Clinical faculty tracks and academic success at the University of California Medical Schools.

PURPOSE

To describe the five faculty series for medical school faculty in the University of California (UC) system, their criteria for advancement, associated challenges, and the different ways they are used by each school.

METHOD

During 2001-02, the associate dean for academic affairs at each UC medical school was interviewed for information on the number of faculty in each academic series, the role of each series, and problematic issues associated with them. The averaged merit and promotion results for each series for 1999-2002 at the University of California, Davis, School of Medicine, were examined.

RESULTS

The two clinical faculty series showed the most variability among the UC campuses for number of faculty, and strategy for appointment and advancement. The percentage of faculty in the Clinical X series varied from 8% to 39% at the five campuses. All campuses agreed that faculty in the Clinical X series must participate in applied or translational clinical investigation or educational investigation, and disseminate their work. All campuses required that the Ladder-Rank and In-Residence faculty devote the majority of their time to hypothesis-driven research. At University of California, Davis, the two clinical series had the highest approval rates for merits and promotion actions. The Ladder-Rank series had the highest denial rate for merits and promotion.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical series in the UC system are used differently at the five medical schools. Appointing junior faculty in series with minimal expectations as a "safe starting place" is favored for building long-term faculty. Faculty in all series tend to do well in the academic review process, indicating that these series define distinct expectations. Clinical faculty's accomplishments are increasingly understood, valued, and rewarded.