.)
8. Professor shall be reserved for those who have been accepted and recognized nationally or internationally for distinction and excellence of professional achievement, and who show evidence of continued professional growth. (Specific expectations shall be outlined in the school FADPT documents.)

In addition, it is expected that the general level of performance at each rank will be higher than that of lower ranks.

5.4     Guidelines and Procedures

5.4.1  Guidelines

1. At the departmental level

1. The letter of initial faculty appointment shall indicate whether the appointment is tenure track or non-tenure track. Subsequent contracts indicate the tenure/non tenure track status. The letter of appointment shall outline projected job assignment and work effort in the categories of teaching, research/scholarly achievement, service, and administration. Such work assignments shall be subject to change and modification in the course of changing priorities and circumstances with proper consultation and written notification. Rank and eligibility for promotion shall be stated in the letter of appointment.
2. Criteria for promotion shall be provided to each faculty member for review. These should contain specific school criteria used in judging qualifications for tenure and promotion to each faculty rank in the school.
3. Each faculty member shall generate and annually update a career status portfolio. This file shall be annually presented to the Chairperson for review as part of the annual evaluation, and when appropriate to the career development committee of the department. A summary letter of this review shall become a part of the faculty member's portfolio and notification that the review occurred forwarded to the Dean.

2. At the school level

1. A statement including the criteria and procedures for promotion shall be distributed to faculty members at the time of their initial appointments. The criteria and procedures for promotion shall be discussed during faculty orientation.
2. Updated guidelines for promotion shall be available to each individual faculty member and shall include a statement of eligibility requirements for each level of faculty rank.
3. The calendar for the evaluation process shall be published and distributed at the beginning of the academic year to Chairmen.

3. At the institutional level

1. Action taken by the President regarding a candidate presented for promotion shall be promptly reported to the faculty member, with a copy to the Dean and Chair, by the Provost who shall notify the individual in writing as to the status of the recommendation.
2. Notice from the Board of Regents regarding promotion shall be reported by the President to the Dean of the candidate's school. The Dean shall notify the appropriate Chairperson of the decision of the Board of Regents in writing. The Chairperson shall in turn notify the candidate in writing.

5.4.2  Procedures for Promotion

1. The Provost determines the due date for the promotion process. Each school submits a calendar to the Provost for approval. The calendar is then distributed to the faculty within each school and the Library.
2. Annually the promotion eligibility status (credited time in rank) of each faculty member shall be reviewed by the Department Chairperson and a listing of faculty meeting minimal credited time in rank for promotion prepared and forwarded to the Dean's office. Concurrently, the Departmental Chairperson will notify each faculty member who is eligible to be considered for promotion in terms of time of service in rank of his/her status.
3. Should the proposed candidate be a Chairperson, the Dean or appropriate Associate Dean will notify the Chairperson who is eligible for promotion and/or tenure in terms of service in rank or his/her status. The Dean or appropriate Associate Dean will prepare a portfolio for promotion and/or tenure in conjunction with the Chairperson and submit it for review to the school level committee or equivalent.
4. An eligible faculty member may initiate the promotion process by submitting a portfolio to his/her Departmental Chairperson who initiates the review process. A candidate may halt the promotion process at any time prior to a recommendation being made to the Board of Regents.
5. The Departmental Chairperson or the Head of the academic unit will appoint a promotion review committee or its equivalent, preferably consisting of tenured faculty from within the department or other unit within the school and preferably one or two tenured faculty (if possible) from outside the department.
6. The departmental promotion review committee or its equivalent will conduct a substantive evaluation of the candidate's record and performance using the established criteria for promotion. The candidate shall not be present during the deliberation of his/her qualifications but shall be available during the meeting to answer questions or clarify circumstances relevant to his/her qualifications. In accordance with the published calendar, the committee will submit to the Department Chairperson a written report of its proceedings which will include a recommendation based upon the candidate's record and performance in relation to the established criteria.
7. The Department Chairperson shall evaluate the Departmental promotion review committee report and request supplementary evidence or analysis from the committee as needed. In accordance with the published calendar, the Department Chairperson shall submit the complete portfolio along with the committee's recommendation and his/her own separate recommendation and rationale to the school level Faculty Appointment, Development, Promotion and Tenure Committee. This committee sends their recommendation to the primary Dean in accordance with the published calendar. If the candidate has a joint appointment, the primary Dean sends a copy of the portfolio to the secondary Dean for comment.
8. The Dean may review the recommendations of the school level committee with the Chairperson or with the entire committee prior to making his/her own assessment and decision. If the school level committee does not support promotion, the Dean will review the basis of the decision with the committee or its Chairperson. Recommendations to the candidate's Chairperson on ways to enhance future candidacy for promotion shall be made.
9. The Dean shall review the candidate's portfolio, including all recommendations sent forward by the appropriate promotion committees at the section, departmental and school levels. If the candidate is a member of the faculty of the School of Graduate Studies, the Dean of the School of Graduate Studies shall offer his/her recommendation to the Dean of the primary school regarding the candidate's record and performance in graduate studies. The Dean of the primary unit will make his/her own assessment and decision and will make it known to the Chairperson. If the Dean does not support a recommendation for promotion, the Dean shall discuss with the Chairperson activity levels and performance needs for enhancing candidacy for promotion of the faculty person at a subsequent review. It is recommended that the Dean also present such performance and activity expectations to the Chairperson of the department of the secondary appointment (if appropriate). The Dean will notify the candidate, by letter, of his/her assessment.
10. The Chairperson shall discuss with the candidate ways to enhance candidacy for promotion at a subsequent review. The Chairperson and candidate should review areas which should be strengthened prior to a subsequent promotion recommendation. Recommendations should be based upon the criteria for promotion and should be a part of the academic responsibilities and expectations for the candidate for the following year(s).
11. Recommendations of the Dean for promotion are transmitted to the Provost, in accordance with the published calendar, along with two copies of the complete portfolio of each candidate.
12. The Provost shall review the faculty portfolios submitted by each Dean, including the accompanying documents recommending promotion generated at each level of the promotion process.The Provost shall prepare the appropriate documents for the President of all those faculty members for whom positive recommendation was sustained by the President. The President shall transmit to the Chancellor a list, by school, of all faculty members recommended for promotion for final action by the Board of Regents in accordance with the published calendar.
13. The Provost shall also prepare the documentation for the President of those faculty with recommendations for whom promotion was deferred in accordance with the published calendar.

The Provost shall transmit to each Dean a list of all faculty for whom promotion was deferred and shall send a letter to the individual. Each Dean and Chairperson may discuss recommendations for career development of each faculty for whom promotion was deferred. The appropriate Chairperson shall discuss the recommendations and counsel those faculty members whose promotions were deferred in accordance with the published calendar.

5.5    Appeals

5.5.1 The individual faculty member shall have an avenue for appeal of decisions made at each level of the promotion process.

1. Recommendations by the departmental review committee or Department Chairperson may be appealed to the Dean through the School's established channel within 10 days of written notification of the decision.
2. Decisions by the Dean may be appealed to the President within 10 days of the written notification of the decision. The President shall refer the appeal to an ad hoc Appeals Committee composed of the Chairman of the Faculty Appointment, Development, Promotion and Tenure Committee of the Academic Council and four corps of instruction members to be named by the President, two of whom must be members of the Academic Council, and all of whom shall hold the rank of Associate Professor or above. The appellant has the right to strike for cause any members of the ad hoc Appeals Committee. The President shall inform the Dean and the Provost that an appeal has been submitted and is under review. The findings and recommendations of the Appeals Committee shall be made to the President. The appellant will be notified of the President's decision with copies to the Dean and Provost.
3. Decisions by the President may be appealed in writing to the Board of Regents within 20 days of notification of the President's action.

5.5.2  The procedure for appeal at each level shall be available through the department and through the Dean's office.

Approved by Academic Council
September 18, 1997

Revisions Approved by Academic Council
March 21, 2003

SECTION 6

© Medical College of Georgia
All rights reserved.

January 26, 2005