Clinical Faculty Tracks and Academic Success at the University of California Medical Schools

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

18 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose. To describe the five faculty series for medical school faculty in the University of California (UC) system, their criteria for advancement, associated challenges, and the different ways they are used by each school. Method. During 2001-02, the associate dean for academic affairs at each UC medical school was interviewed for information on the number of faculty in each academic series, the role of each series, and problematic issues associated with them. The averaged merit and promotion results for each series for 1999-2002 at the University at California, Davis, School of Medicine, were examined. Results. The two clinical faculty series showed the most variability among the UC campuses for number of faculty, and strategy for appointment and advancement. The percentage of faculty in the Clinical X series varied from 8% to 39% at the five campuses. All campuses agreed that faculty in the Clinical X series must participate in applied or translational clinical investigation or educational investigation, and disseminate their work. All campuses required that the Ladder-Rank and In-Residence faculty devote the majority of their time to hypothesis-driven research. At University of California, Davis, the two clinical series had the highest approval rates for merits and promotion actions. The Ladder-Rank series had the highest denial rate for merits and promotion. Conclusions. Clinical series in the UC system are used differently at the five medical schools. Appointing junior faculty in series with minimal expectations as a "safe starting place" is favored for building long-term faculty. Faculty in all series tend to do well in the academic review process, indicating that these series define distinct expectations. Clinical faculty's accomplishments are increasingly understood, valued, and rewarded.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)250-257
Number of pages8
JournalAcademic Medicine
Volume79
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 2004

Fingerprint

academic success
Medical Schools
school
promotion
Medical Faculties
Appointments and Schedules
Medicine
medicine

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Nursing(all)
  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
  • Education

Cite this

Clinical Faculty Tracks and Academic Success at the University of California Medical Schools. / Howell, Lydia P; Bertakis, Klea D.

In: Academic Medicine, Vol. 79, No. 3, 03.2004, p. 250-257.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{c88e490de2d34189973fc11f7a9b7525,
title = "Clinical Faculty Tracks and Academic Success at the University of California Medical Schools",
abstract = "Purpose. To describe the five faculty series for medical school faculty in the University of California (UC) system, their criteria for advancement, associated challenges, and the different ways they are used by each school. Method. During 2001-02, the associate dean for academic affairs at each UC medical school was interviewed for information on the number of faculty in each academic series, the role of each series, and problematic issues associated with them. The averaged merit and promotion results for each series for 1999-2002 at the University at California, Davis, School of Medicine, were examined. Results. The two clinical faculty series showed the most variability among the UC campuses for number of faculty, and strategy for appointment and advancement. The percentage of faculty in the Clinical X series varied from 8{\%} to 39{\%} at the five campuses. All campuses agreed that faculty in the Clinical X series must participate in applied or translational clinical investigation or educational investigation, and disseminate their work. All campuses required that the Ladder-Rank and In-Residence faculty devote the majority of their time to hypothesis-driven research. At University of California, Davis, the two clinical series had the highest approval rates for merits and promotion actions. The Ladder-Rank series had the highest denial rate for merits and promotion. Conclusions. Clinical series in the UC system are used differently at the five medical schools. Appointing junior faculty in series with minimal expectations as a {"}safe starting place{"} is favored for building long-term faculty. Faculty in all series tend to do well in the academic review process, indicating that these series define distinct expectations. Clinical faculty's accomplishments are increasingly understood, valued, and rewarded.",
author = "Howell, {Lydia P} and Bertakis, {Klea D}",
year = "2004",
month = "3",
doi = "10.1097/00001888-200403000-00012",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "79",
pages = "250--257",
journal = "Academic Medicine",
issn = "1040-2446",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Clinical Faculty Tracks and Academic Success at the University of California Medical Schools

AU - Howell, Lydia P

AU - Bertakis, Klea D

PY - 2004/3

Y1 - 2004/3

N2 - Purpose. To describe the five faculty series for medical school faculty in the University of California (UC) system, their criteria for advancement, associated challenges, and the different ways they are used by each school. Method. During 2001-02, the associate dean for academic affairs at each UC medical school was interviewed for information on the number of faculty in each academic series, the role of each series, and problematic issues associated with them. The averaged merit and promotion results for each series for 1999-2002 at the University at California, Davis, School of Medicine, were examined. Results. The two clinical faculty series showed the most variability among the UC campuses for number of faculty, and strategy for appointment and advancement. The percentage of faculty in the Clinical X series varied from 8% to 39% at the five campuses. All campuses agreed that faculty in the Clinical X series must participate in applied or translational clinical investigation or educational investigation, and disseminate their work. All campuses required that the Ladder-Rank and In-Residence faculty devote the majority of their time to hypothesis-driven research. At University of California, Davis, the two clinical series had the highest approval rates for merits and promotion actions. The Ladder-Rank series had the highest denial rate for merits and promotion. Conclusions. Clinical series in the UC system are used differently at the five medical schools. Appointing junior faculty in series with minimal expectations as a "safe starting place" is favored for building long-term faculty. Faculty in all series tend to do well in the academic review process, indicating that these series define distinct expectations. Clinical faculty's accomplishments are increasingly understood, valued, and rewarded.

AB - Purpose. To describe the five faculty series for medical school faculty in the University of California (UC) system, their criteria for advancement, associated challenges, and the different ways they are used by each school. Method. During 2001-02, the associate dean for academic affairs at each UC medical school was interviewed for information on the number of faculty in each academic series, the role of each series, and problematic issues associated with them. The averaged merit and promotion results for each series for 1999-2002 at the University at California, Davis, School of Medicine, were examined. Results. The two clinical faculty series showed the most variability among the UC campuses for number of faculty, and strategy for appointment and advancement. The percentage of faculty in the Clinical X series varied from 8% to 39% at the five campuses. All campuses agreed that faculty in the Clinical X series must participate in applied or translational clinical investigation or educational investigation, and disseminate their work. All campuses required that the Ladder-Rank and In-Residence faculty devote the majority of their time to hypothesis-driven research. At University of California, Davis, the two clinical series had the highest approval rates for merits and promotion actions. The Ladder-Rank series had the highest denial rate for merits and promotion. Conclusions. Clinical series in the UC system are used differently at the five medical schools. Appointing junior faculty in series with minimal expectations as a "safe starting place" is favored for building long-term faculty. Faculty in all series tend to do well in the academic review process, indicating that these series define distinct expectations. Clinical faculty's accomplishments are increasingly understood, valued, and rewarded.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=1442281176&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=1442281176&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/00001888-200403000-00012

DO - 10.1097/00001888-200403000-00012

M3 - Article

C2 - 14985200

AN - SCOPUS:1442281176

VL - 79

SP - 250

EP - 257

JO - Academic Medicine

JF - Academic Medicine

SN - 1040-2446

IS - 3

ER -