To maintain the excellence of the faculty, the University of California has a thorough and rigorous academic personnel review process which spans the entire career of each faculty member. The review process involves contributions from the individual, the department, the dean, Academic Senate committees, and the Chancellor or Vice Chancellor. This multi-level procedure is designed to ensure that colleagues and administrators evaluate the professional achievements of the individual in a balanced way and in accordance with clearly-defined procedures.
The regular professorial series, which forms the core of the University faculty, consists of three ranks: Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, and full Professor. Each rank is divided into steps. Professorial advancement up the ladder, whether through a merit increase (a step increase) or a promotion (advancement to a higher rank) corresponds to an increase in salary. Progression up the ladder is not guaranteed and is in no way automatic. Appointment and advancement are based on the multi-level merit review system. Faculty are evaluated on four main criteria: teaching, research and creative work; professional competence and activity; and University and public service.
New assistant Professors are appointed initially to a two-year contract, and have a maximum of eight years to demonstrate excellence as teachers and scholars. At two-year intervals during this probationary period, candidates are evaluated and informed of their strengths and weaknesses. A mid-career appraisal, generally during the fourth year, is the major performance evaluation before the tenure review. The tenure review, which generally occurs in the sixth or seventh year, leads to the Chancellor’s final decision on whether or not to grant tenure.
Both the mid-career appraisal and the tenure review involve an in-depth and extensive investigation of the Assistant Professor’s teaching, scholarship, and service, and include the solicitation of evaluations from experts outside the University.
The following steps apply to a tenure review for a relatively straightforward case:
This multi-level review process with input from multiple faculty groups (the department, the Committee on Academic Personnel, and the ad hoc committee) and from multiple administrators (the department chair, the dean, and the Chancellor or designee) joined with evaluations of reviewers from outside the University is an ongoing element of the system of shared governance which is designed to select and promote an outstanding faculty.
Policies and procedures describing this review process are contained in the systemwide Academic Personnel Manual which is available in hard copy and via the World Wide Web. The Faculty Handbook, published by the Office of the President, summarizes the review process and includes the full text of the Academic Personnel Manual policy on criteria for appointment and promotion. The handbook, which serves as an informal guide to the University, is distributed to all faculty and is also available via the World Wide Web. In addition, campuses have written local procedures which implement these policies.
While the granting of tenure may be the most important decision affecting an individual’s career, the merit-based review system is an ongoing process that will occur every few years throughout a faculty member’s tenure at the University. Post-tenure review has only recently entered the national discussion, but at the University of California it is a well established reality.
An Associate Professor will normally be reviewed every two years, and after approximately six years, will undergo a full review, similar in complexity to the tenure review, for promotion to full Professor.
For a full Professor, there are eight steps. The first five steps have a normal period between reviews of three years. Beyond step five, there is no normal period of review because there are additional, more stringent criteria for advancement. Advancement to step six requires great distinction, recognized nationally or internationally in scholarly achievement or in teaching. Advancement to step six, in terms of the review process, is similar to the review for tenure. Service at Professor, Step VI to Step VII, and from Step VII to Step VIII, usually will not occur after less than three years of service at the lower step, and will only be granted on evidence of continuing achievement at the level required for advancement to Step VI. Advancement to an above-scale salary is reserved for scholars and teachers of the highest distinction whose work has been internationally recognized and acclaimed and whose teaching is excellent. This advancement review is also similar in process to the tenure review.
In addition to annual review of each individual by the department chair, the campus will schedule a multi-level review for each faculty member based on the number of years (usually two or three years) between steps. Either the faculty member or the department may request one deferral. However, University policy provides that every faculty member will be reviewed at least every five years. In addition, for some faculty who are making exceptional progress, the department may choose to accelerate the review and to submit the personnel file earlier than normally scheduled.
This continuing review process which involves peer review by both the faculty and multiple levels of administrators, is designed to ensure the accuracy and balance of evaluations of a Professor’s work (both in teaching and research), and thereby to select and reward an outstanding faculty - a faculty that is appointed and promoted on the basis of merit.