Academic Affairs  


7.3 Evaluation Processes at the Department and School Levels

A. Overview

The purpose of the appointment and reappointment evaluation of an Instructor is to appraise, on the record to date, the candidate’s standing in his or her field. Decisions on appointment and reappointment are subject to the exercise of professional and scholarly judgment and discretion by departmental faculty and academic leadership at the School level.

The University recognizes that there are significant variations in how candidates qualify for and secure appointment according to field and discipline. Candidates come from different backgrounds and receive different educational training. In addition, there may be great variation in emphasis among the components of activity (i.e., scholarship, teaching, clinical care, as applicable). Nevertheless, all appointments have in common the requirement of excellence, however measured.

Procedures for the evaluation process at the department and School levels are described below. Departures from these guidelines should be rare and for good reason. Procedural questions should be addressed to the Office of Academic Affairs.

Instructions for assembly of each component of the appointment or reappointment file, including the process for compiling a list of proposed evaluators (referees and trainees) is available on the Office of Academic Affairs website

B. Confidentiality

The entire appointment or reappointment proceedings during which specific candidates are discussed are to be held in strict confidence by all participants. The opinions expressed by the school or department faculty or by internal or external referees shall not be discussed with the candidate or with other parties. This policy ensures that the candidacy of each person is treated with utmost confidentiality. It also provides an opportunity for those making the evaluation to have the freedom to provide written evaluation without fearing that their comments will be shared.

A breach of confidence by a participant in an appointment or reappointment case is a serious breach of professional ethics and may subject the individual to discipline.

The Vice Dean of the School of Medicine or the department chair (or his or her designate) will convey whatever information needs to be transmitted to the candidate.

C. Role of the Department Chair

The department chair is responsible for compliance with School guidelines regarding Instructor appointments and reappointments. He or she is to ensure that those conducting evaluations are fully informed about these guidelines in order to avoid delays and other problems due to deficiencies in procedure and documentation.

The ultimate decision on whether to forward the appointment or reappointment to the Vice Dean of the School of Medicine with a positive or negative recommendation is made by the department chair in his or her judgment and discretion.

D. Timing of Evaluations

After a candidate has been identified, the department chair, or his or her designate, is responsible for seeing that the appointment file is completed in a timely manner. Departments are advised to allow a minimum of thirty days in advance of the effective date for completion of school review. Under normal circumstances, reappointment reviews for Instructors are initiated approximately four months in advance of the appointment end date to secure a School decision in a timely manner.

E. Departmental Review

Departments vary in their practices regarding preparation and approval of Instructor appointment and reappointment files. Normally the Instructor candidate’s supervising faculty mentor participates in the appointment or reappointment review. At a minimum, a recommendation must be approved by the department chair and division chief, if applicable.

F. Review by the Office of Academic Affairs

The appointment or reappointment file is submitted by the department chair to the Office of Academic Affairs for review by the Vice Dean of the School of Medicine (or a designate). The Vice Dean may, in his or her judgment, make a negative recommendation on the file or take such other action as deemed appropriate, including request additional information or remand the action to the department.

pdfPrintable version of this section of Chapter 7 (pdf)

Stanford Medicine Resources:

Footer Links: