Download Dossier Materials - Human Resource - Lecture Notes and more Study notes Human Resource Management in PDF only on Docsity!
Fourth Year Appraisal Process
Appraisals are to be conducted and concluded no later than the end of the fourth year of service. Departments have established deadlines for the submission of dossier materials.
Normally the dossier will proceed to an evaluation committee in the Department (ad hoc, personnel or executive committee) that may issue a written report. The full faculty will then review the dossier, committee report and candidate’s rebuttal, if any. A meeting of the full faculty will be convened to discuss and vote on the appraisal.
The outcome of the meeting and vote will be communicated by the chair to the candidate along with a copy of the department report. The chair will also inform the candidate of the opportunity to respond and establish a deadline for that response.
The appraisal is forwarded to the Dean’s office for transmittal to the Council on Academic Personnel. Once the Council has commented, it is returned to the Dean for final determination, or if any reviewing body has recommended an “unfavorable” appraisal, the Vice Chancellor becomes the final approval authority. In addition, under certain circumstances, the Council may make a recommendation that the appraisal be reviewed and decided by the Vice Chancellor.
Timing of the Fourth Year Appraisal
The appraisal is to be conducted during
the fourth year of combined service in the
Assistant Professor rank of the Regular
series, In‐Residence series and other titles
as specified in Appendix 14 of The CALL,
“Guide to the Computation of Years of
Service Which Count Toward the Eight‐
Year Limit.”
An appraisal may also be conducted at any
time during service as an Assistant
Professor at the election of the
department or when requested by the
appointee, Dean, Council on Academic
Personnel, or the Vice Chancellor. When
an appraisal coincides with review for
renewal or merit increase or both, a single
combined dossier is to be submitted.
TIME
PROGRESS
STANDARD PROGRESS
4 TH^ YEAR PROMOTION
TIME
PROGRESS
STANDARD PROGRESS
4 TH^ YEAR PROMOTION
TIME
PROGRESS
STANDARD PROGRESS
4 TH^ YEAR PROMOTION
TIME
PROGRESS
STANDARD PROGRESS
4 TH^ YEAR PROMOTION
FAVORABLE
FAVORABLE
WITH
RESERVATIONS
UNFAVORABLE
FAVORABLE
(UNFAVORABLE)
Communicating the Results of the Fourth
Year Appraisal
The results of the appraisal are
communicated to the Chair through a
letter from the Dean or Vice Chancellor. It
is the Chair’s responsibility to counsel the
individual regarding the status of their
career path and specific action that may
be in order in light of the appraisal result.
The letter to the Chair will also include a
copy of the Council on Academic
Personnel comment. This “CAP” report is
to be given to the candidate.
Typical Concerns Where the Fourth Year Appraisal Was Less than Favorable (i.e., “with reservations” or “unfavorable”)
research productivity was quantitatively weak;
creative contributions were not clear if much of the work is collaborative;.
the quality of the work was not strong;
teaching did not meet a high standard;
an unbalanced record with respect to the several criteria for promotion (e.g., devoted too much time to the service requirement as compared to teaching or creative endeavor);
exhibits high promise but the achievement record was weak (note that superior “attainment” and creative “achievement” is required for advancement to the rank of associate professor.)
“with reservations” is often the evaluation of faculty who are doing well in their research, but have not yet published their results.
Criteria for Advancement
For all faculty members in the Regular Professorial
Series, the criteria for advancement, cover the
following categories:
Teaching
Research and creative work
Professional activity
University and public service
A detailed statement of these criteria are provided
in the “Instructions to Review and Appraisal
Committees,” found in Appendix 5 of The CALL.
In general, greater emphasis is placed on the
candidate’s performance under the first two
criteria , although note is taken of his/her activities
in the other two categories.
It should be noted that the instructions especially
emphasize the following standard of performance:
“Superior intellectual attainment, as evidenced
both in teaching and in research or other creative
achievement, is an indispensable qualification for
appointment or promotion to tenure positions.”
A tabulation of the numerical rating achieved by the candidate and a comparison with the Department average, or the group average of all those teaching the same courses, is helpful.
Student Evaluations for the Past 3 or 4 Years
Other Sources of Evaluation Letters which have been solicited from peers, faculty, teaching or research assistants, postdoctoral fellows, students and others may be used to supplement teaching evaluations from questionnaires. This applies especially to thesis advising, innovative teaching projects, clinical or workshop guidance, and other teaching activities outside the conventional classroom situation. Critical analyses of syllabi prepared by the candidate can be valuable.
YOUR DOSSIER
Teaching
Remember, you can add anything to your dossier that you wish to add to the review process! If a student has written a letter to you for special consideration, for example, you can add that to the dossier.
Research and/or Other Creative Activities
List of Publications and/or Other Evidence
Such lists should be in chronological order with some method employed to indicate items that are new since last review. Particular care should be taken to guard against double‐counting. Each item should be identified by a label such as:
- book;
- book chapter;
- full‐length paper in a referred journal;
- letter to the editor or communication;
- abstract;
- paper in a symposium digest;
- report;
- review; and
- other evidence.
The labeling can be done item by item if the list is not subdivided, or subdivisions by categories can be used, in which case each sub‐list should be chronological. The first and last page of each published item should be noted. For items with joint authorship, it is helpful to indicate the degree of contribution by the candidate. Clear identification of items accepted but not yet in print, and of items submitted, is also desirable.
YOUR DOSSIER
Research and/or Other Creative Activities (continued)
Disaggregation of Collaborative Research
It is important to clearly identify the candidate’s role in each collaborated paper/publication. ( it very important to make very clear what your role is in collaborative research projects; this is your responsibility)
List of Co‐Authors
List UCLA faculty who have co‐authored with the candidate for actions where a review committee might be appointed. This list should be indicated on the last page of the Bibliography in alphabetical order.
Departmental Review
The Department review of the relevant record should not be solely an advocacy document. Rather, it should be a balanced assessment of all salient features (positive and negative), including points brought out in the faculty meeting called to consider the case.
The portion of the Departmental review concerned with the candidate’s recent creative activity should be penetrating and should offer a critique of all major items. What is the significance? Is anything seminal? Are there known reactions from the candidate’s peers? You need to make these points clear in your self‐statement.
YOUR DOSSIER
