MERIT TO PROFESSOR, STEP VI

(Click here for a printable checklist of the dossier materials)


Definition
An advancement to Professor, Step VI is a review based on “… evidence of sustained and continuous excellence in each of the following three categories: (1) scholarship or creative achievement; (2) University teaching; and (3) service (including contributions to diversity in all of these areas). Above and beyond that, great academic distinction, recognized nationally, will be required in scholarly or creative achievement or teaching.” The CALL, Regular Professorial Series, V. A.3.1. Additional information can be found at The CALL – Summary of Procedures #5.

Review Period
Advancement to Professor, Step VI is based upon performance during the candidate’s entire academic career, with emphasis since promotion to the Full Professor rank. (with the exception of teaching, which is a maximum reporting period of 5 years)


Opus/Interfolio

All cases must be initiated, processed and completed in OPUS/Interfolio, including all publications and individual teaching evaluations. Start a new case in OPUS and initiate the review process action for Interfolio using the appropriate template (click here for a detailed list of templates). For instructions on uploading dossier materials in Interfolio, please click here. Please note the following:

  • The candidate must review and certify all the materials in Interfolio. Initials and signatures are no longer required.
  • When uploading a Word/Excel document, the system will convert the file to a readable PDF document. When uploading a PDF file, be sure to first convert it into a PDF readable format.

Submit the following to the College AP Office:

  • One (1) single-sided copy of the dossier. For Life Sciences, submit two (2) single-sided copies. Departments must be sure to keep a copy of every academic personnel action, and to prepare that copy prior to submitting the action in Interfolio. Follow your departmental practice in the format of that copy (e.g. digital or physical copy).
  • If applicable, one (1) separate Chair’s Salary Letter must be included when submitting the hard copy of the dossier to the Dean’s Office. Please note that the chair’s salary letter may not be viewed by the candidate or faculty. A request to increase off-scale percentage must be explained and justified. (Life Sciences Division follow their internal practice)

Dossier Contents in the order below: (for hard copy submission to the Dean’s Office)

Review Committee
Three (3) ladder faculty members suitable to serve as department representatives if a Review Committee (RC) is appointed by CAP. Faculty members from outside the department may be recommended. The list must include the rank and department of all nominees (in alphabetical order). Do not include names of individuals who have been co-authors or co-investigators (e.g. research grants) with the candidate.

List of UCLA Collaborators/Co-Authors or Co-Investigators (e.g. research grants)
List the names of current UCLA ladder faculty members, since candidate’s appointment at UCLA.

Merit Advancement to Professor, Step VI OR Above-Scale Data Summary cover page

  • Use the appropriate Data Summary pages from the APO website
  • For joint or split appointment(s), notate all departments and the percentages in the Department section
  • Complete all the fields in the Present Status and Proposed Status sections
    • Annual salaries – Refer to Table 1: Faculty – Ladder Ranks – Professor Series, Academic Year
    • Salary must be rounded to the nearest $100
    • Proposed salary rate is marked as TBD if no specific salary is recommended
    • Salary above the proposed step on Table 1 is an off-scale salary

If applicable, a copy of the Joint Appointment waiver form (must be current). If the candidate has a joint appointment(s), each department must have their own joint appointment waiver form.

History Record

  • Include the entire history record
  • No handwritten entries
  • Pages should be in reverse chronological order

Data Summary Vote page

  • Be specific as to the motion voted on and the proposed effective date
  • For split appointments of joint appointments without a waiver, each department must have their own vote page
  • The sum of the vote tally must equal the number eligible to vote (see The CALL, Appendix 4)
  • Votes must add up and match the Departmental Assessment/Director’s letter

Data Summary, pages 3 – 6 (read instructions on each page)

  • To ensure that a section is not overlooked, “N/A” or “None” should be notated
  • If the content does not fit on one page, append additional pages and number them with letters, for example 3a, 3b, 3c. Do not assign new numbers to the data summary pages.
  • Data Summary pages 3-4:
    • Include a separate teaching tabulation page with the following information: Quarter, Course, Number of Students, Response, Instructor Rating, Course Rating, and Department Average. Place this page behind data summary page 3.
    • Maximum reporting period for teaching activities is five (5) years.
  • Data Summary pages 5-6: Entire academic career since appointment at UCLA.

Bibliography (New L & S format must be used)

Note: The new sections should be utilized for all new items beginning with the AY 2018-2019 cycle (prior bibliography items do not need to be rearranged).

  • Mark “Since Last Advancement” in ALL sections
    • Social Sciences Division only – draw a line to indicate each review period since appointment
    • Humanities Division only – draw a line to indicate each review period since advancement to Professor rank
  • Place a check mark (✓) next to items being submitted for this review.

“Prior” Certification Form/s

  • Must be certified by the candidate before committee or department review
  • Print and include a copy of the prior certification form/s when submitting the hard copy of the dossier.
  • Include the following documents in the dossier:
    • Self-statement (recommended to detail progress in research, teaching, service and contributions to diversity) 
    • Sabbatical Report, if applicable (since last academic review only)
    • Bias List
      Reminder: This list may contain names of persons within and outside UCLA. When requesting the bias list from the candidate, it is recommended that you specify separate lists:

      • External Evaluators List – May be viewed by the faculty.
      • If any, Internal Faculty List – May only be viewed by the Department Chair (unless the Chair is on the list). If the Chair is named, contact the College Divisional Analyst. At no time during the review process is this list to be shared with the faculty. We recommend that the list be uploaded in Interfolio at the end of the department review process, prior to submitting the case to the Dean’s Office and inserted to the hard copy of the dossier.
      • Indicate if no names were provided.
    • Statement of Co-Authorship (For Humanities and Social Sciences Divisions only)
      • All faculty with co-authored publications (highlighting UCLA co-authors), must indicate their contributions/role on each publication since last academic review. The candidate may submit a separate statement or include this information in the Self-Statement.

“After” Certification Form/s

  • Must be certified by the candidate after the Department Assessment Letter is finalized
  • Must be dated on or after the Department Assessment Letter
  • Print and include a copy of the after certification form/s when submitting the hard copy of the dossier

If applicable, candidate’s written response to Department Assessment Letter

Department Assessment/Recommendation Letter

  • This is the letter setting forth the department’s recommendation, written under the Chair’s signature.
  • The letter should be addressed to the Vice Chancellor.
  • The first section of this letter must include the candidate’s name, action, proposed rank and step, effective date, date of faculty meeting and outcome of the department vote.
  • Before allowing the Chair to see the solicited/unsolicited letters, label each letter in the upper right-hand corner, number must correspond to the list of reviewers. The department assessment letter must not include identifiers (i.e. evaluator name/title). It should refer to the internal/external/student reviewers by number or alphabet.
  • If letters are quoted in the department assessment letter, double-check the quotes against the original letter for accuracy.
  • Voting faculty have the right to review the letter prior to the candidate’s review.

If applicable, Chair’s confidential letter (submit in a separate statement)
NOTE: This is a letter not to be viewed by the candidate or faculty. Must be uploaded in Interfolio at the end of the department review process, prior to submitting the case in Interfolio to the Dean’s Office and included with the single-sided hard copy of the dossier provided to the Dean’s Office.

If applicable, candidate’s written response to Departmental ad hoc or standing committee report

If applicable, Departmental ad hoc or standing committee report

  • Before allowing the Committee to see the solicited/unsolicited letters, label each letter in the upper right-hand corner, number must correspond to the list of reviewers. The committee report must not include identifiers (i.e. evaluator name/title). It should refer to the internal/external/student reviewers by number or alphabet.
  • If letters are quoted in the department assessment letter, double-check the quotes against the original letter for accuracy.
  • For Social Sciences and Humanities Divisions, signatures must be on a separate page

Peer evaluation of teaching since last academic advancement

If applicable, List of UCLA Interdepartmental Program (IDP)/Organized Research Unit (ORU) evaluators

  • List must include the evaluator’s name, title/rank and step, IDP/ORU name
  • Follow the detailed instructions on the extramural evaluators section when including the list, sample solicitation letter with statement of confidentiality, original/un-redacted letters of evaluation and redacted letters of evaluation
  • Refer to the extramural evaluation letters section when naming the file:
  • Original/un-redacted letters of evaluation (i.e. IDP/ORU1_Candidate_Morgan_Bruin_20180218)
  • Redacted letters of evaluation (i.e. IDP/ORU1_Bruin_20180218_Redacted)

List of Extramural (outside) evaluators solicited (Table format)

  • List all evaluators solicited, even if they did not respond
  • List the evaluators in chronological order by date received
  • The number of the evaluator on the list must correspond to the original/un-redacted and redacted copies of their letter
  • The list must indicate if the evaluator was suggested by the candidate, department, or both
  • A brief biography is required for each evaluator that was solicited
    NOTE: CAP recommends the receipt of 6-8 letters, and a reasonable balance between evaluators from the candidate’s list and the department’s list. Otherwise, the department must solicit additional letters accordingly.

Department’s sample solicitation letter with Statement of Confidentiality

  • A sample solicitation letter and the Statement of Confidentiality can be found in The CALL
    • You may NOT change any part of the Statement of Confidentiality. It must be copied into a solicitation letter, or supplied as an attachment in this exact text
    • Reminder: Make sure the sample solicitation letter for Advancement to Step VI (The CALL – Summary of Procedures # 13) is used for this action.
  • Notate “Sample solicitation letter” at the top

Extramural (outside) evaluation letters

  • All solicited letters received must be submitted, including declinations
  • For evaluators who respond via email, include the first page of the email behind the evaluation letter
  • Place all letters in reverse chronological date order (most current on top).
  • Number each letter in the upper right-hand corner, must correspond to the list of external reviewers and to references in the department letter or committee report.
  • Original/Un-redacted letters must be uploaded individually and the filename should include:
    • Indication that it is an external letter of evaluation
    • Number the external letter in chronological order by date received (number must correspond to the list of extramural evaluators and redacted extramural evaluation letter)
    • Which list the letter writer came from (suggested by candidate, chair, or both)
    • Name of letter writer
    • Name of candidate
    • Date the letter was received
      Example: If Professor Bruin suggested Professor Morgan to submit a letter and it arrived 02/18/18, the filename would be: External1_Candidate_Morgan_Bruin_20180218

If applicable, List of Unsolicited Extramural evaluators

  • Follow the detailed instructions on the extramural evaluators section when including the list, unsolicited sample solicitation letter with statement of confidentiality, original/un-redacted letters of evaluation and redacted letters of evaluation.
  • Use a similar filename format as with extramural letters (e.g. Unsolicited1_Candidate_Morgan_Bruin_20180218)

List of Former and Current Students solicited

  • List all students solicited, even if they did not respond
  • List the evaluators in chronological order by date received
  • The number of the evaluator on the list must correspond to the original/un-redacted and redacted copies of their letter
  • The list must indicate if the student was suggested by the candidate, department, or both

Department’s sample Student Solicitation letter with Statement of Confidentiality

  • A sample solicitation letter and the Statement of Confidentiality can be found in The CALL
    • You may NOT change any part of the Statement of Confidentiality. It must be copied into a solicitation letter, or supplied as an attachment in this exact text.
  • Write “Sample solicitation letter” at the top.

Former and Current Student evaluation letters

  • All original/un-redacted solicited letters received must be included in the dossier
  • Place all letters in reverse chronological date order, most current on top. Number each letter in the upper right-hand corner, must correspond to the list of student evaluators and to references in the department letter or committee report.
  • Use a similar filename format as with extramural letters (i.e. Student1_Candidate_Morgan_Bruin_20180218)

If applicable, List of Unsolicited Student evaluators

  • Follow the detailed instructions on the extramural evaluators section when including the list, unsolicited sample student letter of evaluation with statement of confidentiality, original/un-redacted letters of evaluation and redacted letters of evaluation
  • Use a similar filename format as with extramural letters (i.e. Unsolicited_Student1_Candidate_Morgan_Bruin_20180218)

CV


Interfolio Only: Redacted evaluation letters

  • Redacted letters must be uploaded individually and the filename should include:
    • Indication that it is an external, unsolicited, IDP/ORU or student letter of evaluation.
    • Group the letters in Interfolio by the type (external, unsolicited, student, etc.)
    • Number the letter in chronological order by date received (number must correspond to the respective list of evaluators and original/un-redacted evaluation letter)
    • Name of candidate
    • Date the letter was received
    • Indication that it is a redacted copy of the external letter of evaluation
      Example: If Professor Morgan submitted a letter and it arrived 02/18/18, the filename would be:
      External1_ Bruin_20180218_Redacted
    • Place all letters in reverse chronological date order, most current on top. Number each letter in the upper right-hand corner, must correspond to the list of evaluators.

Publications

  1. Humanities – Submit physical copies of books or bound journals, all other materials must be uploaded in Interfolio
  2. Life Sciences – Submit physical copies of books, all other materials must be uploaded in Interfolio
  3. Physical Sciences – All materials uploaded in Interfolio
  4. Social Sciences – Submit physical copies of books or bound journals, all other materials must be uploaded in Interfolio
  • Publications: All publications since promotion to Full Professor and any notable works prior must be submitted/uploaded (refer to your division’s practice), including in-press and work-in-progress manuscripts, if available.

Note: When uploading the candidate’s publication in Interfolio, name the file using the citation # from the bibliography and at least the first ten words of the publication title.

Reminder: If you are submitting a physical box, upload an inventory of items provided into the case in Interfolio. APO will then know to wait for the exhibit box to arrive before processing the case. Clearly label both sides of the box to include candidate’s name, department(s), action, effective date, box number (e.g. 1 of 2), etc.


Teaching Evaluations

  1. Humanities – All materials uploaded in Interfolio
  2. Life Sciences – All materials uploaded in Interfolio and provide physical copies of the teaching evaluations (submit in a box clearly labeled with the candidate’s information)
  3. Physical Sciences – All materials uploaded in Interfolio
  4. Social Sciences – All materials uploaded in Interfolio
  • Teaching: All teaching evaluations, with a maximum reporting period of 5 years at UCLA, should be submitted in reverse chronological order. Each packet should have the OID evaluation summary sheet before the students’ written comments.

For Life Sciences only, each packet should be stapled with the OID evaluation summary and students’ written comments.


Routing and Approval

The College Divisional Analyst will review the case then forward it to the appropriate Dean for review. The Dean will write a recommendation, which will be included in the case when directed to APO. APO will send it to CAP. CAP may request a Review Committee (RC) be appointed.

  • When an RC is not appointed, CAP reviews the case and makes a recommendation to the Vice Chancellor, who then decides the final outcome of the case.
  • When an RC is appointed, the RC reviews the case and submits a report to APO, who forwards it to the College AP Office for the Dean’s review. If the Dean writes an addendum, it will be directed to APO. APO will forward both the Dean’s and the RC’s recommendations to CAP. CAP will write a recommendation, and the Vice Chancellor will decide the final outcome.

The College Divisional Analyst will notify the department of the outcome.

UC Path: Follow UC Path guidelines when entering the approved action.

 

Last updated 10/30/19