|
|||
|
|||
|
Main Menu
|
Minutes of the Council Meetings >>SCHOOL OF MEDICINE
The minutes from the Dean’s Meeting on June 18, 2003 and Council Transitional Meeting on May 20, 2003 were unanimously approved. II. APPOINTMENT, PROMOTION & TENURE COMMITTEE ANNUAL REPORT Dr. John Brown, Chair of the APT Committee, presented the annual report to the Faculty Council. He believed that overall the Appointment, Promotion and Tenure process at the School went well and that all members of the APT took their responsibilities seriously and gave each candidate a thorough, fair and objective analysis. Dr. Brown noted that the attendance at the APT meetings was quite good in comparison to prior years. He reported that of 51 faculty seeking promotion, 39 (or 76%) were promoted and there were 5 appeals, 3 of which were successful and are included in the number above. Four faculty members sought conversion to the tenure track and three of these applicants were (75%) successful. Dr. Brown added that nine existing faculty sought the award of tenure and five (56%) received tenure, including 1 of 2 faculty members who appealed an initial negative decision. There were 18 candidates for initial appointment to the faculty of the School of Medicine at or above the rank of Associate Professor. He stated that all 18 were approved for appointment at the requested rank. Seven of these individuals sought the immediate award of tenure and six (86% of the new faculty requesting tenure) received tenure on initial appointment. Dr. Brown explained that the new faculty members who received tenure already held tenure positions or equivalent at other institutions. Dr. Brown pointed out that one problem involved the solicitation of outside review letters for the candidates by the Department Chairs. He explained that many of the letters that were received were from inappropriate referees, including current or former collaborators, mentors or friends suggested by the candidates, as well as others not well qualified to judge academic appointments. The APT Committee directed Dr. Brown to meet with Drs. Clarkson and Rosenthal to try to resolve the problem. On the recommendation of the APT Committee and Dr. Rosenthal, the best way to resolve the problem was for the Dean to meet with Chairs that are not performing adequately in this regard and transfer the duty of seeking outside letters of reference to the Office of Faculty and Professional Affairs. Dr. Brown noted that a Promotion and Tenure Workshop was held in March for those faculty planning to seek promotion or tenure in upcoming years. Guidelines and requirements for promotion and tenure at the School of Medicine were discussed. III. EXECUTIVE CURRICULUM COMMITTEE ANNUAL REPORT Dr. Andrew Taylor presented the annual report of the Executive Curriculum Committee to the Faculty Council. He stated that the Executive Curriculum and Advisory Committees completed the following activities: 1) completed the full cycle of organ modules and started to review its strengths and weaknesses. 2) planned and composed cases and tutorials, trained students and faculty in Problem Based Learning (PBL), carried out 10 weeks including innovation with Dr. Tiberius of gradually withdrawing facilitator. 3) revised the initial 5 months Core of Basic Science into the following order: Cell Physiology, Biochemistry (overlap with Molecular Genetics and clinical Genetics), Physiology and Pharmacology, Immunology and Infectious Diseases, Anatomy, Histology and Pathology. 4) promoted Drs. Karl Muench and Luis Elsas to develop a four year model or “pathway” of emphasis in genetics, 5) revised the Junior and Senior year requirements and elective schedule to allow more flexibility in experiencing electives much earlier but all core clinical rotations will still be completed by October of the 4th year. Dr. Taylor further discussed other minor changes in the curriculum which included: 1) core clerkships increased to 52 weeks, 2) two weeks of Anesthesia became a core, 3) Psychiatry increased to 6 weeks, 4) Senior Geriatrics/Psychiatry discontinued, 5) ER/ICU or Radiology 4-week courses required by graduation, 6) Geriatric medicine became a 2 week required course (not core), and 7) Medicine and Surgery sub-internships required. Dr. Taylor explained that the Committee began to review new courses beginning with Core and early Modules and Longitudinal Themes. He added that the Committee addressed the upcoming LCME focus on frequent exams, Biochemistry course, speed of return of grades to students, and the success or failure of modules and PBL. Dr. Taylor added that the Committee was working on the general review and clarification of the meaning of “F” and “D”. IV. GRADING SYSTEM UPDATE Dr. Mark Multach reported on the following issues regarding the grading system: 1) how were grades determined and what defined a “marginal” grade, 2) who decided when to use remediation and how would it be implemented, 3) what new rules would be designed, and 4) what was the impact of the Executive Promotion Committee’s determinations. Dr. Robert Hernandez gave a brief history of the UMSM grading and promotions policies from 1995 to 2003. Dr. Hernandez further explained that in 2001-02 the grading system consisted of “Pass” or “Fail” and the criteria for dismissal or other action included an “F’ in one or more courses, an overall average < 2 SD’s and multiple grades near the bottom of the class. He noted that although the grading system was changed a percentage of students were still always more than 2 SD’s below the mean. Dr. Hernandez reiterated that the means and SD’s still varied considerably and students could not easily identify a poor performance. The “multiple grades” near the bottom of the class was considered vague and continued to promote competition. He stated that there was a continued discord between Committee decisions and faculty feedback to students and some members of the Executive Promotions Committee expressed concern about the loss of rigid standards to guide the promotions decisions. Dr. Hernandez reported that in 2002-2003 the concept of “Marginal Grade” was introduced along with the percentage grading system of “Pass” or “Fail”. He explained that the criteria for action included Fail and/or Marginal Grade in one of more courses and multiple grades near the bottom of the class. This criteria warranted recommendations for dismissal or other action. Dr. Hernandez pointed out that one problem with the grading system was that few faculty used the Marginal Grade and some were not certain how to define “Marginal” and differentiate it from a Pass or Fail. Also, other faculty were not certain what to do with students who earned a Marginal Grade in their course. He stated that the Class Promotions Committees expressed concern about the lack of rigid standards to guide promotion decisions and their concern led to the process for Remediation of Fail and Marginal Grades. Dr. Hernandez explained that the Curriculum Advisory Committee voted to change the Marginal Grade to “D”. Therefore, while not failing, a “D” represented unsatisfactory performance and might require remediation. He noted that such a grade would be reviewed by the Class Promotions Committee and might result in an action. But a “D” was reported internally and would not appear on the official transcript. Dr. Hernandez discussed further changes for 2003-2004 and stated that the Curriculum Advisory Committee (CAC) agreed that both sections and courses should be considered when making decisions about progress and promotions. Also, the CAC voted to change the process for remediation of failing or D grade and students would not be allowed to remediate any grades until the Class Promotions Committee (CPC) reviewed progress. He emphasized that the CPC and the course coordinators would decide when and how remediation should take place. Below is a table which summaries the report presented by Dr. Robert Hernandez.
Dr Multach presented the following proposed changes in the grading system were made:
V. COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES Dr. Mian reviewed the list of Council representatives on the various Standing Committees of the Faculty Council. The following members were appointed or reappointed to serve as Council representatives:
VI. FACULTY CLUB Dr. Lewis demonstrated the blue prints for the temporary Faculty Club to be located on Park Plaza West. He explained that the temporary Faculty Council would be used for approximately 3 to 5 years and the constructions and finishes are estimated to be of low cost. The plans included a large dining area for approximately 100 people with table seating for 8 to 10. Au Bon Pain Restaurant would be considered for catering services. A seminar room which provide seating for 30 people and could divide into 2 sections and a small administrative office. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
