Tenure in transition: trends in basic science faculty appointment policies at U.S. medical schools.

This article-based on a 2002 survey of 125 U.S. allopathic medical schools, reviews of institutional policy documents, and interviews with medical school leaders-explores and analyzes three trends in appointment and tenure policies for basic science faculty at U.S. medical schools. First, the percentage of full-time, nontenure track basic science faculty has increased, from 12% in 1980 to 20% in 2000. More dramatically, by the late 1990s, the percentage of new basic science faculty hired on a nontenure track surpassed the percentage hired on a traditional tenure-track line. This development stems from the tendency of some schools to appoint faculty to nontenure-eligible "research scientists" faculty tracks, to hire junior faculty on 100% grant funding, and to allow nontenure-track faculty to switch to the tenure track as their research career progresses. The second trend is an alteration to the tenure financial guarantee. Historically, at most medical schools, it was assumed that tenure guaranteed total institutional salary for basic scientists. Schools have begun to redefine that commitment to less than full salary to protect against financial vulnerabilities and to provide a means to reduce faculty salaries, if warranted. The third trend is increased flexibility to pretenure policies. Schools have lengthened probationary periods, revised up-or-out provisions, instituted stopping-the-tenure-clock policies and less-than-full-time appointments, and permitted faculty to switch between the tenure and nontenure tracks. These policy modifications recognize the increased professional and personal demands on faculty time.     

The changing faces of promotion and tenure at U.S. medical schools

Faced with many potentially divisive questions related to tenure and promotion, leaders at medical schools have lacked an overview of examples of how other medical schools are adapting their faculty policies to reflect changing realities. This article reports results of a survey of U.S. medical school deans and of interviews with faculty affairs administrators regarding areas of change in faculty appointment, promotion, and tenure policies. Examples of adaptations are reported under the following headings: use of tenure; financial guarantees of tenure; criteria for award of tenure; probationary period; post-tenure review; advising faculty; clinician-educator tracks; and recruting women and minority faculty. Of these, the adaptation entailing the most activity and about which the most information was obtained concerns establishing a clinician-educator track. Numerous examples are provided of schools' evolutions of policies with regard to modifying titles of clinical-educators, defining promotion criteria, monitoring transfer between tracks, and defining contract periods, benefits, and privileges. The primary challenge for medical school administrators is to build sufficient flexibility into their promotion policies to show that the institution values the many different types of faculty needed, and at the same time to provide adequate security to essential faculty.     

The present and future of appointment, tenure, and compensation policies for medical school clinical faculty.

The authors present data and information about appointment, tenure, and compensation policies to describe how medical schools are redefining the terms under which they relate to their full-time clinical faculties. First, the authors note the increasing differentiation of clinical faculty members into two groups, researchers and clinicians. The present-day competitive realities of both research and clinical enterprises have prompted this change and the principles of mission-based management are reinforcing it. Second, they document the long-term tendency of schools to appoint new clinical faculty members to contract-term (as opposed to tenure) appointments, as special non-tenure-eligible tracks for clinically oriented faculty proliferate. Third, they report on the policies of schools to limit the financial guarantees provided to clinical faculty members who are awarded tenure. For schools that have yet to address this issue, they discuss the various employment and pay arrangements that inform or confuse the question. Fourth, they describe historic problems with clinical faculty compensation arrangements and illustrate, with examples from ten schools, the characteristics of recently implemented performance- and risk-based compensation plans. While these trends in institutional policies and practices may initially concern faculty advocate groups, the authors argue that they may serve the long-term interests of those groups. The terms of relationships between medical schools and their clinical faculties are tied closely to the specifics of organizational structure, which are currently undergoing review and change. The challenge all schools face is to define these terms in ways that allow them to continue to attract high-quality clinical faculty while avoiding an insupportable financial liability.     

Status of faculty affairs and faculty development offices in U.S. medical schools.

PURPOSE: To collect baseline data and describe how medical schools handle faculty affairs and faculty development responsibilities. METHOD: In January 2000, the authors surveyed faculty affairs designees at 125 U.S. medical schools, using a questionnaire developed in consultation with a group of faculty affairs professionals. RESULTS: The responding 76 medical schools (61%) support over four times as many offices of faculty affairs as faculty development offices. Core functions of faculty affairs offices include administrative support for appointments, promotions, and tenure committees; faculty information and policies; faculty governance processes; and department chairs' recruitment support and personnel management issues. CONCLUSION: While a consensus is emerging about the functions of a faculty affairs office, no school has a comprehensive faculty development system, in contrast to most industries, which must be more forward-looking to compete for talent.     

PhD faculty in clinical departments of U.S. medical schools, 1981-1999: their widening presence and roles in research.

PURPOSE: To analyze the growth, research activities, and academic status of PhD faculty in U. S. medical school clinical departments between 1981 and 1999. METHOD: Full-time U.S. medical school faculty who had PhDs and appointments in clinical departments in 1981 and 1999 and junior PhD faculty who became assistant professors between 1981 and 1990 were selected from the Faculty Roster System of the Association of American Medical Colleges. Their research activities and academic statuses were compared with those of MD or MD/PhD faculty in clinical departments or PhD faculty in basic science departments in the same years. RESULTS: The number of PhD faculty in clinical departments now exceeds the number of PhD faculty in basic science departments. PhD faculty in clinical departments come from diverse research backgrounds, contribute substantially to the research intensity of their institutions, and are more likely than their counterparts in basic science departments to become involved in research involving human participants or human tissues. PhD faculty in clinical departments are less likely than their counterparts in basic science departments, but are as likely as physicians in clinical departments, to be rewarded with academic promotion. They are less likely than their physician colleagues to be promoted in research-intensive departments such as departments of medicine and at top 20 research-intensive schools. CONCLUSIONS: The burgeoning career opportunities for PhD faculty in clinical departments should be reflected in the course work, mentorship, and potential thesis topics of PhD training programs. In lieu of tenure, research-intensive medical schools should develop alternative career tracks providing somewhat greater job stability for these faculty.     

Administrative relationships between medical schools and community preceptors.

PURPOSE: To determine the current administrative relationships between medical schools and community preceptors, with special emphasis on arrangements for academic appointment, review, and promotion. METHOD: In 1999, administrative contacts at all 126 U.S. allopathic medical schools were mailed a ten-item questionnaire to elicit information concerning the current practices of the schools regarding community preceptors, who were defined as volunteer or part-time physician faculty, primarily practicing at non-university-owned facilities, who contribute to medical students' and/or residents' education in various specified ways. RESULTS: Responses were received from 71 (56%) of the schools; they were in general a representative sample of U.S. medical schools. The numbers of preceptors per school ranged from 40 to 3,500. Sixty-seven percent of reporting schools identified clinical departments as the main administrative interface with preceptors. Only three schools used a central office; none exclusively used a regionalized system. Forty-four schools (63.8%) reported using formal written criteria for all preceptor appointments. Sixty-six schools (93%) used consistent academic titling systems, with 83.3% using titles including the word "clinical." Thirty-three schools (47.8%) reported that their departments conducted regular preceptor reviews; an additional 28 reported reviews by some departments. Preceptors were eligible for promotion at 94.4% of the responding schools. At 46.8%, specific promotion criteria exist; four schools were developing such criteria. Preceptors' interest in academic promotion was perceived to be moderate or low. CONCLUSION: A substantial proportion of U.S. medical schools have taken action to recognize preceptors as a unique faculty group. The comments received indicate that this is an active area of development in faculty affairs policy.     

Documentation systems for educators seeking academic promotion in U.S. medical schools.

PURPOSE: To explore the state and use of teaching portfolios in promotion and tenure in U.S. medical schools. METHOD: A two-phase qualitative study using a Web-based search procedure and telephone interviews was conducted. The first phase assessed the penetration of teaching portfolio-like systems in U.S. medical schools using a keyword search of medical school Web sites. The second phase examined the current use of teaching portfolios in 16 U.S. medical schools that reported their use in a survey in 1992. The individual designated as having primary responsibility for faculty appointments/promotions was contacted to participate in a 30-60 minute interview. RESULTS: The Phase 1 search of U.S. medical schools' Web sites revealed that 76 medical schools have Web-based access to information on documenting educational activities for promotion. A total of 16 of 17 medical schools responded to Phase 2. All 16 continued to use a portfolio-like system in 2003. Two documentation categories, honors/awards and philosophy/personal statement regarding education, were included by six more of these schools than used these categories in 1992. Dissemination of work to colleagues is now a key inclusion at 15 of the Phase 2 schools. The most common type of evidence used to document education was learner and/or peer ratings with infrequent use of outcome measures and internal/external review. CONCLUSIONS: The number of medical schools whose promotion packets include portfolio-like documentation associated with a faculty member's excellence in education has increased by more than 400% in just over ten years. Among early-responder schools the types of documentation categories have increased, but students' ratings of teaching remain the primary evidence used to document the quality or outcomes of the educational efforts reported.     

The impact of the changing health care environment on the health and well-being of faculty at four medical schools.

PURPOSE: Increased pressure for clinical and research productivity and decreased control over the work environment have been reported to have adverse impacts on academic faculty in limited studies. The authors examined whether work-related stressors in academic medicine negatively affected the physical and mental health, as well as life and job satisfaction, of academic medical school faculty. METHOD: A 136-item self-administered anonymous questionnaire modified from a small 1984 study was distributed to 3,519 academic faculty at four U.S. medical schools following institutional review board approval at each school. Validated scales measuring depression, anxiety, work strain, and job and life satisfaction; a checklist of common physical and mental health symptoms; and questions about the impact of institutional financial stability, colleague attrition, and other work-related perceptions were used. Responses were analyzed by sex, academic rank, age, marital status, faculty discipline, and medical school. RESULTS: Responses were received from 1,951 full-time academic physicians and basic science faculty, a 54.3% response rate. Twenty percent of faculty, almost equal by sex, had significant levels of depressive symptoms, with higher levels in younger faculty. Perception of financial instability was associated with greater levels of work strain, depression, and anxiety. Significant numbers of faculty acknowledged that work-related strain negatively affected their mental health and job satisfaction, but not life satisfaction or physical health. Specialties were differentially affected. CONCLUSIONS: High levels of depression, anxiety, and job dissatisfaction-especially in younger faculty-raise concerns about the well-being of academic faculty and its impact on trainees and patient care. Increased awareness of these stressors should guide faculty support and development programs to ensure productive, stable faculty.     

The reorganization of basic science departments in U.S. medical schools, 1980-1999.

The evolution of biomedical science and technology over the last 50 years has made biomedical research inherently interdisciplinary. Such changes have led observers to speculate about the ways in which traditional basic science departments in U.S. medical schools are being changed or consolidated. The authors describe their findings from a study that constructed a 20-year longitudinal database (1980-1999) to examine how basic science departments have been reorganized at U.S. medical schools. The data reveal that, in fact, there were fewer basic science departments in the traditional disciplines of anatomy, biochemistry, microbiology, pharmacology, and physiology in 1999 than in 1980. But as biomedical science has developed in an interdisciplinary manner, new basic science departments have been added. The most frequent type of change, however, has been in the renaming of existing departments. Overall, there were more, not fewer, basic science departments and more, not fewer, faculty members in these departments. These changes, taken together with the growth of interdisciplinary research centers and institutes and changing patterns of biomedical PhD training, affect both teaching and research in academic medicine. First, basic scientists are becoming increasingly dissociated from the traditional disciplines around which medical students' education is often organized. Second, the organization of biomedical research is in a state of transition that is responding to advances in scientific knowledge, technology, and targets of opportunity.     

Should medical school faculty see assessments of students made by previous teachers?

Whether medical school faculty should be provided with assessments of students made by previous teachers remains controversial. To document which schools have implemented policies that address this issue and to characterize the specific features of these policies, in 1998 the authors conducted a direct mail survey of deans of student affairs and medical education at 144 medical schools in the United States, Canada, and Puerto Rico. Replies were received from 129 (90%) of the 144 medical schools. Of those schools, 72 (56%) reported having policies that address this issue. The policies permit the sharing of information in 38 (53%) of the 72 schools that had policies; therefore, at the time of this study, 29% of the 129 medical schools that responded to the survey had a policy that permits the sharing of assessment information. The policies permit the sharing of information related to problems with academic performance (35%), professional conduct (35%), physical health (25%), and miscellaneous circumstances, such as learning disability (5%). Information may be shared with clerkship coordinators (44%), course directors (35%), faculty mentors (11%), clinical faculty supervisors (8%), and resident supervisors (3%). The findings show that there is considerable diversity in the format and content of policies that address the issue of whether medical school faculty should be provided with information about students' assessments made by previous teachers. The authors explain why policies that require the provision of such information are helpful to medical school faculty, and offer recommendations based on the survey findings.     

Specialty choices, compensation, and career satisfaction of underrepresented minority faculty in academic medicine.

PURPOSE: Despite efforts to increase the numbers of underrepresented minorities (URMs), only 3.9% of medical school faculty are URMs. The authors compared the specialty choices, compensation, and career satisfaction of minority faculty with those of their majority counterparts to determine whether there were differences that might affect the recruitment and retention of minority faculty. METHOD: In 1995, the authors mailed a self-administered survey to a stratified random sample of 3,013 eligible full-time salaried faculty in 24 randomly selected medical schools. Those schools, which had at least 200 faculty, did not include the Puerto Rican or historically black medical schools. RESULTS: Of the eligible faculty surveyed, 1,807 (60%) responded; 1,463 were majority faculty, 195 were URM faculty, and 149 were other-minority faculty. Similar proportions of the three groups were in the primary care specialties. Only 11% of the URM respondents were in basic science departments. There was no significant difference in adjusted mean compensation between majority, URM, and other-minority faculty. However, URM faculty were significantly less satisfied with their careers (adjusted scores: 60 versus > 65; p = .001) and more often considered leaving academic medicine within five years (58% versus < 45%). CONCLUSION: Given the demographic changes of the U.S. population, these issues should be addressed by deans and department heads in order to enhance recruitment and facilitate retention of URM faculty in academic medicine.     

The impact of centers and institutes on faculty life: findings from a study of basic science and internal medicine faculty at research-intensive medical schools.

PURPOSE: To examine the impact of organized research centers on faculty productivity and work life for basic science and internal medicine faculty at research-intensive medical schools. METHOD: In 2005, the authors administered a questionnaire to a random stratified sample of full-time faculty in basic science and internal medicine departments at the top 40 research-intensive U.S. medical schools. The survey instrument asked faculty about the extent of their involvement in centers and institutes, the direction and extent of their activities, and their satisfaction with various dimensions of work. RESULTS: A total of 778 faculty members completed the questionnaire (72.0%). Basic science faculty with center affiliations produced more research publications and grants while devoting comparable effort to teaching as their non-center-affiliated peers. These faculty reported greater dissatisfaction in workload and in the mix of their activities. Internal medicine MD center-affiliated faculty were more productive in research activities and spent less effort in patient care and more effort in research than their non-center-affiliated peers. These faculty were more satisfied with promotion, opportunities for research, and the pace of their professional advancement. CONCLUSIONS: Findings indicate that faculty from different departments and with different ranks and backgrounds interact with centers and institutes in multiple ways. For basic science faculty, center involvement appears to be an addition to, not a substitute for, their usual departmental obligations. For internal medicine MD faculty, center involvement appears to serve as an opportunity for protected effort in research away from the demands of clinical practice.     

The views of U.S. medical school deans toward academic primary care.

PURPOSE: To understand the views of U.S. medical school deans about their primary care faculties. METHOD: In 2000, the authors mailed a questionnaire containing 43 multipart items to deans of 130 U.S. allopathic medical schools. The questionnaire assessed the deans' attitudes about and evaluation of primary care at their school and their school's efforts to strengthen it. Deans were asked to compare family medicine, general internal medicine, and general pediatrics with nonprimary care clinical departments at their schools. RESULTS: Of the 83 (64%) deans who responded, 82% reported their school had departments or divisions of family medicine, general internal medicine, and general pediatrics. Deans rated general internal medicine and general pediatrics higher than nonprimary care faculty on clinical expertise and productivity (p < .001) and family medicine equivalent to nonprimary care faculty. Deans rated all three primary care faculties superior to nonprimary care faculty for teaching skills (p < .001) and programs (p < .05), but lower than nonprimary care disciplines for research productivity (p < .01) and revenues (p < .001). They rated family medicine and general pediatrics lower for research skills (p < .001), but 73% of deans stated research was equally important for primary care and nonprimary care departments. Deans considered overall financial resources to be equivalent for primary care and nonprimary care departments, but 77% of deans felt primary care departments or divisions needed financial support from the medical school to survive. Most deans attempted to strengthen primary care by changing the curriculum to promote primary care and by providing financial support. CONCLUSIONS: Deans ranked primary care faculty high on clinical and teaching measures. Although they considered research to be an important activity for primary care faculty, they evaluated it low relative to nonprimary care departments.     

Evidence-based appointment and promotion of academic faculty at the University of Chicago.

The authors report how one academic medical center (AMC) and associated nonclinical departments implemented evidence-based academic criteria and an evidence-based academic vetting process, which may be models for other institutions.In 2004-2005, The University of Chicago Division of the Biological Sciences and Pritzker School of Medicine reconceptualized its appointment, promotion, and tenure criteria to recognize all forms of scholarship as equally legitimate bases for academic tenure. The revised criteria also accommodate differences in academic effort consistent with varying clinical demands. Implementation of these criteria, however, necessitated revised practices in providing objective evidence and analysis of their satisfaction.Three complementary mechanisms now yield excellent evidence and analysis. The first, electronic forms (e-forms) comprise highly specific response items with embedded instructions, advice, and rationale. The e-forms encourage candidates and departments to provide the evidence that subsequent review needs to evaluate appointment or promotion proposals. Unexpectedly, the e-forms have been coopted as effective mechanisms for faculty development. Second, a faculty dean of academic affairs, a regular faculty member, was appointed to provide robust academic authority and perspective to the process. Third, the promotion and tenure advisory committee was restricted to evaluating academic criteria, and from considerations of institutional value. This change interposed a "firewall" between academic and institutional review. These changes have attenuated dissatisfaction with the appointments and promotions process both within and outside the AMC.     

Aging of medical school faculty and the end of mandatory retirement.

In anticipation of the end of mandatory retirement for tenured professors in 1994 (mandatory retirement ended for other academics in 1986), the author analyzed the demographics of medical school faculty, using 25 years of data taken in mid-1989 from the Faculty Roster of the Association of American Medical Colleges. The annual growth rate of the number of full-time faculty dropped from well over 10% before 1972 to about 1.5% after 1982, while the mean age of the faculty increased from under 42 years to over 45 in 1988. Retirement patterns changed little after the minimum mandatory retirement age was raised in 1982 from 65 to 70 (for tenured professors). Only about 2.5% of all faculty separations in 1984-1987 occurred at or after age 70, and only 5.5% did even in the tenure tracks of the 20 largest private medical schools. Since such a small proportion of openings is created each year by mandatory retirement, uncapping will have little effect on the age or turnover of medical faculty.     

Women physicians in academic medicine: new insights from cohort studies

BACKGROUND: I conducted a study to determine whether women who graduate from medical schools are more or less likely than their male counterparts to pursue full-time careers in academic medicine and to advance to the senior ranks of medical school faculties. METHODS: The rates of advancement to the ranks of assistant, associate, and full professor for all U.S. medical school graduates from 1979 through 1993 and for all members of U.S. medical school faculties from 1979 through 1997 were studied. Cohorts were defined on the basis of the year of graduation from medical school, track (tenure or nontenure), and academic department. Within each cohort, the number of women who advanced to a senior rank was compared with the number that would be expected on the basis of parity between men and women, and 95 percent confidence intervals were calculated. RESULTS: Women were significantly more likely than men to pursue an academic career. During the study period, 634 more women became faculty members than expected. The numbers were higher in the older cohorts than in the younger cohorts. The numbers of women who advanced to the ranks of associate and full professor were significantly lower than the expected numbers. This was true for both tenure and nontenure tracks, even after adjustment for the department. A total of 334 fewer women advanced to associate professor than expected, and 44 fewer women advanced to full professor than expected. CONCLUSIONS: Disparities persist in the advancement of men and women on medical school faculties. However, the numbers of women physicians at all levels of academic medicine are increasing.     

The end of mandatory retirement and its implications for academic medicine.

The prohibition against age-based mandatory retirement, codified in amendments to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) in 1986, remains a concern in the academic medical community. A seven-year exemption covering tenured faculty expires at the end of 1993. The author reviews the legislative history of the ADEA and explores in detail the planning and management issues--and the available projections of likely faculty behavior in the future--concerning the banning of age-based mandatory retirement of higher education faculty, with special reference to the academic medical community. Although the major studies concerning the probable course of events after the seven-year exemption expires indicate that there will not be a cataclysmic effect on institutions of higher education, it is still not certain how tenured faculty will behave and how that will affect medical schools. The author cautions that the management acumen of institutional leaders will be taxed, and that medical school deans should realize this and begin the transition into the new era by improving systems for faculty evaluation and development, clarifying the financial guarantees of tenure, implementing space utilization reviews, and developing programs to make retirement attractive.     

Implementing a simpler approach to mission-based planning in a medical school.

Changes in the education, research, and health care environments have had a major impact on the way in which medical schools fulfill their missions, and mission-based management approaches have been suggested to link the financial information of mission costs and revenues with measures of mission activity and productivity. The authors describe a simpler system, termed Mission-Aligned Planning (MAP), and its development and implementation, during fiscal years 2002 and 2003, at the School of Medicine at the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, Texas. The MAP system merges financial measures and activity measures to allow a broad understanding of the mission activities, to facilitate strategic planning at the school and departmental levels. During the two fiscal years mentioned above, faculty of the school of medicine reported their annual hours spent in the four missions of teaching, research, clinical care, and administration and service in a survey designed by the faculty. A financial profit or loss in each mission was determined for each department by allocation of all departmental expenses and revenues to each mission. Faculty expenses (and related expenses) were allocated to the missions based on the percentage of faculty effort in each mission. This information was correlated with objective measures of mission activities. The assessment of activity allowed a better understanding of the real costs of mission activities by linking salary costs, assumed to be related to faculty time, to the missions. This was a basis for strategic planning and for allocation of institutional resources.     

Scholarship in the medical faculty from the university perspective: retaining academic values.

Academic medicine and research universities have enjoyed a close relationship that has strengthened both, spawning an era of discovery and scholarship in medicine that has earned the U.S. academic medical enterprise a high level of public trust and a deserved leadership position in the world. However, changes in the financing of medical care and in the organization of health care delivery have dramatically affected the medical school-university partnership. The growing emphasis on delivery of clinical services and the concomitant decrease in time for tenured and clinician-educator faculty to teach and do scholarly work jeopardizes both the potential for continued discovery and the education of the next generation of medical scholars. The background of the medical school-university relationship and the factors leading to the development of clinician-educator faculty tracks are reviewed, and recent trends that impact faculty scholarship are discussed. Both tenure-track and clinician-educator medical faculty, as members of the broader university community, should expect from their university colleagues a continued demand for scholarship and educational activity that reflects the underlying philosophy of the parent university. As a corollary, the university, through its medical school, must provide these faculty the time and the financial support necessary to fulfill their academic mission. The size of the clinician-educator faculty should be determined by the academic needs of the medical school rather than by the service demands of its associated health care delivery system. To accomplish this, academic medical centers will have to develop cadres of associated or clinical faculty whose primary focus is on the practice of medicine.