Personnel Cases

CAP is a faculty committee of the Academic Senate of UCSB. It participates in shared governance by making recommendations to the administration regarding academic personnel actions such as appointments, promotions, and non-routine merit advancements.

CAP consists of 15 faculty members (2024-25) drawn from the general campus and appointed by the Senate’s Committee on Committees. Each member typically serves a three-year term with roughly one-third of the members cycling off and one-third joining the committee each year. This structure and membership flow provide continuity from year to year, and allow the committee to maintain a significant number of experienced members while simultaneously renewing the committee with new members.

Members have the interests of the campus faculty as a whole as their responsibility; they do not represent their respective units in terms of advocacy for a department, school, division or college. Members are representative of their general areas primarily with respect to their expertise and their experience with a particular academic culture. To avoid conflict of interest, however, members are expressly recused from all discussions regarding personnel actions originating from their home department(s) and other cases in which there is a conflict of interest.

No. CAP forwards recommendations to the Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Personnel (AVC), the administrative officer chiefly responsible for academic personnel matters. Final decisions are made by the AVC, Executive Vice Chancellor, or Chancellor. Final decisions reflect the input of various independent reviewing agencies, including the department, dean, external referees, and CAP.

See announcements regarding the campus response to the COVID-19 pandemic, including a discussion of COVID-19 and Merit and Promotion Reviews.

The University of California Academic Personnel Manual (APM) and UCSB's Red Binder (RB) form the basis of CAP's procedures and guide CAP recommendations. The committee is charged with evaluating the accomplishments of candidates in the following areas as described in Red Binder I-75.V:

“The criteria for promotion and advancement in the professorial series are: (l) Teaching and Mentoring (2) Research and other Professional Creative Work (3) University and Public Service. …Superior intellectual attainment, as evidenced both in teaching and in research or other creative achievements, is an indispensable qualification for appointment or promotion to tenure positions in the Professor series.”

“The criteria for promotion and advancement in the Teaching Professor series are: (l) Teaching and Mentoring (2) Professional and/or Scholarly Achievement and Activity (3) University and Public Service. … Clear evidence and documentation of consistent and sustained excellence in teaching is an indispensable qualification for appointment or promotion to security of employment positions in the Teaching Professor series.”

In applying these criteria, CAP is guided by university and campus policy, and employs the collective experience of its members in striving for sound, fair, and equitable judgments.

Effective teaching is essential for any advancement and can be a deciding factor in cases of acceleration. In the professorial series, supervision of undergraduate and graduate students and other forms of mentorship also represent important teaching activities. In the Teaching Professor series, teaching is primary. Poor teaching can compromise an otherwise excellent case for a merit increase. At the same time, effective teaching cannot be the sole basis for advancement, especially in the professorial series.

Not on its own. Receipt of a grant can be a sign of scholarly achievement or a promise of future productivity, but the scholarly work itself is the basis for advancement. For assistant professors, receipt of grants may be one indication that the candidate is establishing or has established research independence, if the candidate is the Principal Investigator.

A lack of funding in a discipline that typically requires grant support for doing research can raise questions about the ongoing viability of the research enterprise. Such concerns should be addressed in the departmental letter.

Not on their own. As with success in garnering grants, receipt of awards and prizes can be a sign of achievement and recognition.

The expected amount and balance of service activities varies with rank. For assistant professors/assistant teaching professors, the expectation for university service is modest and usually takes the form of departmental service; most departments, fittingly, assign a light service load. At higher ranks, there is an expectation of increasing service to the campus and university. Although policy documents do not indicate which activities are more important than others, CAP’s practice has been to assign greater significance to campus-wide service than department service, especially for senior faculty, and more significance to departmental service than public service. However, CAP practice also recognizes significant service at every institutional level and encourages departments to contextualize service contributions in the case letter.

The Academic Senate provides this useful list of campus-wide service opportunities.

Service as an administrator can partially compensate for reduced achievement in other areas (see RB I-67).

Faculty are encouraged to engage in activities that promote diversity, equity, and inclusion. Although these contributions are not required for advancement or promotion, DEI contributions by faculty who engage in impactful activities while meeting the standards of excellence in their field or discipline are assessed for recognition and reward. DEI efforts, when substantive, should be noted in the appropriate section of a candidate’s bio-bibliography and described in their self-assessment. See Red Binder I-75-VI for more on contributions to DEI.

University and campus policy recognize research and teaching and mentoring as crucial criteria in the professorial series, and teaching as the primary criterion in the Teaching Professor series. The weight given to the additional review areas depends to some extent on the nature of the personnel action. In the Professor series, excellence in all areas of review is expected for advancement or acceleration; however, noteworthy achievement in research/creative activity is essential for advancement through the ranks and extraordinary accomplishments in this domain are recognized at a level commensurate with the significance of the achievement. The same is true for faculty in the Teaching Professor series, but with the primary emphasis on teaching. Research as a sole category of above-excellent achievement can be rewarded in the review process within the Professor series, and teaching within the Teaching Professor series, above-excellent accomplishments in another review area alone cannot. In career reviews (promotion to Associate Professor or Professor, and advancement to Professor Step VI or Above Scale), the criterion of “superior intellectual attainment” in both research and teaching and mentoring is considered essential, with the added expectation of excellence in the other review areas.

Expectations in all review areas increase at higher ranks and steps. CAP typically compares the individual candidate’s productivity across successive review cycles in the course of assessing accomplishment at the current rank and step.

Start with Red Binder I-75: Appointment and Advancement. The Red Binder is maintained by Academic Personnel in consultation with the Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Personnel, and changes are subject to campus review. RB I-75 is intended to provide an overview of the policies and procedures governing appointment and advancement by which CAP abides. It covers in a concise manner the nature of Senate faculty ranks and steps, normal periods of service within steps, materials required for personnel actions, the nature of the review process, criteria for evaluation, procedural matters, and confidentiality and personnel safeguards. RB I-36, which discusses accelerations, and RB I-4, which addresses eligibility, case deferrals and mandatory reviews, are also helpful to read.

The bio-bibliography is the document of record. All items discussed in the candidate’s self-assessment, the departmental letter and the dean’s letter should appear in the bio-bibliography. CAP can only credit items that are appropriately included in the bio-bibliography.

An accelerated action is one that exceeds a normative advance (understood as a one-step advancement without additional off-scale supplement) in an on-time review (i.e. after 2, 3, or 4 years, depending on rank). Three types of acceleration may be awarded, either on their own or in some combination.

The first is an off-cycle review: one that is put forward before the normal time at step has been completed. According to RB 1-4.III, “Early advancements abbreviating normative time of review are only permitted at the rank of Assistant Professor/Assistant Teaching Professor in cases of promotion (see RB I-36 for guidance on expectations for acceleration) or in cases of lateral promotion from the overlapping steps of Assistant Professor/Assistant Teaching Professor V and VI, and Associate Professor/Associate Teaching Professor IV and V (see RB I-37 for important parameters governing advancement at the overlapping steps).” Although this type of acceleration is currently allowed by policy, CAP takes cognizance of the fact that when the review period is shorter than usual, the amount of teaching and mentoring and service is likely to be quantitatively and temporally less. It may be in the candidate’s own interest to wait for a regular review. For any proposed off-cycle review, departments should make very clear the special justification for such an action.

The second type of acceleration comes at the time of a normally-scheduled review and involves “skipping” one or more steps. Accelerations of this type must be supported by superlative performance in all areas alongside extraordinary research productivity in the Professor series and extraordinary teaching in the Teaching Professor series.

The third type involves advancement to the next normal step at the time of a normally-scheduled review, but with an increase in off-scale supplement, typically limited to ½ step (see Red Binder I-36). Accelerations of this type must also be supported with evidence of specific extraordinary accomplishments aligned with RB I-36 criteria for acceleration, and with no deficiencies in the record.

Red Binder I-36 sets out the policy on accelerations. CAP adheres to this policy and encourages departments and candidates to give it close attention. For work that exceeds normative expectations in any of the three candidates can receive acceleration, depending on the extent of the achievement, expressed in half-step intervals for the case as a whole. In approaching such matters, CAP adopts a holistic assessment of the candidate’s achievements in the current review period. A holistic assessment takes into account the candidate’s scholarly profile or focus, the disciplinary context of their work, including discipline-specific normative expectations for each area of review (alongside campus standards), and the candidate’s achievements in prior merit review periods, among other factors. In the professorial series, extraordinary merit in Research and Creative Activity can be recognized with up to a 1-step acceleration; Work that is above normative in Teaching and Mentoring and/or University, Public and Professional Service can be recognized with up to a ½-step acceleration, together or in each area. Such accelerations are to be awarded by “skipping” a step, or by 1/2 step increments in additional off-scale supplement (see RB I-36 for more information and possible exceptions). Proposed accelerations should be explicitly justified by specific accomplishments. In the Teaching Professor series, where the three areas of review are teaching and mentoring, professional and/or scholarly achievement and activity, and university, public, and professional service, extraordinary merit in teaching and mentoring can be recognized with up to a 1-step acceleration. Please see RB I-36 for additional provisions of this policy.

This varies with the type of personnel action. At the time of a career review – promotion to Associate and Full Professor/Teaching Professor, and advancement to Step VI and Above Scale – CAP evaluates the candidate’s full academic career. For “formal appraisals,” CAP may make “preliminary assessments of the prospects of candidates for eventual promotion to tenure rank” (AMP 220-83) based on previous work or work in progress. For all other advancements, CAP focuses on work accomplished and recognition received during the review period. However, CAP may take into consideration preceding personnel actions in order to identify recurring issues or provide context for apparent weaknesses that may arise in a single review period.

CAP relies largely on a department's presentation of a candidate's work and on commentary offered by the dean, as well as the expertise of its members from across the campus. For career reviews CAP also depends on the reports of external referees. CAP is not permitted to collect or seek information about the candidate’s work from other sources. CAP’s primary task is to ensure: (i) that evidence in the file supports the action proposed by the department, (ii) that treatment of faculty across all areas of the campus is equitable, and (iii) that the high academic standards articulated in the Red Binder and APM are maintained.

See RB I-46 for guidelines for letters of evaluation. External letters for promotion to Associate Professor with tenure, promotion to Professor, and advancement to Professor Above Scale should come predominantly from full professors who are independent of, and not closely associated with, the candidate.

In the Teaching Professor series letters of evaluation may come from UCSB Senate faculty, external to the department, who have conducted a peer review of the candidate’s teaching. Peer evaluation may include classroom visits or review of recorded classes, commentary on course syllabi, reading assignments, and examinations.

In relatively small fields or subdisciplines, it may be difficult not to call upon collaborators for a letter. When a department deems it necessary to include a letter from the candidate’s collaborator or coauthor, the department should provide information in the coded list of reviewers about the nature of the association and a justification for choosing someone closely associated with the candidate. Such justifications are also necessary when letters are solicited from individuals at a rank below full professor. This type of information and deviations from policy should be noted and explained in the qualifications section of the document identifying external referees (RB I-48) and will form part of the case assessment.

Per Red Binder, I-46-IV, “The letters solicited by the department should come from scholars who have not been closely associated with the candidate as collaborators in research, or as teachers, colleagues, or personal friends. A minimum of six analytic letters is required.”

External referees should be sufficiently distanced from the candidate, to provide an objective appraisal of the candidate's work.

The following would NOT be considered independent reviewers:

• the candidate’s family member
• a personal friend of the candidate
• the candidate’s research or creative activity collaborator within the past four (4) years, including but not limited to a co-author on publications
• has a current grant or a pending grant application with the candidate, or is currently writing a grant proposal with the candidate;
• has a current or past PhD or postdoc mentoring relationship with the candidate
• individuals whose impartiality may be questioned due to the circumstances surrounding the case. In these cases, the department should determine whether a reasonable person with the relevant facts of the case would question the referee’s impartiality.

Providing context: CAP finds the single most common deficiency in department letters is the lack of substantive context and evidence for judging the importance of items in a bio-bibliography. Simply enumerating items does not add information above and beyond the bio-bibliography, which is the document of record. For example, if the candidate has received an award, the department should explain the nature of the award, its selectivity, and its significance. Regarding university and departmental service, the department should describe the effectiveness, impact, and effort of such service. On teaching, the department should provide context for the Student Evaluation of Teaching (or SET) scores and students’ comments with respect to the nature and size of courses taught and any extenuating circumstances that may have affected the outcomes. On mentoring, the department should indicate the candidate’s opportunity to mentor relative to undergraduate and graduate student numbers and areas and the candidate’s effectiveness as mentor rather than simply providing a list of mentees. Mentoring effectiveness can be manifested in student awards, job placement of graduate students, active participation of students in conferences, and so on. Regarding diversity, equity, and inclusion, chairs are strongly encouraged to highlight the impact of any contributions and to evaluate the effort made and the effectiveness of the activity.

Addressing problems: Obvious shortcomings or problematic comments in outside letters should be dealt with straightforwardly; thoughtful evaluation and discussion provide credibility to the department’s analysis, including when departmental findings may differ from an external review that mentions shortcomings. The department should also describe actions undertaken by the candidate to remedy any weaknesses raised in previous reviews. One-sided advocacy and a lack of analysis of the evidence undermines the credibility of the department’s letter.

Department vote: Departments should report only one (i.e. the final) vote and recommend only one action, regardless of internal deliberations that may have involved more than one possible recommendation.

Defining period of review: The start date of the review period for a new faculty member in their first personnel review is the date of the CV in the candidate’s appointment case; it is not the effective start date of the appointment itself. In this way, the candidate is given appropriate credit for accomplishments (publications, grants, awards, etc.) that have occurred in the time period between applying for the position and the start of employment.

Use of external letters: CAP carefully reads external referee letters; there is no need for them to be quoted at length in department letters. Of course, select quotations in the context of the department’s analysis are appropriate.

Publishing venues: The department should provide an honest assessment and supporting evidence of the quality of publishing venues.

Collaborative work: When candidates participate in large collaborations, the department should include a discussion of the candidate’s contributions, as well as standards concerning authorship in the discipline. This is especially important for publications with numerous authors and when the contributions from the candidate cannot be readily discerned from author order or by other means. Establishing the intellectual contributions and independence of assistant professors is particularly crucial in promotion cases.

Crediting publications: When reporting on publications within the review period, the department should take care to include only those that were formally accepted for publication during the review period (“in press”), and those that were published during the review period but had not been in press at the time of the preceding review. This reporting protocol ensures that all items are appropriately credited and that none are counted twice.

Length: The department letter should be analytical and succinct, typically just a few pages. Detailed descriptions of publications and other accomplishments are much less helpful than a brief account of how or why they are important.

This is a matter best judged by the candidate and department, and departments and divisions vary in what self-assessments they require. Research self-assessments can help reviewers understand the nature of research that is outside their area of expertise. Teaching and Mentoring self-assessments might address concerns that have been raised by students, and can be effective if they contextualize the candidate’s teaching philosophy and describe actions taken to mitigate any obvious weaknesses in the teaching record. Candidates may also avail themselves of the opportunity to describe the nature of service and DEI activities that are customarily only briefly summarized, if at all, in the bio-bibliography. A self-assessment may also be useful in addressing concerns that arose in previous reviews. But self-assessments should be succinct and analytical, typically 5 pages or less.

The responsibility for the bio-bibliography lies with the candidate. In its preparation of the case memo, the department must ensure that its analysis is fully consistent with the content of the bio-bibliography. (As a rule, if an item is not documented in the bio-bibliography with appropriate detail, it has no place in the department letter.) It is therefore incumbent on the department to work with the candidate to ensure that all aspects of the bio-bibliography are complete and accurate before the case leaves the department.

Provided the items were formally accepted for publication during the period under review, and documentation of their acceptance is included in the dossier, these items are counted towards the current review. Any items that were listed as “in press” and thus counted in the preceding review are not considered new items in the current review (where they will normally have been moved to published items).

Not usually. Because these items have not yet been subject to peer review, they generally do not form the basis for promotions or career advancements. However, they can be useful when it is necessary to establish that the candidate has a trajectory of continued productivity: in formal appraisals; and at regular merits when the preparation of a major work, such as a book, takes longer than a single review cycle. In such cases, the candidate’s department may discuss a work in progress as evidence of continued and future productivity, but should generally refrain from detailed analysis since the item cannot be credited until published or moved to press.

CAP is broadly aware that the venues for research publication and creative activity vary across fields. For example, in some fields, highly-selective refereed conference proceedings may be regarded as having academic impact comparable to that of first-rate journal publications. In such circumstances, departments should document the selectivity of the conference and the archival nature of the proceedings, and designate short (1–2 page) articles or extended abstracts as such. In other fields, online creative-archival works or museum exhibitions may be considered as having weighty academic impact. In such circumstances, departments should provide evidence of the selectivity of the venue and of peer review, which can take various forms in this context.

The department should, with the help of the candidate and other collaborators, explain the nature of collaborative work including the proportion of the candidate's individual contribution. For major actions such as promotion to tenure, it is essential to document independent scholarly contributions and intellectual leadership of the candidate. The greater the number of authors on collaborative research, the greater the need for the candidate and department to spell out the candidate’s specific contribution.

CAP recognizes that the customs of author order differ among disciplines and even sub-disciplines in a field. In some disciplines, the last author on a multi-authored article is the senior and/or corresponding author, while the first author is the student who performed most of the work. In other disciplines, authors are listed in descending order of their contributions to the article. In yet others, authors are listed alphabetically. The department should state the convention used in the publications under review so that CAP can credit authorship appropriately. An explanation of the significance of the order of authorship (for example first, last, lead or alphabetical) can be very helpful and should be included in the departmental letter.

Yes. Publication of articles in broadly respected journals and publication of books with academic presses suggest peer approval and high likelihood of professional impact. It is important that the department’s letter indicates the stature in the field of the journals or publishing venues.

CAP memos are written to convey the outcome of the committee’s deliberations on a candidate’s accomplishment in each of the four areas and therefore establish a transparent basis for its overall recommendation concerning advancement. For practical reasons, CAP memos must be brief. As a result, CAP notes the accomplishments of the candidate but does not usually describe them in detail. Look for CAP’s recognition of accomplishments in the appraisal assigned to each of the four areas. The committee’s final recommendation for advancement in rank, step and/or off-scale supplement is summarized in the final paragraph. CAP memos occasionally note areas in need of improvement, and research and creative activities that cannot yet be credited, with a phrase such as: “CAP looks forward to … in the next review.”

All candidates are entitled to receive copies of reviewing agency reports after the conclusion of a review. The request for reports can be made by checking the appropriate box at the bottom of the procedural safeguard statement that is submitted with each case. The request can also be made at a future date. CAP recommends that candidates request and review these reports. The reports can provide context for the outcome of a review. They can also be useful in preparation for future personnel actions.

Departments do not automatically receive reviewing agency reports after conclusion of a review; candidates must explicitly release the reports to the department. Although the decision to share the reports with the department is a personal one, most departments find the reports useful in preparing letters for future personnel actions.

The following is a list of frequently misplaced items and their appropriate placement within the bio-bibliography. The items are grouped according to the most relevant sections of the bio-bibliography. With few exceptions, items should be listed only once.

PART I. RESEARCH AND CREATIVE ACTIVITIES

• A copy of the email from a journal editor or publisher indicating that an article or book has been accepted for publication prior to the August 31 cutoff date for the current review period. Include a PDF of the email in the One of a Kinds (OAKs) folder.

Lectures

• Academic Presentations at UCSB in the context of a regional, national, or international scholarly conference or symposium in which non-UCSB faculty or graduate students are participating are listed as Academic Presentations in the Research section of the bio-bib for Professor Series faculty and in the Professional and/or Scholarly Achievement and Activity section for faculty in the Teaching Professor series. Talks given at internal UCSB symposia and conferences are counted as university service or teaching.
• Talks given at local public venues, e.g. Natural History Museum, Art Museum. List under Public Service.
• Providing media interviews or appearances. List in Other Scholarly Activities in the Research section of the bio-bib for Professor Series faculty and in the Professional and/or Scholarly Achievement and Activity section for faculty in the Teaching Professor series.
• Media citations (work cited without interviews). List in Other Scholarly Activities in the Research section of the bio-bib for Professor Series faculty and in the Professional and/or Scholarly Achievement and Activity section for faculty in the Teaching Professor series.
• Reprints of previously published (and credited) material. List in Other Scholarly Activities in the Research section of the bio-bib for Professor Series faculty and in the Professional and/or Scholarly Achievement and Activity section for faculty in the Teaching Professor series.

Research Awards & Honors

• Named seminars or prestigious talks at conferences, List the named seminar or award here and the lecture under Academic Presentations in the Research section of the bio-bib for Professor Series faculty and in the Professional and/or Scholarly Achievement and Activity section for faculty in the Teaching Professor series.
• Plenaries and keynote addresses should be listed as such under Academic Presentations in the Research section of the bio-bib for Professor Series faculty and in the Professional and/or Scholarly Achievement and Activity section for faculty in the Teaching Professor series.

PART II. TEACHING and MENTORING

Undergraduate Projects Directed

• Supervising a student’s Honors Thesis. List under Undergraduate Projects Directed.
• Mentoring students in EUREKA (Early Undergraduate Research and Knowledge Acquisition). List under Other Teaching Contributions or Undergraduate Projects Directed, but not both.
• Mentoring students in UC Leads (University of California Leadership Excellence through Advanced Degrees). List under Other Teaching Contributions or Undergraduate Projects Directed, but not both.
• Mentoring students funded by the Faculty Research Assistance Program (FRAP) or the Undergraduate Research and Creative Activities (URCA). List under Other Teaching Contributions or Undergraduate Projects Directed, but not both.
• Mentoring design teams and team projects. List under Other Teaching Contributions or Undergraduate Projects Directed, but not both.

Graduate Committees

• Membership on graduate student committees at other universities.
• Fellowships or other funding secured independently by students you mentored. Provide details in “Optional Info” column.
• Awards won by students you mentored. Provide details in “Optional Info” field.

Other Teaching Contributions

• Mentoring students from high school or community college.
• Mentoring teachers from high school or community college.
• Mentoring students in INSET (Internships in Nanosystems Science, Engineering and Technology).
• Awards won by teams you mentored.
• Hosting graduate students or postdoctoral scholars visiting from other institutions. List here or under Other Supervision/Mentoring.
• Delivering education-based talks, e.g. GRIT (Ground-Breaking Innovative Technology).
• Talks given to your own department or to other departments or institutes on campus may be listed under Other Teaching Contributions or University Service, but not both.
• Mentoring students in EUREKA (Early Undergraduate Research and Knowledge Acquisition). List under Other Supervising/Mentoring or Undergraduate Projects Directed, but not both.
• Mentoring students in UC Leads (University of California Leadership Excellence through Advanced Degrees). List under Other Supervising/Mentoring or Undergraduate Projects Directed, but not both.
• Mentoring students funded by the Faculty Research Assistance Program (FRAP) or the Undergraduate Research and Creative Activities (URCA). List under Other Supervising/Mentoring or Undergraduate Projects, but not both.
• Mentoring design teams and team projects. List under Other Supervising/Mentoring or Undergraduate Projects, but not both.

PART III. UNIVERSITY, PUBLIC and PROFESSIONAL SERVICE

University Service

• Activities involving development or promotion of the University or student recruitment.
• Leadership positions (e.g., Director) in campus institutes.

Public Service

• Activities involving outreach to high schools and community colleges.
• Talks given at local public venues, e.g., Natural History Museum, Art Museum.

What Should NOT be Included?

• Oral or poster presentations made by students, postdoctoral scholars, or collaborators at conferences and workshops.
• Attendance at conferences or workshops. (Exceptions are for candidates in the LSOE series who attend for the purpose of expanding their pedagogical skills or their expertise in their respective field of study.)

Reviewing & Refereeing Activity

• Membership on review panels for NSF, NIH, or other funding agencies. Indicate the nature of the activity and dates.

Special Appointments

• Elected positions in professional societies.
• Leadership positions (e.g., Director) in campus institutes.

Other Professional Contributions

• Organizing conferences or workshops.
• Chair of conference panel sessions.
• Providing expert opinion as a panelist or discussant for a government agency.