Review of Peer Institutions’
Policies on NTT Faculty:
Recommendations for Change
USC CNTTFA Presentation to
the Executive Committee of the Academic Senate
January 20, 2010
Charge
Provide committee with information to be incorporated in
to two memos to be distributed to the deans of the
university.
One memo would focus on title, definition, and profile.
One memo would focus on paid professional leave.
Utilize peer institutions to bolster the argument for
paid professional leave, in particular.
Decided to look at peer institutions to also
compare how titles, definitions, profiles,
workloads, contracts and governance were
addressed, in addition to sabbaticals for
NTT.
Data Collection
An initial email was sent out to Presidents of Academic
Senates at peer institutions to gather information on
these issues.
All but a few directed me to their faculty handbooks.
Recognizing that USC would likely only use written
policy, rather than what is reportedly practiced, as data to
support change, I decided to use faculty handbooks as
my primary source of information, with contextual
comments added by faculty council chairs in only a two
cases (around the “Security of Employment” option at
UCLA, and Workload at UW).
Data Collection
Faculty Handbooks, Personnel Manuals, and
Presidential Executive Orders from 11 Peer
Institutions were used to identify trends and best
practices in NTT policy. However, the results from
two institutions (UCLA and UC Berkeley) were
collapsed, since the handbook and practices were
largely identical.
Peer Institutions Included: Columbia, Cornell,
Harvard, Princeton, NYU, Stanford, UCLA,
Berkeley, University of Pennsylvania, University of
Washington, and Yale.
Results: Titles
Our peer institutions have widely varying titles for NTT faculty, depending on
their function and status within the school and university, with the option to
promote to Assistant, Associate, & Full Professor, when “professor” is used in
title.
Columbia: Prof of Clinical X, Prof of Professional Practice, Lecturer, Senior Lecturer *1.2
Cornell: Clinical Prof, Senior Scholar, Senior Scientist, Research Scientist, Instructor, Senior Lecturer,
University Librarian *2.2 Sec. 2.1, Pg. 30-36
Harvard FAS: Lecturers, Prof of Practice, Senior Lectures, and Arnheim Lecturers *3.1 Sec. 7, Pp. 7.2, 7.31, &
7.45 (Hyperlink not working, please cut and paste http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic851002.files/APPOINTMENT%20HANDBOOK%2011_2910%20as.pdf)
Princeton: Lecturers, Senior Lecturers (No new Lecturer appointments after 1991). *4.1, Ch. IV
NYU: Research Prof, Clinical Prof, Language lecturer *5.1 Bylaw 73, Pg. 43
Stanford: Prof (Research; Teaching; Performance; Applied Research), Clinical Prof, or Prof. of Surgery
at X Medical Center (Medical Center Line-MCL), Lecturer *6.1, Ch. 1, Sec. 1.2.F & Ch. 2, Sec. 2.2
UCLA/Berkeley: Lecturers, Instructors, Clinical Prof, Supervisor of PE or Teacher Ed
*7.1, Secs. APM 275-330
UPenn: Prof-Clinician-Educator, Prof of (X specialty), Research Prof, Academic clinicians, Clinical
Professor, Practice Professor --Limitations on the number of NTT faculty per school *8.1, Secs. II.B.2 & II.B.3
UWashington: Research prof, Instructor, Lecturer, Senior Lecturer, Principle lecturer, Clinical Faculty
*9.3, Sec. 34
Yale: Prof in the Field, Lecturer, Senior Lecturer, Lector, Senior Lector *10.1 Sec. III.B, Pg. 18
Results: Definitions and
Profiles
In all but one handbook, clear definitions for each title appeared. Half of all handbooks
included narrative profiles for each title, and two provided clear NTT promotion and merit
policies.
Columbia: Definitions are provided for all titles. No clear profiles are listed. *1.2
Cornell: Clear definitions for 37 different academic titles, with narrative description of profiles. *2.2 Sec. 2.1, Pg. 30-36
Harvard FAS: Clear definitions of each type of NTT position are present with profiles described in narrative. *3.1 Sec.
7, Pp. 7.2, 7.31, & 7.45 (Hyperlink not working, please cut and paste http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic851002.files/APPOINTMENT%20HANDBOOK%2011_2910%20as.pdf)
Princeton: Definition of each title is provided in handbook. No narrative profile is provided. *4.1, Ch. IV
NYU: Definitions for each title is given. Clear narrative is provided on TT profile, but no narrative is given on NTT
profiles. *5.1 Bylaw 73, Pg. 43
Stanford: Titles for each NTT is provided with a very broad description of NTT. Clear definitions and profiles for
each NTT title are not present. *6.1, Ch. 1, Sec. 1.2.F & Ch. 2, Sec. 2.2
UCLA/Berkeley: Definitions of all titles and narrative description of profiles are provided. Clear guidelines toward
promotion, merit review, and tenure or security of employment. *7.1, Secs. APM 275-330 **See Sec 275 for example of clear promotion and
merit policies.
UPenn: Definitions of titles exist, and detailed narrative profiles are provided for most titles. Promotion procedure
clearly outlined in handbook. *8.1, Secs. II.B.2, II.B.3 & II.D.1
UWashington: Definitions are provided for all 23 academic titles provided in the handbook. Profiles not clearly
delineated. *9.2, Sec. 32 & *9.3, Sec. 34
Yale: Definition of each title is given with detailed narrative of profile under each school. *10.1 Sec. IV.K, Pg. 40-46
Results: Workload
In no case was workload (e.g., number of courses taught in an academic year)
listed in the handbook. In most cases, this was determined by the academic
unit.
However Princeton’s handbook addresses the oversight of fair and equitable
workload in it’s handbook in Chapter IV, Section G.
“General Information: The Dean of the Faculty shall seek to ascertain in a systematic way the
views of nontenured faculty members on the range and balance of the academic specialties in
their departments and on the manner in which decisions on appointments are made in their
departments.
The Dean of the Faculty shall also review periodically the practices of all departments with
regard to matters important to the quality of life of non-tenured Faculty. The results of this
review should be communicated to the President and the Faculty. This review should pay
particular attention among other issues to:
the fairness with which teaching assignments are distributed, taking into account the
professional development of the faculty;
the manner in which departments select candidates for nominations to Preceptorships;
the possible overloading of non-tenured faculty with advising and committee
responsibilities; and
the extent to which non-tenured faculty are involved formally and informally in determining
policies for the department as a whole.” *4.1, Ch. IV, Sec G.
Results: Contract Terms
In all but one case, multi-year contracts were used to attract and retain senior NTT faculty
members. Terms ranged from 1 to 6 years, with the most common terms being 1 year at junior
level, 3 years at mid level, and 5 years at senior level. Half had ‘up or out’ policies regarding time
in junior levels. Two had Tenure of Title benefits for some NTT positions and two had Security of
Employment benefits.
Columbia: 1, 2, 3, or 5 year renewable terms. In almost all cases an up or out policy exists for NTT. Tenure
of title exists for some NTT positions. *1.2
Cornell: 1, 3, 5 year terms, renewable.
*2.2 Sec. 2.1, Pg. 30-36
Harvard FAS: Up to 5 Year term, renewable, with 8 year max.
*3.1 Sec. 7, Pp. 7.2, 7.31, & 7.45 (Hyperlink not working, please cut
and paste http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic851002.files/APPOINTMENT%20HANDBOOK%2011_29-10%20as.pdf)
Princeton: Lecturers have 1 to 3 year renewable contracts, then up or out to Senior Lecturer within 6 years
of initial appointment. Senior Lecturers are on 3 to 5 year contracts with appointment. *4.1, Ch. IV
NYU: Typically 1 year, renewable.
*5.1 Bylaw 73, Pg. 43
Stanford: Up to 6 year term, renewable, but up or out in 6 years.
*6.1, Ch. 2, Sec. 2.2
UCLA/Berkeley: 1, 2, & 3 year renewable terms, but up or out every 6 years; 8 year max in title. Security of
employment can be conferred on Lecturers after 8 years of meritorious employment--similar to tenure. But
also have an up or out (SOE) policy after 8 years. Lecturer positions without SOE also exist with no up or
out policy. Tenure of Title for some positions. *7.1, Secs. APM 275-330
UPenn: 1, 3, 4 year renewable terms.
*8.1, Secs. II.B.2 & II.B.3
UWashington: 1, 3, or 5 Year terms renewable, Senior and Principle positions start with 3 year terms. *9.3, Sec.
41
Yale: 1, 3, or 5 years, renewable.
*10.1 Sec. IV.K, Pg. 40-46
Results: Sabbaticals and Paid
Professional Leave
Seven of the ten handbooks reviewed provided for sabbaticals or paid professional
leave for NTT faculty. Stanford’s policy was most clear in the range of eligible NTT
faculty.
Columbia: Sabbatical is typically reserved for Tenured faculty. Exceptions must be approved by provost.
*1.2
Cornell: Paid Professional development leave provided for NTT academic titles, funded through their academic units. *2.3
Sec. 3.1, Pg. 60
Harvard FAS: Paid Sabbaticals are offered to Professors of Professional Practice and Arnheim Lecturers; not lecturers or
Preceptors. *3.1 Sec. 3, Pg. 3.6 (Hyperlink not working, please cut and paste http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic851002.files/APPOINTMENT%20HANDBOOK%2011_2910%20as.pdf)
Princeton: Sabbatical leaves for senior lecturers is funded by the university for one semester of merit based scholarship.
*4.2
NYU: Sabbatical is provided for Tenured faculty only. *5.1 Bylaw 73, Pg. 51
Stanford: Sabbaticals are explicitly listed in benefits for NTT faculty. “Those eligible to take sabbatical leave are: Assistant
Professors, Associate Professors, and Professors in the Tenure Line; Non-Tenure Line Assistant Professors (Research),
Associate Professors and Professors (Teaching), (Performance), (Clinical), and (Research); Senior Fellows at designated
policy centers and institutes; and Assistant Professors, Associate Professors, and Professors in the Medical Center Line.
Center Fellows are not eligible to take sabbatical leave.” *6.1, Ch. 3, Sec 3.2A
UCLA/Berkeley: Clinical Professors of Dentistry, Astronomers, Agronomists, and Supervisors of phys ed, but not
Lecturers, are entitled to the same privileges as professorial series; sabbatical is included for these. *7.2 Pp. 3-6
UPenn: Both NTT and TT faculty are eligible for Scholarly Leaves. The policy and procedure is clearly spelled out.
Academic Clinicians (those responsible for Patient Care) are not eligible. *8.1, Secs. II.B.2.4 & II.E.2
UWashington: Sabbaticals typically granted to those in professorial ranks; not NTT. *9.4
Yale: Paid Profession Leave is offered to a few NTT every year. *10.1 Sec. XVII.B.5.c, Pg. 112
Results: Participation in
Governance
In all but one institution, most NTT faculty had voting rights in both their academic units
and the General Faculty, except in the case of awarding tenure or compensation to
tenured faculty. Some medical practice faculty were excluded from voting in the
Academic Senate.
Columbia: The faculty senate consists of both tenured and nontenured faculty. *1.3
Cornell: The bylaws are conflicting, but it appears that all faculty are voting members of senate except those from
the medical school, and part-time and visiting professors. *2.1 Sec. 1.3, Pg. 15 & *2.2 Sec. 2.1, Pg. 30-33
Harvard FAS: Professors of Practice and Arnheim Lecturers have full voting rights, except on issues of tenure. *3.1
Sec. 7, Pp. 7.2, 7.31, & 7.45 (Hyperlink not working, please cut and paste http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic851002.files/APPOINTMENT%20HANDBOOK%2011_2910%20as.pdf)
Princeton: All full-time, non-visiting, faculty are voting faculty at general faculty meetings. *4.1, Ch. II
NYU: NTT faculty are only granted voting rights on issues affecting their own group. *5.1 Bylaw 73, Pg. 41
Stanford: NTT faculty are counted as voting members of the academic council and senate professoriate. *6.1, Ch. 1,
Sec. 1.2.F
UCLA/Berkeley: All full-time NTT faculty members can be allowed voting privileges in both department and Senate
issues, if so determined by their campus. *7.3 Bylaws Section
UPenn: NTT faculty are included in university governance, except in the case of Academic Clinicians (medical
school), where they are allowed to vote on issues concerning the medical school. *8.1, Secs. II.B.2 & II.B.3
UWashington: All full-time, non-visiting, NTT faculty are voting members of the faculty with the same rights as TT
faculty except the right to vote on tenure and tenure compensation issues. These faculty are also eligible to serve
on faculty council. *9.2, Sec. 32
Yale: Non Ladder Full-time faculty are voting members, but cannot vote re: appointment, promotion, or tenure of
ranks above theirs or within the Ladder ranks. *10.1 Sec. IV.K, Pg. 40-46
Recommendations
Title: There was no instance where a university devised a more attractive categorization of NTT faculty.
Some campuses used the term Non-Ladder Faculty, others used Non-Professorial, neither of which either
captures the work of NTT faculty or acknowledges their value within the university. Therefore, it is
recommended that we maintain the title of NTT faculty to capture the varied composition of the nature of our
positions and work. No change is recommended.
Definition and Profile: Most universities provide clear definitions of each title, and many provide detailed
narratives describing the types of work and amount of commitment required for each type of work, in general
terms. USC provides very brief definitions, with some noting of proportion of time allocated to certain
activities. However, we argue that the information provided for each title does not lend enough information to
potential candidates for hire to inform them of what a typical person in that position might do. In order to
recruit outstanding NTT candidates, we must provide more detailed information of what they can expect in
such a position. More detailed information would also discourage use of titles that are ill-suited to the
responsibilities and expectations of a position, resulting in use of titles that accurately reflect the status and
characteristics of the position being filled. We recommend providing more specific definitions of titles, with
more detailed typical profiles for those positions in the handbook.
Workload: No university listed the typical workload (e.g., # of courses taught per year) for particular titles.
Doing so would reduce flexibility in adapting positions to the needs of each academic unit. However, we
continue to be cognizant of the occasional disparities between and within academic units in the amount of
work required of NTT faculty, that seemingly go beyond reasonable variance designed to meet the needs of
the academic unit. Therefore, we especially appreciated the section in Princeton’s handbook where it
explicitly states that the Dean of Faculty will regularly survey the non-tenured faculty to incorporate their
views in the governance of the university, and will regularly oversee the workload assignments of these less
empowered faculty so that work is not unfairly distributed to those with less power and security within the
university. We recommend implementing a similar policy overseen by the Provost’s office. We also
recommend language in the faculty handbook encouraging schools to provide reasonable workload
adjustments when additional responsibilities are assigned, such as course or administrative release.
Recommendations
Contracts: All but one university provided for multi-year contracts for senior NTT positions. While
lifetime guarantee of employment is not part of the current NTT profile, it seems that rewarding
outstanding service to the university in teaching, service, practice, and research would certainly
contribute to the recruitment and retention of highly qualified and competitive NTT faculty, which is
part of President Nikias’ new initiative. We recommend providing opportunities for advancement
and promotion with benefits tied to promotion. Benefits would include true multi-year contracts with
junior faculty hired at 1 year terms, mid-level faculty hired at 3 year terms, and senior faculty hired
at 5 year terms. We also recommend that each academic unit determine whether an “up or out”
policy would strengthen their faculty. A set percentage pay raise, new title, and leadership
opportunities should accompany such advancement.
Paid Professional Leave: Only three of the ten peer institutions do not provide paid professional
leave for their NTT faculty. And most, in fact, are funded at the university level, rather than
academic unit level. Again, in recruiting and retaining preeminent NTT faculty, providing
opportunities for university-supported professional development would be a very attractive
enticement. We recommend providing for competitive, university-funded, paid professional leave
for NTT faculty, when the leave will contribute to the quality and prestige of the academic unit and
the university.
Governance: Only one of the peer institutions reviewed excluded NTT faculty as voting members
in the Academic Senate/General Faculty, and their academic units (excluding issues around
tenure). It is apparent these institutions recognize the value added by the participation of NTT
faculty in governance, given their substantial contribution to the success of the university. We
recommend the university strongly encourage all academic units to include NTT faculty as voting
members of their faculty, and allow them to attend and vote in general faculty meetings, and serve
as voting members on Faculty Council and other senior committees.
Additional
Recommendations
In further considering how to fullfill President Nikias’ goal of recruiting, developing,
and retaining outstanding NTT faculty, the CNTTFA made additional
recommendations to enhance the university’s position in drawing the best and
brightest.
Merit Pay: We recommend that the merit pay process for each unit be described in written documents accessible to NTT
faculty. Descriptions should include: 1) What constitutes the five levels of meritorious NTT work (i.e., How are rankings
determined? What rubric is used? What criteria are used? What weight is assigned to various activities?). 2) What the
merit pool is for each year, and what percentage ranges are assigned to the five categories of ranking. 3) Guidelines for
annual performance review document formatting, organization, and content.
Promotion: We recommend that the promotion process for each unit be described in written documents accessible to
NTT faculty. Descriptions should include: 1) Clearly outlined NTT Promotion or advancement opportunities within the
school. 2) The policy around time to NTT promotion. 3) How promotions are awarded (i.e., What process is used? Who
is involved?). 4) What constitutes promotable NTT work (i.e., What rubric is used in evaluating a dossier? What criteria
are used? What weight is assigned to various activities?). 5) What duties, responsibilities, and benefits accompany an
NTT promotion (e.g., mentoring responsibilities, administrative responsibilities, change in title, X% salary increase, multiyear contract, ability to serve on esteemed committees, ability to take paid professional leave, ability take leadership
roles, etc.). 6) Exemplar dossiers and electronic forms for use as guidelines for content, organization, and formatting for
submission of promotion dossiers.
Other Professional Development Opportunities: We recommend that each academic unit develop public documents that
outline opportunities within the unit for professional development among NTT faculty members, such as fellowships,
training opportunities, leadership roles and development, research and grant support, and professional travel
opportunities.
New Faculty Orientation and Mentoring: We recommend that new faculty should receive regular and ongoing orientation
to their position, department, school, and the university during their first year. Consideration should be given to the time it
takes to orient, socialize, and prepare for one’s workload. Some initial course release for course preparation and other
orientation tasks should be provided. Formal mentoring and professional development should be instituted for all junior
NTT faculty, where 1 to 2 senior faculty, trained by the university in successful approaches to mentoring, will be assigned
References
1.1 Columbia Faculty Handbook (2008)
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/vpaa/handbook/index.html;
1.2 Columbia Faculty Handbook (2008)--Section: Officers of Instruction
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/vpaa/handbook/index.html
1.3 Columbia Faculty Handbook (2008)--Section: Organization and Governance of the
Univesrity http://www.columbia.edu/cu/vpaa/handbook/organization.html
2.1 Cornell Faculty Handbook (2010)--Chapter 1: History, General Organziation, &
Governance Structures http://theuniversityfaculty.cornell.edu/handbook/Chapter1.pdf
2.2 Cornell Faculty Handbook (2010)--Chapter 2: Academic Appointments, Reappointment,
Tenure, and Promotion http://theuniversityfaculty.cornell.edu/handbook/Chapter2.pdf;
2.3 Cornell Faculty Handbook (2010)--Chapter 3: Benefits, Faculty Development, & Leaves of
Absence http://theuniversityfaculty.cornell.edu/handbook/Chapter3.pdf
3.1 Harvard FAS Appointment and Promotion Handbook (2010)
http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic851002.files/APPOINTMENT%20HANDBOOK%2011
_29-10%20as.pdf
4.1 Rules and Procedures of the Faculty of Princeton University and Other Provisions of
Concern to the Faculty (2010) http://www.princeton.edu/dof/policies/publ/fac/rules_toc/;
4.2 Sabbaticaal Leaves for Senior Lecturers at Princeton University (2007)
http://www.princeton.edu/dof/policies/publ/fac/SrLectLeaves/
5.1 New York University Faculty Handbook (2008)
References
6.1 Stanford University Faculty Handbook (2010) http://facultyhandbook.stanford.edu/
7.1 The University of California Academic Personnel Manual (2010): Section II
Appointment and Promotion http://www.ucop.edu/acadadv/acadpers/apm/sec2-pdf.html
7.2 The University of California Academic Personnel Manual (2010): Sabbatical, Section
APM 740-11 a-c http://www.ucop.edu/acadadv/acadpers/apm/apm-740.pdf
7.3 Bylaws of the Academic Senate University of California
http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/senate/manual/
8.1 Upenn Handbook for Faculty and Academic Administrators (2009)
http://www.upenn.edu/assoc-provost/handbook/
9.1 UW Faculty Code and Governance (2010)
http://www.washington.edu/admin/rules/policies/FCG/FCGTOC.html
9.2 UW Faculty Code, Ch. 21, Organization of the Faculty
http://www.washington.edu/admin/rules/policies/FCG/FCCH21.html
9.3 UW Faculty Code, Ch. 24, Appointment and Promotion of Faculty Members
http://www.washington.edu/admin/rules/policies/FCG/FCCH24.html
9.4 UW Presedential Executive Orders 33, Professional Leave
https://www.washington.edu/admin/rules/policies/PO/EO33.html
10.1 Yale Faculty Handbook (2010) http://provost.yale.edu/node/49/attachment