Tenure Promotion by xiaocuisanmin


									       Tenure Promotion

  Jason Cong cong@cs.ucla.edu
     Professor and Past Chair
  Computer Science Department
University of California, Los Angeles
Important Factors for Tenure Decision by the Department

u   Candidate’s record
    § Research
    § Visibility
    § Teaching
    § Service

u   Outside letters
u   Comparative Metrics
u   Faculty committee report
Research Contributions
u   Publications,
    §   Journal papers and full-length refereed conference papers,
    §   The selectivity, quality, and prestige of the journal/conference are important.
    §   Quality is more important than quantity (about 5 papers will be mailed to the
u   Funding
    § A measure of the interest of the broader community in the candidate's
    § Both the size of the grants, and the quality of the review process are important
      measures. For example, DARPA vs NSF grants
    § When there are several PI/CO-PIs on a grant, a % of the candidate's
      participation should be stated.
u   Both research independence and collaboration are important and
    should be represented in candidates' research.
 u   Target prime funding opportunities
     § Bookmark and visit funding agencies sites regularly
        • Find out hit rates if possible (e.g., equip. grants)
     § Industry career development monies to dept.
     § NSF/ONR/ARL CAREER competitions
        • borrow sample proposals from successful colleagues
 u   Schedule a visit to funding agency
 u   Volunteer to be on NSF review panels
 u   Ask successful colleagues to review your proposal outline, read
     your proposal and listen to their feedback
 u   If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again
u   Awards and honors: e.g., NSF career award, best paper awards, etc.
u   Professional services
    § Serving as a member or chair of TPC of high-quality conferences and
    § Being active in reviewing papers
    § Serving on the editorial board, of high-quality journals, and comparable
u   Invited talks, and external seminars
u   Citations
    §   Total
    §   Top citations (would like to see a few high-impact work)
    §   H-number
    §   Use of research results by others as contrasted with a simple citation.
u   The quality of a candidate's teaching will be assessed
    against that of other members of the department.
    § Standard course evaluation metrics will be used primarily.
    § Peer teaching review consisting of
       •   lecture evaluation
       •   course material evaluation.
    § The production of top graduate students, as measured by their
       •   Resumes and
       •   Place of employment (esp. major research universities)
Teaching Portfolio
 u   Teach a blend of courses (small/large, undergrad/grad, etc.)
 u   Teach as few different courses as possible
     § Courses that are easy for you or graduate courses in your area
        • stay away from weeder courses and large time commitment junior
          courses if possible
     § Invest your time in developing a good set of notes and use them over and
       over again
     § Good learning is not hard teaching
 u   Learn when/how to say no (no because …)
 u   Negotiate for release from teaching
     § As part of start-up package, for developing new courses and labs, pretenure
Research Advising

 u   Recruit good graduate students
     § Balance PhD and MS students
        • Try to graduate at least one PhD by year six
        • Don’t take on too many MS students
     § Offer grad level reading course as overload
     § Use start-up RA and equipment monies wisely
     § Serve on dept. grad recruiting committee
     § Learn when and how to say “no”
        • A bad student is worse than no students
        • Don’t agree to work with any student you haven’t seen “in action”
u   The fulfillment of "good citizen" duties is important.
u   Opportunities for service
    § Department
    § School
    § Campus
    § Research community

u   Budget your time properly
    § Feel free to tell your department chair if you are overloaded.
Outside Reference Letters
u   Very important in the decision making process
u   The candidate suggests half and the department chooses
    half for a total about 10-12 references
u   Plan your references earlier (in 3rd or 4th years)
    § Get to know them at conferences
    § Visit their departments to give seminars
    § Send them your important work
Comparative Metrics
u   A small Paragon Set (PS) of young scholars will be
    identified from the candidate's research area.
    § Consist of 3-5 leading scholars, including some who have just
      made tenure, or are in the process of making tenure, at the top-
      ten research universities.
    § Selected by the department, in consultation with the candidate,
      and faculty in his/her field of research.
    § Compare the candidate and the PS
       • Research
       • Visibility
Knowing Your Rights
u   Able to see redacted copies of the outside letters and
    departmental reports (at least in the UC system)
u   Can provide rebuttal before and after
    § Faculty committee report
    § Departmental vote, and
    § Chair’s recommendation
u “Excellence in Tenure Decisions” by UCLA CSD former department
    chairs (R. Muntz, M. Ercegovac, J. Cong)
u   “The Tenure Process”, Debra Richardson, Janie Irwin, and Sandhya

To top