To: Harvey Kaslow, Ph. D., Associate Professor of Physiology and Biopyhysics and President, Medical Faculty Assembly

From: Joseph R. Landolph, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Molecular Microbiology and Immunology and Pathology, MFA Representative From Dept. of Molecular Microbiology and Immunology, and Acting Representative From the MFA to the Appointments and Promotions Committee of the Medical School for One Meeting (Appointed by Dr. Kaslow)

Re: Report on the Visit of the Provost to the Meeting of the Medical School Appointments and Promotions Committee

Date: Original Date, November 27, 1998; After Adding Dr. Bernstein's and Provost Armstrong's Modifications and Corrections, December 21, 1998

As you requested, I attended the most recent meeting of the Appointments and Promotions Committee of the Medical School (FAPTC) on November 11, 1998, from 11:00 A. M. -12:00 P. M., to capture the views of the Provost, Dr. Lloyd Armstrong, in the matters of appointments and promotions for the MFA. My notes are my best attempts to capture his views, the questions of the members of this committee, and his answers to their questions. They are not to be considered quotes. I then shared these notes with Dr. Leslie Bernstein. She very carefully edited them for accuracy, and I incorporated her changes. Since the questions and answers were coming so rapidly, it is certainly possible that I missed some information or did not get the information exactly correct. This can only be construed as my best effort with the excellent help of Dr. Bernstein to capture this part of the meeting as accurately as possible. I would certainly defer to the questioners and the Provost if anything here is not exactly correct. I asked Dr. John Peters, Chairman of the MSAPC, if it was acceptable to distribute these notes to the President of the MFA, and he answered yes.

Dr. Leslie Bernstein, Professor of Preventive Medicine and Senior Associate Dean for Faculty Affairs, asked the general question of the Provost, Dr. Lloyd Armstrong, as to what he would like to see the Medical School Appointments and Promotions Committee do currently. Dr. Armstrong indicated that appointments and promotions approved by the Medical School Faculty Appointments, Promotions, and Tenure Committee (FAPTC) are then reviewed by a subcommittee of the University Committee on Appointments and Promotions (UCAP) that conducts its reviews on the Health Science Campus. It should be noted that the Provost and UCAP only review decisions by the FAPTC for faculty who are being appointed at or promoted to the Associate or Full Professor level on the tenure track and decisions to grant tenure to a candidate. Dr. Armstrong indicated that he and UCAP look at the following issues when reviewing dossiers:

1. Does the dossier of the candidate indicate that the candidate has made an impact on his/her field? Is this a journeyman person, or someone who is a rising star?

2. Letters of recommendation are extremely important. Are these letters written by people at what Dr. Armstrong considers to be highly regarded institutions (meaning highly regarded universities)? If they are from less well-known institutions, the dossier should provide additional documentation as to this person's reputation and why they are knowledgeable about the field. Are they truly peers?

3. With regard to the letters, they must address the importance of the candidate's contributions and not merely restate what can be derived form the candidate's C.V. Letters that restate the C.V. are not useful to UCAP. UCAP and the Provost look for letters that provide details of how the candidate's work has changed the field of endeavor, what impact it has had on others in the field, and why it is important.

4. The Provost states the number of papers a candidate has is not the important issue, the impact of the work produced is what counts. On the one hand he says that if two papers have revolutionized a field of endeavor, that is sufficient.

5. Regarding publications by large groups of people: What is the contribution of the individual in such many-authored publications? The Provost cited cases in which physicists jointly publish papers with 200 - 600 or more authors. In such cases, there needs to be a specific letter describing exactly what the candidate for appointment, tenure, or promotion did to contribute to these papers. An example would be a letter describing that the candidate maximized the sensitivity of a particle detector by 100-fold such that it was possible now to detect the particles in question, making the experiment possible.

6. Often, dossiers from the Medical School are not adequately prepared. As noted above, letters of recommendation do not address impact. In addition, they may ignore the issue of whether the candidate would be granted the same rank and track at the author's institution. When those issues are not addressed, the Department should write again to the author of the letter, requesting clarification on either of the two issues, impact of research and equivalence at their institution. All such communications with the authors of these letters should be preserved and presented in the dossier.

a. When negatives are apparent in a dossier -- whether from letters or from the documentation of a candidate's teaching profile, and the FAPTC approves the appointment, promotion, or granting of tenure, then the FAPTC must address why it is willing to approve the candidate despite these negatives. 7. In Clinical Departments, letters of recommendation may be from physicians at small community hospitals. These are not considered useful unless some documentation is provided as to why this referee was sought for the candidate.

8. Regarding teaching: So far, the UCAP understands the letters of support regarding teaching at the Medical School. The situation is more complicated on the University Park Campus, where the faculty teach in so many different courses.

9. In Clinical Departments, it is possible that tenure may be sought for a faculty member who does not have the scientific reputation that UCAP and the Provost will expect. Occasionally a faculty member is considered a "rainmaker" - bringing in certain key activities to the School or Department (an example might be a particular clinical program with a large cash flow). The Provost is not anxious to grant tenure in such situations, but he does understand reality and the fact that in some instances it may be warranted. This would require substantial documentation by the Department Appointments and Promotions Committee, the Department Chair, and the FAPTC if such a recommendation is approved and presented to UCAP and the Provost. What the Provost does not want to see is a dossier that tries to make the case that such a candidate has made a scientific impact when that is not true.

10. The Provost wants to give tenure to faculty who will make an impact in the field. He wants to give talented people a chance to make a change in the world.

11. Question from Dr. Leslie Bernstein: What should we do (FAPTC) if the outside letters of recommendation merely re-state the candidate's C.V.? Do we write again to the recommender? In such a case, the FAPTC would usually table the promotion or appointment, and tell the Dept. involved to obtain further information. After that information was obtained, the Dept. involved would re-submit the appointment or promotion. The Provost's Answer: Yes, write again to the recommender, and ask them to write us whether the candidate would be promoted at their institution.

12. Question by Dr. Cheryl Craft: Will USC de-couple promotion to Associate Professor from tenure? She noted that she and a few other people have been proposing this on a USC committee. The Provost's answer: A very small set of very good universities have done this, granting promotion to Associate Professor, and then many years later considering whether to grant this person tenure or not. Professor John Peters, Chairman of the FAPTC, stated also that this was true for a very small set of very good universities.

USC is not currently inclined to make such a change. 13. Question by a member of the FAPTC to the Provost: What about faculty who don't teach much at USC, but do nationally? The Provost's answer: We are concerned with how faculty teach our own students at USC.

14. Question by a member of the FAPTC to the Provost: Is teaching of residents considered in the Promotion Review? The Provost's answer: Absolutely. Teaching of undergraduate students, graduate students, postdoctoral fellows, and residents all counts and is considered at USC for the purposes of promotion and tenure reviews by the FAPTC and UCAP committees.

15. Question by Dr. Leslie Bernstein: Is it 0.K. for Basic Science Faculty in Clinical Depts. who do not do much teaching because they do not have the opportunity to do so, to be evaluated for their graduate student teaching? The Provost's answer: The FATPC and the UCAP committees check the mentoring of the graduate students and postdoctoral fellows by such faculty during promotion reviews.

16. Question by Leslie Bernstein: How many letters are needed for a candidate's promotion? The Provost's answer: A minimum of five letters are required for promotion from Assistant to Associate Professor. A minimum of nine letters are required for promotion from Associate to Full Professor. If three outstanding people in the candidate's scientific field write substantive letters, this is great. The Provost stressed that USC likes to give tenure to faculty who are players in the field.

17. Question from an FATPC member: What does UCAP do? Is it redundant to the FATPC? The Provost's answer: The FAPTC insists that there is a uniformity for promotions within the Medical School. UCAP ensures that there is a uniformity for promotions within the whole university. UCAP does not substitute its judgment for the FAPTC. UCAP does want to understand why negative letters are written, or if the letters written are not convincing or not persuasive. They need an explanation for this.