Tenure Promotion

1. Tenure Promotion Jason Cong cong@cs.ucla.edu Professor and Past Chair Computer Science Department University of California, Los Angeles

2. Important Factors for Tenure Decision by the Department • Candidate’s record • Research • Visibility • Teaching • Service • Outside letters • Comparative Metrics • Faculty committee report

3. Research Contributions • 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 references) • Funding • A measure of the interest of the broader community in the candidate's research. • 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. • Both research independence and collaboration are important and should be represented in candidates' research.

4. Funding • 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 • Schedule a visit to funding agency • Volunteer to be on NSF review panels • Ask successful colleagues to review your proposal outline, read your proposal and listen to their feedback • If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again

5. Visibility • Awards and honors: e.g., NSF career award, best paper awards, etc. • Professional services • Serving as a member or chair of TPC of high-quality conferences and workshops; • Being active in reviewing papers • Serving on the editorial board, of high-quality journals, and comparable responsibilities. • Invited talks, and external seminars • 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.

6. Teaching • 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)

7. Teaching Portfolio • Teach a blend of courses (small/large, undergrad/grad, etc.) • 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 • Learn when/how to say no (no because …) • Negotiate for release from teaching • As part of start-up package, for developing new courses and labs, pretenure mini-sabbaticals

8. Research Advising • 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”

9. Service • The fulfillment of "good citizen" duties is important. • Opportunities for service • Department • School • Campus • Research community • Budget your time properly • Feel free to tell your department chair if you are overloaded.

10. Outside Reference Letters • Very important in the decision making process • The candidate suggests half and the department chooses half for a total about 10-12 references • 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

11. Comparative Metrics • 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

12. Knowing Your Rights • Able to see redacted copies of the outside letters and departmental reports (at least in the UC system) • Can provide rebuttal before and after • Faculty committee report • Departmental vote, and • Chair’s recommendation

13. Acknowledgements • “Excellence in Tenure Decisions” by UCLA CSD former department chairs (R. Muntz, M. Ercegovac, J. Cong) • “The Tenure Process”, Debra Richardson, Janie Irwin, and Sandhya Dwarkadas