Mid-Rank Review Program.
Our goal at SPH is to ensure that all faculty have the resources and support necessary to advance their careers, positioned to rise through the ranks on whichever faculty track best aligns with their mix of activities. The Annual Faculty Review provides an opportunity to look back on performance during the past year and plan for the year ahead, while also considering progress toward long-term goals. The Mid-Rank Review Program provides faculty with an additional mechanism for feedback on their progress toward promotion.
Through the Mid-Rank Review Program, faculty may submit materials for feedback from the SPH Appointments and Promotions (A&P) Committee. Importantly, this program is offered solely for the purpose of faculty development – it is optional and non-evaluative. The main objectives are to ensure the faculty member understands the expectations for promotion on their particular track, receives feedback on their progress toward that goal, and positions themself to adjust course (if necessary) in order to remain on track for promotion.
The process may be initiated by the faculty member, generally intended to be during the fourth year in rank, (i.e. after completing three years in rank, including time in rank at prior institutions) but with flexibility to accommodate particular circumstances. Since there is no specified timeline for promotion, time in rank is quite variable and the framing of the review as “mid-rank” is made generally.
The rationale for encouraging submission during the fourth year is that, in general, a mid-rank review would be less useful for faculty who are less than three years in rank or for faculty who are five years or more in rank. The program is not intended to gauge the likelihood of promotion in the short-term; faculty who are planning to pursue promotion soon should not submit materials for a mid-rank review.
Materials may be submitted for review at any time of year; the A&P Committee meets monthly.
The faculty member should update their CV and draft an annotated outline of their personal statement (maximum of 3 pages) following the guidelines in Section IV. Examples of successful promotion materials are available in the A&P archive, organized by rank and track.
The process requires an annotated outline of the personal statement for a few reasons: (1) this exercise will help the faculty member identify areas of strength and areas that may require additional attention prior to promotion, (2) the outline will not represent ‘extra’ work since it will eventually be used as a basis for drafting the personal statement, and (3) it will be less burdensome for the faculty member than drafting a complete six-page personal statement.
Prior to submission, the faculty member is encouraged to share and discuss their materials with their department chair, their primary mentor, their department representative to the faculty development committee, their department representative to the A&P committee, and/or colleagues.
Once ready, the department chair submits the materials on behalf of the faculty member to the Associate Dean for Research and Faculty Advancement (ADRFA), who will circulate the materials to the members of the A&P Committee for review. A discussion of the materials will be added to the agenda for the next meeting of the A&P Committee.
Feedback from the A&P Committee
The A&P Committee will review the materials in the context of the criteria and expectations for promotion to the particular rank and track that the faculty member plans to pursue. The feedback will be qualitative, focusing on the strengths and weaknesses of the faculty member’s candidacy. The ADRFA will provide a written summary of the feedback to the faculty member, copying their department chair.
It is important to note that the feedback from the A&P Committee is preliminary and non-binding. The official A&P review process is far more comprehensive, including a more detailed six-page personal statement, the solicitation of evaluation letters, and many levels of review and approval.