PURPOSE

WE WILL POST ISSUES THAT AFFECT ACADEMIC AFFAIRS PROCESSES.  NO ISSUES WILL BE ATTRIBUTED TO A SPECIFIC INDIVIDUAL OR UNIT.  HOPEFULLY THIS WILL ALLOW ALL READERS TO AVOID REPEATING PAST MISTAKES, ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL.  BE ADVISED THAT ALL ELSE IS SELDOM EQUAL.     

Comments

We received a Position Control request for an SOM track faculty member who would be 70% clinical, 10% research and 20% academic with no justification for this split.  It is not usual or customary to be 70/30 on this track without specific justification.  Best practice would have been to provide this justification as part of Position Control, when it could have been reviewed and pre-approved (or not).  We did not hold up the posting, but do warn (1) any discussion with applicants should be transparent that the split has not been approved, and (2) the split will need to be justified and reviewed as part of CLO review (which could prolong CLO review).

Things do change, and we modify our templates (e.g., for chair's letters, CLOs) in response.  Sometimes, however, a unit will take a past document, approved some time ago, and revise it for a present case in hopes that it will satisfy today's expectations.  This will take more time to review and likely will be returned to the unit with a request that it be re-done using a current template.  If you would like to avoid this delay, best practice is always to start 'from scratch' and use a current template.

Add new comment

Sign in with your CNETID and password to post a comment, or submit your comment using the form below.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.