Passed: April 26, 2024
Vote results and comments
Posted: December 2023
Sponsors: Faculty Members on the Taskforce
Reviewed and supported by: AFPSF, CAPP, EPC and RTE Working Group (reviews at bottom of this page)
Resolution
April 4, 2024
A Teaching Professor (TP) track with three ranks (assistant, associate, full) is proposed. The TP track will create attractive career paths for individuals whose contributions to education both in their unit and in their fields is at a high level and supported by rigorous review. The TP track will create a cadre of non-tenured, professorial faculty whose pedagogic expertise extends and complements what is already brought to campus by faculty appointed on the lecturer (L), clinical professor (CP), professor-of-practice (PoP), and tenure tracks. Furthermore, the TP track will strengthen Cornell’s ability to recruit and retain the very best educators.
Terminology and Acronyms
A substantial component of this proposal is concerned with “environmental impact”—how would a teaching professor track impact other titleholders whose responsibilities include teaching? Here are the “neighbor tracks” and the associated ranks:
the TT the tenure track (assistant, associate, full)
the L track the lecturer track (lecturer, senior lecturer)
the CP track the clinical professor track (assistant, associate, full)
the PoP track the professor-of-practice track (assistant, associate, full)
Faculty on tracks have titles, e.g., associate clinical professor. Titles have descriptions that are specified in Section 3.1 of the Faculty Handbook.There is TT teaching and RTE teaching. Important contributions to the teaching environment are made by visiting faculty, graduate students, and postdocs as well as those having the title “teaching associate” and “instructor”. However, this cohort of teachers does not impact the design of the proposed TP track.
Individuals who are hired into an RTE teaching position for the first time are said to be appointed. Current faculty can be renewed at the same rank, promoted to a higher rank, or transitioned to a different track.
Although the L track has two ranks, it is sometimes useful to distinguish between two types of senior lecturers:
SL refers to a senior lecturer who has not yet been renewed as a senior lecturer.
SL+ refers to a senior lecturer who has been renewed at least once as a senior lecturer.
Motivation
There are several interrelated reasons why it is important to create a TP track:
1. Equity. The university already recognizes the importance of specialized instruction through its creation of the CP and PoP tracks. It should now expand that recognition and create comparable opportunities for qualified individuals on the L track. Data provided to us through the Office of the Dean of Faculty underscores the need. Approximately 35% of all credit-hours-taught across the university are delivered by approximately 500 RTE faculty of whom over 370 (70%) are on the L track. Yet, none of those L track faculty have access to a professorial appointment.
2. Recruiting and Retention. In some fields it is increasingly difficult to compete with peer institutions who do offer professorial titles for teaching positions. These factors can make it difficult to recruit and retain the best teachers.
3. Professional Advancement. The two-rank L track, created over fifty years ago, does not inspire long-term commitment, creativity, and professional growth in the same way that a three-rank professorial track would. By creating a three-rank TP track we increase the opportunities to reward professional advancement of those faculty and the associated benefits that accrue to the educational environment, including activities such as curriculum development, pedagogical innovation, degree program leadership, and external visibility.
The Enabling Legislation Approach
When it comes to managing faculty appointments and promotions, Cornell operates as a loose confederation of colleges. University-wide descriptions of all the available titles are specified in the Faculty Handbook, but the implementation details are left to the colleges. Even for tenure reviews, the colleges have considerable latitude within the guidelines specified by the Faculty Advisory Committee on Tenure Appointments (FACTA).
With a few minor exceptions, RTE appointments, promotions, renewals, and transitions are totally controlled by the colleges — there is no university-level component to an RTE review. Thus, the colleges manage their lecturer, extension associate, and research associate track reviews with just a modicum of guidance from the Faculty Handbook.
The same is true for the existing RTE professorial titles, although for these tracks the Faculty Senate added a level of university oversight. Before it can use an RTE professorial title, the sponsoring unit is required to submit a proposal to the Faculty Senate in which it justifies the use of the title, and how it intends to handle appointments, promotions, renewals, and transitions. The required format of the proposal is detailed in the enabling legislation together with the steps that must be taken before use of the title is authorized. Through the enabling legislation mechanism, the Faculty Senate is effectively telling the colleges that an ad hoc implementation of these long-term professorial appointments is unacceptable, and that the university requires a carefully documented implementation plan before authorizing use of the title.
Guiding Principles
As much as possible, the T4 adhered to the following principles in its formulation of the TP title description and the enabling legislation.
P1. Respect the Diversity of Teaching Needs Across the Campus
The enabling legislation (EL) needs to be flexible enough to accommodate the fact that teaching needs vary across the disciplines and evolve with time. One college may initially avoid making TP appointments at the assistant or associate level and simply switch all its SL+ faculty to the TP track. Another college may choose to initially focus on the hiring of assistant and associate TPs. Still another may decide that for the time being, they have no need to make TP appointments.
Larger colleges will have to accommodate variation in TP usage across departments.
P2. The L Track Remains
The L track will exist for the foreseeable future. The TP track is intended for long-term members of the faculty, yet there will always be short-term teaching needs; and, it will take time for colleges to implement TP tracks. No change should be made to the L track title description at this time.
P3. Model the enabling legislation after what is already on the books for the CP and PoP Tracks.
High standards and rigorous review processes are essential components of an RTE professorial track. There must be evidence of dedication to the university and of impact beyond the immediate classroom or laboratory.
P4. Think through side effects.
Needlessly exclusionary title descriptions or divisive transition processes could create morale problems that undermine the teaching environment.
The Resolution
Whereas the current range of RTE teaching titles does not always meet the instructional needs of colleges and schools,
Whereas it is important for Cornell to staff its RTE teaching positions with the very best faculty given the large fraction of instruction that is handled by that group,
Whereas it is important that a teaching professor track be governed by carefully developed procedures for all appointments, renewals, and promotions,
Whereas it is equally important that there be carefully developed procedures for processing a request to transition an individual from the lecturer track to the teaching professor track,
Whereas all such procedures should be shared among the colleges to promote transparency and the dissemination of best practices,
Be it resolved that the title of teaching professor be added to the university’s “approved list of titles” and that the attached title description be adopted,
Be it further resolved that a college or school that wishes to use the teaching professor title must comply with the attached enabling legislation and have its proposal approved by the Faculty Senate.
Teaching Professor Title Description
April 4, 2024
Below is a Teaching Professor title description that is carefully modeled after the Faculty Handbook descriptions that already exist for the CP, PoP, and RP tracks. Title descriptions in the Faculty Handbook include “Administrative Notes.” The notes typically cover HR issues and various technical details related to appointments. We make recommendations as to what the notes should say, understanding that the Office of Human Resources, University Counsel, and the Provost typically contribute to this portion of the entry.
Title Description
The teaching professor titles are available only for long term, non-tenure-track faculty members whose efforts are devoted primarily to the teaching mission of the university and whose skill and independence are at the level of the tenure-track faculty. Assistant, associate, and full teaching professors are expected to achieve a similar level of professional expertise within their areas of responsibility as their counterparts on the tenure track. Teaching professors at higher ranks can demonstrate impact inside and outside the university through activities such as pedagogical innovation, curriculum development, and leadership roles. Consistent with their rank and local needs, teaching professors are also expected to contribute teaching-related service, especially in areas that concern advising, mentoring, curriculum, and the management of degree programs. The teaching professor titles may not be used to replicate the combined teaching and research responsibilities of the tenure track faculty. Accordingly, job duties of a teaching professor appointment should not require conducting research, publishing its results, or advising graduate research students. Teaching professors may choose to participate in such activities, especially when related to pedagogy, and should stay current with research in their area to best incorporate it into their teaching. Nevertheless, research activity must not be required for appointment, reappointment, or promotion along the teaching professor track. Decisions about appointment and promotion are made on the authority of the dean; approval by the provost or the Board of Trustees is not necessary. Promotion guidelines are comparable in rigor and process to those for tenure-track faculty. Teaching professors (all ranks) have university voting rights. See college-specific legislation for information about college-level voting rights. The titles “teaching professor,” “associate teaching professor,” and “assistant teaching professor” are available in a given college only upon satisfaction of a special approval process specified in the Faculty Senate’s enabling legislation.
Enabling Legislation for the Teaching Professor Title
April 4, 2024
A college or school (henceforth, simply “college”) that wants to make teaching professor (TP) appointments must submit for Faculty Senate approval a proposal that describes how it intends to implement the track. The content of the proposal and how it is to be processed are set forth in this document.
The creation of a proposal should involve consultation with RTE teaching faculty within the college, especially Lecturers and Senior Lecturers. Those faculty will be included among others as part of the college’s vote on the proposal, as described in Part II below.
Part I. Proposal Content
A. Justification A statement offering justification for adoption of the TP title is required. There must be an explanation as to why the current range of RTE teaching titles makes it difficult to realize important educational objectives. The practices of peer schools and experiences with respect to recruiting can be used in support of the justification.
B. Description of Position The proposed Faculty Handbook description of the TP title is as follows: The teaching professor titles are available only for long term, non-tenure-track faculty members whose efforts are devoted primarily to the teaching mission of the university and whose skill and independence are at the level of the tenure-track faculty. Assistant, associate, and full teaching professors are expected to achieve a similar level of professional expertise within their areas of responsibility as their counterparts on the tenure track. Teaching professors at higher ranks can demonstrate impact inside and outside the university through activities such as pedagogical innovation, curriculum development, and leadership roles. Consistent with their rank and local needs, teaching professors are also expected to contribute teaching-related service, especially in areas that concern advising, mentoring, curriculum, and the management of degree programs. The teaching professor titles may not be used to replicate the combined teaching and research responsibilities of the tenure track faculty. Accordingly, job duties of a teaching professor appointment should not require conducting research, publishing its results, or advising graduate research students. Teaching professors may choose to participate in such activities, especially when related to pedagogy, and should stay current with research in their area to best incorporate it into their teaching. Nevertheless, research activity must not be required for appointment, reappointment, or promotion along the teaching professor track. Based on that title description, the proposal should state expectations the college has for TPs. A description should be given of the kinds of impact that are important to the college and of the kinds of service opportunities that exist. Some examples appropriate to TPs at various stages in their career could include development of course materials that are released externally and used at other institutions; major curriculum development through internal department initiatives or through university-wide programs such as the Active Learning Initiative; or taking on leadership roles in degree programs, such as being a DUS or manager of a cluster of related courses.
C. Terms of Appointment
- Degree Requirements The proposal should describe the degree requirements for appointment to TP positions. Candidates should usually hold a graduate degree that is appropriate to the level and field of instruction the individual will provide. In situations where such degrees do not exist, the proposal should identify alternative degree requirements. The proposal should explain whether higher TP ranks would entail higher degree requirements. Proposals may identify relaxed degree requirements based on teaching experience. For example, a proposal could state that if an individual is already appointed at Cornell or another university, and the individual has already demonstrated the quality of teaching accomplishment appropriate to TPs within the college, and the individual demonstrates a trajectory that promises a continued high level of achievement, then the dean may accept other degrees.
Searches Searches for open TP positions are expected to be national in scope with review procedures comparable to what is used for TT hires.
Processes Colleges that adopt the TP title are expected to document and publicize the processes that will be followed for all appointments, reappointments, and promotions. The proposal itself should briefly describe the following:
(a) The candidate’s input to a process, e.g., CV, teaching statement, list of possible reviewers, etc.
(b) The department’s input to a process, e.g., course evaluation summaries, peer reviews, etc.
(c) The department’s method for soliciting reference letters, e.g., number required, possible reliance on external references, etc.
(d) Who in the department is eligible to vote on the outcome, e.g., lecturers, senior lecturers, PoP’s (and which ranks), CP’s (and which ranks), other TPs (and which ranks), tenure-track faculty (and which ranks), etc.
(e) What is forwarded to the dean, e.g., a dossier, a recommendation letter from the chair that reports the outcome of a vote, etc.
The text associated with (a)-(e) does not have to be detailed at the level of an appointments manual but it should provide enough information to indicate a commitment to the fair evaluation of candidates.
Criteria for promotion along the TP track must be realistic. Professional growth requires time and resources. Candidates need access to both.
- Appointment Lengths
TP appointments may be up to five years in length. Recognizing that the TP track is intended for long-term members of the faculty, and that job security is a concern among RTE faculty, the proposal should describe typical appointment lengths at each rank and how reappointment processes can be streamlined for established titleholders.
- Support for Professional Development
The proposal should indicate the extent to which the college supports regular professional development opportunities for TPs, such as scholarly leave. Scholarly leaves would be used for professional development purposes in ways that benefit the college and its educational mission.
D. Limitations
To guard against erosion of the tenure system, TP appointments are to be limited in scope and limited in number.
- Scope The proposed Faculty Handbook description of the TP title limits the scope of TP appointments to focus on teaching rather than research. The proposal should state any expectations that the college has regarding TP engagement with the research culture.
Numbers The proposal must also include a statement that limits the number of TP positions. It is up to the college to decide how to impose this limitation in a way that best meets its educational needs. Regardless of the chosen method, the proposal must explain why the adopted limitation makes sense given that Cornell is an R1 university. Accreditation needs must also be considered. Proposals that would allow the number of teaching-track faculty (including Ls, CPs, PoP, and TPs) to exceed the number of tenure-track faculty in the college must be accompanied by a justification of why the teaching needs cannot be met by tenure-track faculty.
(a) An example limitation As an example, one method for limiting the number of TP positions would be to relate R, the number of RTE teaching faculty in the college, to T, the number of tenure-track faculty in the college, as follows: R ≤ (X / 100) (R + T) The effect of this limitation would be that at most X percent of the faculty who have teaching in their portfolio (RTE teaching faculty plus TT faculty) are permitted to be teaching-track faculty. Choices of X from 0 to 49 would result in a TT majority. IRP data1 from Fall 2022 indicate that the various colleges currently satisfy this bound with values of X that range from 18 to 45. If this method is used, proposals would need to specify how R is to be determined in the college. A reasonable definition would be the same set of faculty identified as RTE Teaching Faculty in section I.G below.
(b) Tighter limitations Proposals can impose tighter and/or more specific restrictions on the number of TPs than the example method above.
Extension and research faculty could be incorporated in the limitations. The overall number of RTE faculty relative to the number of TT faculty could be limited. This overall limitation on RTE numbers is important to review if the college is already using other RTE professorial titles.
Proposals may impose restrictions at the department level as well as the college level.
E. Voting and Other Rights
Teaching professors (all ranks) have University Voting Rights. The proposal must define other rights and responsibilities associated with TP appointments, including voting status at both the department and college levels on matters that concern hiring, promotions, and reappointments.
Access to grievance and appeals processes must be described.
The creation of a TP track is an occasion for the college to address the inequities identified in Senate Resolution 189, “Structural Equity and Inclusion for RTE Faculty.” The proposal should comment on steps that will be taken to ensure a high level of integration of TP faculty into their departments. Issues such as inclusion at faculty meetings, inclusion on websites, and inclusion on email lists should be addressed.
F. Impact on Other Faculty Appointment Tracks
The proposal should briefly articulate an overall plan for RTE teaching in the college by describing how the TP track will be used in combination with the L, CP, PoP, and tenure tracks to advance the 1 See Table 1 in the September 2023 Senate presentation that explored the possibility of the TP title. Those IRP data do not seem to account for 0% TT appointments, thus making it appear that some colleges have fewer TT faculty than they do in reality. quality of education. The proposal should explain how the college intends to continue using the L track and/or the Senior Lecturer title. Changes (if any) in how the L, CP, and PoP tracks are implemented should be described.
Processes for handling L-to-TP and other faculty transitions need to be outlined. Questions to be addressed include the following. Will some transitions be automatic, and if so, when will they occur? If transitions will be considered by application, how and when will the application process occur? How will the destination TP rank be determined?
To be fair to current faculty, external hiring into the TP track should not begin until the internal transition-to-TP process has been fully defined and has begun to be implemented. After implementation begins, external TP hiring may occur in parallel with the internal transition process.
CP and PoP faculty can be considered for transition into the TP track. But according to the Assistant Professor title description in the Faculty handbook, “A tenure-track appointee who does not receive tenure may not be appointed to any other academic title. However, an individual may request a transfer to lectureship or other title status before the tenure review; neither the chair nor the dean is obliged to recommend this action to the provost.”
Colleges that are appointing discipline-based educational researchers (DBER) as tenure-track faculty should consider applications to open tenure-track positions by RTE faculty who are similarly skilled.
G. Definition of RTE Teaching Faculty
For purposes of voting on the college’s TP proposal, the proposal must designate a set of RTE faculty as “RTE Teaching Faculty.” These should be the RTE faculty in the college who have teaching as an important component of their responsibilities. A possible definition would be all full-time faculty who have appointments at any rank on the L, CP, or PoP tracks. This group of faculty will be one of the two voting constituencies, as described below in Part II. (Of course, after the TP track is created, TPs would also be considered RTE Teaching Faculty.)
Part II. Proposal Processing
A. Processing Within the College (or School)
The dean of the sponsoring college communicates the proposal to the Dean of Faculty with a cover letter that specifies the outcome of two votes:
- The TT Faculty Vote is a polling of all assistant, associate, and full professors who have full time appointments in the sponsoring college. The number of such faculty who support the proposal and the number who do not is to be reported in the cover letter together with the number of abstentions and the number of DNVs.
- The RTE Teaching Faculty Vote is a polling of all the faculty identified (as in section I.G above) as RTE teaching faculty. The number of such faculty who support the proposal and the number who do not is to be reported in the cover letter together with the number of abstentions and the number of DNVs.
In addition to reporting these results, the dean of the sponsoring college has the option of communicating the extent of faculty support outside of the above electorates, e.g., the extent of support among the emeriti faculty.
To receive Senate consideration, the following outcomes are required:
(a) at least two-thirds of the TT faculty must vote on the proposal and of those who do, at least one-half must support the proposal.
(b) at least two-thirds of the RTE teaching faculty must vote on the proposal and of those who do, at least one-half must support the proposal.
B. Processing by the Dean of Faculty
If the voting outcomes are satisfied, then the following steps are taken:
- The Dean of Faculty (DoF) shares the proposal and cover letter with the Committee on Academic Programs and Policy (CAPP).
- The DoF gives the sponsoring college the opportunity to present their proposal to the Faculty Senate.
- The DoF makes the proposal and cover letter available for public comment on the DoF website for a period of sixty days.
- At the end of the comment period, the DoF asks CAPP to review the proposal for compliance with the enabling legislation. (The review is strictly about compliance—CAPP is not to weigh in on whether not they think the proposal is a good idea.)
- If CAPP determines that the proposal meets the requirements of the enabling legislation, then the DoF (in consultation with University Faculty Committee) will arrange to have the Faculty Senate act on the proposal. Use of the title by the sponsoring college is authorized after a positive vote by the Faculty Senate and subsequent approval by the Office of the Provost.
Background
Professor Emeritus Charles Van Loan and Senior Lecturer Michael Clarkson, Cornell Bowers Computing and Information Science faculty, have developed materials toward establishment of a teaching professor track.
- “Towards the Establishment of a Teaching Professor Title: An Exploratory Discussion” identifies the key issues that must be taken into account during the course of developing a formal TP proposal for Senate consideration.
- “Senate Deliberations on Teaching-Related Titles” summarizes fifty years of discussion that have a bearing on the TP issue.
- “A Study of the Teaching Professor Track at Some Peer Universities of Cornell” offers perspectives from over 20 schools that have dealt with the TP title question (or not).
Faculty Senate Powerpoint presentation on September 13, 2023
Interim documents for Faculty Forum on March 27, 2024:
- Overview
- Resolution
- Title Description
- Enabling Legislation
- Follow up Topics
Senate Committees reviewing:
RTE Working Group: Comments on The Teaching Title Track Taskforce proposal.
Our discussion at the March 20, 2024 meeting touched on a variety of issues in the following categories:
Unhappiness about leaving out Extension faculty. There was a generally positive attitude about making changes to improve job satisfaction for teaching faculty, and about the clear guidelines that would be in place, but also some disappointment with not including extension RTE in this resolution. New titles/levels were already extended to research positions. Now this resolution is dealing with teaching. Extending it to extension is the next objective. Is Eve working on extension now? Can a commitment to that be part of this?
Some unhappiness about creating more hierarchy. Functionally, raising the level of some has the effect of lowering the level of others. Creating teaching professors may effectively lower the status of lecturers, who will then (possibly) be equated with adjunct faculty. This is problematic because each unit will individually choose whether or not to implement the professor track. Units which do not will have teaching faculty simply unable to advance to these titles.
Need for clarification. Knowing when to include certain specifics and when to take a more general approach has clearly been a challenge. However, several parts of the resolution where more detail would be ideal include: The very short-term lengths of some appointments (e.g. 1 year) was not prohibited despite the negative effect on feelings of job security. For specific terminology, what does “long-term” or “skill and independence” mean? Can we robustly define either? Moreover, the idea of “impact” was significantly discussed. Is this in your academic area and unit? Should we revise the Title Description to say impact “in area”? Also, the Enabling Legislation should be more explicit about transitions from other RTE tracks. Finally, the section entitled “Reappointment and Promotion” could say “Appointments, Reappointments and Promotion” and have some material added on appointments, including whether new faculty can be appointed directly to the teaching professor title.
Need for resources. Related to considerations that appeared to judge teaching faculty by similar metrics as tenure-track faculty. Structurally, and realistically, how can a teaching professor, without funded research, without a lab, without graduate students, and with limited access to coverage of teaching several classes, and little or no budgeted funds, attend professional conferences at the same level as tenure -track faculty with all of those things? Resources would have to be given to achieve these goals, and the job description would need to spell this out. What resources will be given to teaching professors to enable them to achieve expectations and have impact? How can they have external impact when they are already at 110% on teaching? Teaching-related service expectations seem to be more easily achieved and perhaps not as dependent on resources and changes to existing things.
Concerns about the status of RTE generally. There was some worry that tenure-track hires who fail to get tenure might try to ‘drop into’ the teaching professor track, making teaching professors look unskilled. While current university policy wouldn’t allow this, it would be appreciated if it could be spelled out that this would not be allowed in the enabling legislation. There was also general concern expressed about the idea that RTE faculty can apply for tenure track positions as they open up. While this sounds good on paper, in practice because an RTE faculty member already exists to do a certain job, a tenure-track position to do that job never opens up
April 4, 2024
Dear RTE Working Group colleagues,
Thank you for your feedback on the draft Teaching Professor (TP) proposal and for helping us with this important project. Below, we respond to comments from your feedback to indicate how we have revised the proposal.
Your feedback caused us to look back at the watershed resolution your group sponsored last year, Resolution 189 “Structural equity and inclusion for RTE faculty.” The addendum to that resolution identified ten significant examples of inequity. Below, following our response to your feedback, we quote those inequities and comment upon them in light of the TP proposal.
All best,
Charles Van Loan and Michael Clarkson1
T4 Co-Chairs
Responses to RTE WG comments on draft TP proposal
RTE WG Comment 1: Unhappiness about leaving out Extension faculty.
“There was a generally positive attitude about making changes to improve job satisfaction for teaching faculty, and about the clear guidelines that would be in place, but also some disappointment with not including extension RTE in this resolution. New titles/levels were already extended to research positions. Now this resolution is dealing with teaching. Extending it to extension is the next objective. Is Eve working on extension now? Can a commitment to that be part of this?”
We agree with you and have urged the DoF to act on creating a professorial extension title. As stated by the DoF in the Faculty Forum on March 27, 2024, that work is beginning, and the TP proposal can serve as a time-saving template.
RTE WG Comment 2: Some unhappiness about creating more hierarchy.
“Functionally, raising the level of some has the effect of lowering the level of others. Creating teaching professors may effectively lower the status of lecturers, who will then (possibly) be equated with adjunct faculty. This is problematic because each unit will individually choose whether or not to implement the professor track. Units which do not will have teaching faculty simply unable to advance to these titles.”
We believe, as we write below in response to Inequity 3, that the status of lecturers was already lowered by the creation of RTE professorial titles to which lecturers have no access. A faculty member who devotes their career primarily to research and fund-raising can be titled Research Professor. A faculty member who devotes a substantial part of their career to industry, then pivots to teaching, can be titled Professor of Practice. But a faculty member who devotes their entire career to teaching — a lecturer — currently cannot titled “Professor”. We cannot resolve this inequity without creating a Teaching Professor title.
It might be suggested that the L track be eliminated, thus removing a level of hierarchy. We do not believe that can happen. First, the broader academic culture does not support it: in our study of peer universities that have implemented a TP (or equivalent) title, only one out of the 10 universities has eliminated the L track. Second, TPs are meant to be long-term members of the faculty, as stated in the EL, but there will always be a need for short-term coverage of courses. A college that implements a TP track may choose to use the L title for those short-term needs. That usage would expose an existing distinction that the current titles hide.
So if the L and TP tracks must coexist, how can we make that coexistence as harmonious as possible between tracks? The issue you raise about adjunct status — that is, treating Ls fairly and with respect — is important. That is one reason the EL §I.F specifies that colleges must “[describe] how the TP track will be used in combination with the [L] track,” and “changes (if any)…in how the [L track will be] implemented.” The writing of a college’s response to those prompts, and the eventual voting on them, will become an opportunity for RTE faculty in the college to make their voice heard on these issues.
And, if the L and TP tracks must coexist, how can we make that coexistence as harmonious as possible between colleges? Again, the issue you raise — an inequity resulting from some colleges adopting the TP title but others not — is important. Cornell is organized as a loose confederation of colleges, and those colleges do not have uniform teaching needs. But as evidenced in the history of adoption of RTE professorial titles, nearly every college that existed at the time adopted the PoP title within one year. Many members of T4 have likewise expressed desire for their college to adopt the TP title. We urge any faculty who have concerns about this to contact their college leadership.
RTE WG Comment 3: Need for clarification.
“Knowing when to include certain specifics and when to take a more general approach has clearly been a challenge. However, several parts of the resolution where more detail would be ideal include: The very short-term lengths of some appointments (e.g. 1 year) was not prohibited despite the negative effect on feelings of job security. For specific terminology, what does “long-term” or “skill and independence” mean? Can we robustly define either? Moreover, the idea of “impact” was significantly discussed. Is this in your academic area and unit? Should we revise the Title Description to say impact “in area”? Also, the Enabling Legislation should be more explicit about transitions from other RTE tracks. Finally, the section entitled “Reappointment and Promotion” could say “Appointments, Reappointments and Promotion” and have some material added on appointments, including whether new faculty can be appointed directly to the teaching professor title.”
We have now clarified “long term” with more explicit references to 5-year contracts and streamlined renewal processes. We also now say more about possible transitions of PoP and CP faculty into the TP track. And we now include appointment-process expectations in EL §1.C.
Regarding your concerns about “impact”, “area”, “skill”, and “independence”, we do not believe that it is possible or desirable to give formulaic specifications of these concepts. For example, we do not believe that it would be wise to state specific requirements about course evaluation scores, number of students taught, or allowable areas. It is up to the colleges and departments to communicate what constitutes success along any faculty track, TP or otherwise. Our approach here is consistent with the previous EL for CP, PoP, and RP. It is also consistent with the university’s policy on university-wide tenure criteria, which states: “It is not possible to establish, at the university level, detailed criteria for tenure appointments for the many academic units in the university. The basic criteria are clear: excellence in carrying out the responsibilities of the position, and unusual promise for continued achievement.”
RTE WG Comment 4: Need for resources.
“Related to considerations that appeared to judge teaching faculty by similar metrics as tenure-track faculty. Structurally, and realistically, how can a teaching professor, without funded research, without a lab, without graduate students, and with limited access to coverage of teaching several classes, and little or no budgeted funds, attend professional conferences at the same level as tenure-track faculty with all of those things? Resources would have to be given to achieve these goals, and the job description would need to spell this out. What resources will be given to teaching professors to enable them to achieve expectations and have impact? How can they have external impact when they are already at 110% on teaching? Teaching-related service expectations seem to be more easily achieved and perhaps not as dependent on resources and changes to existing things.”
We agree that access to resources is necessary for success in any academic position, including the proposed TP track. But legislation is not typically the place that resources such as money are made available to TT or RTE faculty. Rather, those resources are a matter of local negotiation with chairs and deans. To signal the importance of resources, we have now added this statement to the EL §I.C.3:
“Criteria for promotion along the TP track must be realistic. Professional growth requires time and resources. Candidates need access to both.”
As for external impact, please note that the EL and TP title description do not make that an absolute requirement. They say: “Teaching professors at higher ranks can demonstrate impact inside and outside the university through activities such as pedagogical innovation, curriculum development, and leadership roles.” Those example activities can be internally and/or externally focused, and it falls on the college and ultimately the department to evaluate such activities. Some teaching faculty take on leadership roles for internal degree programs, such as being a DUS or manager of a cluster of related courses. Some teaching faculty take on internal curriculum development roles by being part of an Active Learning Initiative grant. Some teaching faculty create course materials that they use internally at Cornell and release externally for other universities to use. That kind of external impact is not extra work imposed on top of teaching but follows naturally from it. We have now supplied such examples in the EL §I.B to clarify that external visibility is not the only way to demonstrate impact.
RTE WG Comment 5: Concerns about the status of RTE generally.
“There was some worry that tenure-track hires who fail to get tenure might try to ‘drop into’ the teaching professor track, making teaching professors look unskilled. While current university policy wouldn’t allow this, it would be appreciated if it could be spelled out that this would not be allowed in the enabling legislation. There was also general concern expressed about the idea that RTE faculty can apply for tenure track positions as they open up. While this sounds good on paper, in practice because an RTE faculty member already exists to do a certain job, a tenure-track position to do that job never opens up.”
Regarding transitioning from TT to TP: we have now added a reminder in the EL about the existing rules governing these transitions.
Regarding transitioning from TP to TT: the purpose of that statement is to emphasize that TPs are not prohibited from applying to advertised TT positions. We prefer to leave that statement intact rather than be silent on the issue.
Commentary on the draft TP Proposal and inequities identified in R. 189 addendum
Inequity 1. “RTE faculty do not benefit from job security and academic freedom.”
The TP Enabling Legislation (EL) §I.C encourages colleges to address this inequity as follows: “The [college’s] proposal should address the extent to which the reappointment procedures afford teaching professors a reasonable degree of job security in the unit, recognizing that the track is intended for long-term members of the faculty. Minimizing the process needed for reappointments would be appropriate to convey that long-term status.”
Inequity 2. “RTE faculty do not experience the same value and prestige in the academic climate as tenure-track and tenured faculty.”
By creating professorial titles, the value of RTE faculty is affirmed and their prestige is increased. The Clinical Professor and Professor of Practice titles already did this, but in a way that excluded RTE faculty appointed as Lecturers and Senior Lecturers. The creation of a Teaching Professor
title addresses the inequity experienced by those faculty by creating the opportunity for them to be appointed in a professorial title.
Inequity 3. “RTE faculty report feeling marginalized by the hierarchical climate at Cornell.”
Academia is indeed a hierarchical society, even within the tenure tracks. There are complex cultural issues at all scales, from department to university level, that can lead to feelings of marginalization. We know that you have been working such RTE-related issues this year in consultation with the Provost, Deputy Provost, and VP of HR.
The TP proposal might at first be seen as creating a new level of hierarchy, in which TPs are ranked ahead of Ls. But upon reflection, that already happened with the CP and PoP titles. It already happened to Research Associates with the creation of Research Professor titles. And if Extension Professor titles were created (as your response recommends and we discussed above), it would also happen to Extension Associates.
Given the existing hierarchy, which is not going to go away, the TP title creates an opportunity for reducing the marginalization of Ls by elevating them to a more prestigious track. It will take time to realize this opportunity throughout the entire university and to address the accompanying cultural issues. Creating the TP title an important step in that direction.
Inequity 4. “RTE faculty do not have opportunities for advancement beyond ‘senior’ titles given the current two-tiered system. The majority of our peer institutions offer three levels using titles similar to those used for the tenure system: Assistant / Associate / Full.”
The TP proposal directly resolves this inequity for RTE teaching faculty by creating the titles Assistant Teaching Professor, Associate Teaching Professor, and (full) Teaching Professor.
Inequity 5. “RTE experience inconsistent search and hiring procedures and seek a formal process similar to tenure-track faculty.”
The TP EL §I.C specifies, “Searches for open TP positions are expected to be national in scope with review procedures comparable to what is used for TT hires. […] Colleges that adopt the TP title are expected to document and publicize the processes that will be followed for all reappointments and promotions.” As mentioned above in response to your Comment 3, we have now extended that part of the EL to address appointments.
Inequity 6. “RTE titles are confusing (e.g. Senior Extension Associate) which often prohibits RTE faculty from being competitive applicants for funding.”
Although establishing a TP title will not address this issue with the specific example of Senior Extension Associate, it will address it for (e.g.) Senior Lecturers who become TPs.
Inequity 7. “RTE faculty are mostly funded by ‘soft money’ which requires a continuous search for funding to support their positions and those they hire for their projects.”
This situation does not seem to apply to teaching faculty positions, which are usually funded by departments based on predictable teaching needs.
Inequity 8. “RTE faculty report not being included in faculty meetings, except for those occasions where departmental business is not discussed, such as department lunches which are also open to staff.”
The TP EL §I.E addresses voting and other rights, stating “The proposal must define other rights and responsibilities associated with TP appointments, including voting status at both the department and college levels on matters that concern hiring, promotions, and reappointments.”
Attendance at faculty meetings is another kind of right/responsibility. We have now added it to the EL.
Inequity 9. “RTE faculty are often listed separately from University faculty on department websites, or not listed at all.”
Website listing is another kind of right. We have now added it to the EL.
Inequity 10. “RTE faculty are often not included on faculty e-mail lists and thus are not informed of college and departmental events, policies, and other vital information.”
Inclusion on email lists is another kind of right. We have now added it to the EL.
1 Michael Clarkson is both a member of the RTE WG and co-chair of T4. He presented the draft TP proposal to the RTE WG then recused himself from the writing of the RTE WG’s review. He collaborated with Van Loan in writing this response to the review.
The Committee on Academic Freedom and Professional Status of Faculty was asked for input on the proposed legislation on a Teaching Professor Title (3/28/24)
The committee supports adoption of the Teaching Professor title, recognizing the importance of the title and the status and opportunities it brings to RTE faculty. Based on multiple avenues of discussion, opinions primarily voice support with minimal dissent. We strongly agree that there should be equity among RTE faculty regarding the Professorial title, which is currently not available to faculty who are currently appointed as lecturers or extension associates. This notwithstanding, the support for the impact and rationale for the title is largely anecdotal and not substantiated by solid data. For example, no data shows that adding other RTE titles has improved student education. Indeed, the statement that the title will enhance the quality of teaching has negative implications on the current teaching being performed by faculty, including those who would transition to the new title. Given the equity issue, future consideration should be given to RTE faculty in extension positions, as recommended in the document “Follow-up Topics worthy of discussion”, which this committee endorses and elaborates upon below.
The patchwork creation of Professorial titles for RTE faculty has been in response to established and perceived problems with the current hierarchy in faculty (and staff) positions. However, there is no evidence showing that a change of title has altered the climate and working environment for RTE faculty, provided access to opportunities that were previously unavailable, or changed the hierarchical status quo. Looking forward, we recommend that the University administration and Senate consider various means of changing our institution’s overall culture. This future assessment would address the hierarchy and nature of titles, positions, job security, benefits (e.g., salary, professional development leave), privileges (e.g., voting rights), and opportunities for career advancement for faculty, as well as creating a minimum standard to the greatest extent possible, across the University, as suggested in “Follow up Topics” and comments by various faculty. As part of this endeavor, data should be collected on opportunities currently available to tenure track and RTE faculty in different units, e.g., voting rights, access to mentorship or professional leave, etc.
We are also concerned about the definition of a Teaching Professor, i.e., “Assistant,
associate and full teaching professors are expected to achieve a similar level of professional expertise as their counterparts on the tenure track” (from the enabling legislation document). It is unclear how RTE Teaching Professors will be distinguished from tenure track faculty whose focus is pedagogy. It is only later in the legislation (section D) that the distinction is based on scholarship, which is required in a tenure-track position but is optional for a Teaching Professor (one could argue that a degree of scholarship should be necessary for all Professorial titles). Given that certain units have hired faculty with a primary teaching expectation into tenure track positions, the lack of distinction could lead to “blurring of the lines” and the possibility that faculty with similar expectations may be hired into tenure track or RTE appointments in different units (again creating inequity).
The proposed limitation in numbers needs to be more consistent among the documents. For instance, 45% is a suggested percentage of R faculty, and the definition of R faculty is unit dependent, i.e., it could apply to only one group of RTE faculty or any
combination thereof. Per the enabling legislation, the example provided only applies to RTE teaching professors, which means that the sum of all RTE faculty (not just teaching faculty) may substantially exceed that of tenure-track faculty in the unit or College. The 45% is implied as an upper limit and is without clear justification. As an Ivy League premier research (R1) institution and with ever-increasing numbers of RTE faculty in our ranks, there is concern about preserving sufficient tenure track faculty to maintain our status as an R1 institution and any required accreditation from outside organizations for specific units. Each unit and the University as a whole should consider the implications of the percentages of the RTE and tenure track faculty (within and across departments) on the longevity and sustainability of the unit within a premier research institution. We also recognize that limiting the number of RTE faculty in Professorial titles may continue to create inequity within units.
April 4, 2024
Dear AFPSF colleagues,
Thank you for your feedback on the draft Teaching Professor (TP) proposal and for helping us with this important project. Below, we respond to comments from your feedback to indicate how we have revised the proposal.
All best,
Charlie Van Loan and Michael Clarkson
T4 Co-Chairs
Responses to AFPSF comments on TP proposal
AFPSF Comment 1:
“The committee supports adoption of the Teaching Professor title, recognizing the importance of the title and the status and opportunities it brings to RTE faculty. Based on multiple avenues of discussion, opinions primarily voice support with minimal dissent. We strongly agree that there should be equity among RTE faculty regarding the Professorial title, which is currently not available to faculty who are currently appointed as lecturers or extension associates.”
Agreed.
AFPSF Comment 2:
“This notwithstanding, the support for the impact and rationale for the title is largely anecdotal and not substantiated by solid data. For example, no data shows that adding other RTE titles has improved student education. Indeed, the statement that the title will enhance the quality of teaching has negative implications on the current teaching being performed by faculty, including those who would transition to the new title.”
We think this comment is in response to the following paragraph in the draft resolution and the associated slide in the overview:
“Impact on Education. The research professor (RP), CP, and PoP titles bring certain types of expertise to the campus that enhance the education of our students, including those enrolled in PhD and professional degree programs. Similarly, the creation of the TP track will improve education at Cornell, including (though not exclusively) at the undergraduate level.”
Trying to improve the teaching environment is not an indictment of current teaching. The premise here is that we can improve the teaching environment. Nonetheless, we agree this rationale can be improved and (thanks to your feedback) we have now revised the paragraph.
We know that 35% of all credit hours taught are provided by about 500 full-time RTE faculty, and approximately 370 (70%) of those faculty are on the L track. Creating a TP title affirms the importance of the teaching those faculty do. We believe that improving the status of that group will have an overall positive impact on education at Cornell.
Perhaps most germane to that impact is that by creating a three-rank track we increase the opportunities to reward professional advancement of those faculty, including activities such as curriculum development, pedagogical innovation, degree program leadership, and external visibility. The problematic “ceiling” of the current two-rank L track was previously noted by the Senate’s RTE Working Group in the addendum to Resolution 189 “Structural equity and inclusion for RTE faculty.”
AFPSF Comment 3:
“Given the equity issue, future consideration should be given to RTE faculty in extension positions, as recommended in the document ‘Follow-up Topics worthy of discussion’, which this committee endorses and elaborates upon below.”
We agree with you and have urged the DoF to act on creating a professorial extension title. As stated by the DoF in the Faculty Forum on March 27, 2024, that work is beginning, and the TP proposal can serve as a time-saving template.
AFPSF Comment 4:
“The patchwork creation of Professorial titles for RTE faculty has been in response to established and perceived problems with the current hierarchy in faculty (and staff) positions. However, there is no evidence showing that a change of title has altered the climate and working environment for RTE faculty, provided access to opportunities that were previously unavailable, or changed the hierarchical status quo.”
We agree that it would be good to gather data on how the RTE and TT environments have changed through the addition of these titles. The next iteration of the Academic Work Life survey could be an opportunity to pursue that. The 2022 iteration unfortunately did not address the complexity of the RTE situation. For example, it asked TT faculty, “how satisfied are you being a faculty member at Cornell?”, whereas it asked RTE faculty, “how satisfied are you being an academic at Cornell?” [emphasis added]. The results of the survey as
published in the Executive Summary and as presented to the Senate’s RTE Working Group in February 2024 lump together all the various RTE titles under the single heading “RTE Academics” whereas those same results split out Assistant, Associate, and Full TT Professors. We hope that AFPSF or anyone else reading this letter will take these issues into consideration in future surveys.
AFPSF Comment 5:
“Looking forward, we recommend that the University administration and Senate consider various means of changing our institution’s overall culture. This future assessment would address the hierarchy and nature of titles, positions, job security, benefits (e.g., salary, professional development leave), privileges (e.g., voting rights), and opportunities for career advancement for faculty, as well as creating a minimum standard to the greatest extent possible, across the University, as suggested in ‘Follow up Topics’ and comments by various faculty. As part of this endeavor, data should be collected on opportunities currently available to tenure track and RTE faculty in different units, e.g., voting rights, access to mentorship or professional leave, etc.”
Agreed.
AFPSF Comment 6:
“We are also concerned about the definition of a Teaching Professor, i.e., ‘Assistant,
associate and full teaching professors are expected to achieve a similar level of professional expertise as their counterparts on the tenure track’ (from the enabling legislation document). It is unclear how RTE Teaching Professors will be distinguished from tenure track faculty whose focus is pedagogy. It is only later in the legislation (section D) that the distinction is based on scholarship, which is required in a tenure-track position but is optional for a Teaching Professor (one could argue that a degree of scholarship should be necessary for all Professorial titles). Given that certain units have hired faculty with a primary teaching expectation into tenure track positions, the lack of distinction could lead to ‘blurring of the lines’ and the possibility that faculty with similar expectations may be hired into tenure track or RTE appointments in different units (again creating inequity).”
Thank you for pointing out the unclarity of “professional expertise” in that statement. It was meant to encompass the areas of responsibility that are assigned to TPs. We have now revised the title description to state that.
You write, “one could argue that a degree of scholarship should be necessary for all Professorial titles.” The TP proposal addresses that as follows:
“The teaching professor titles may not be used to replicate the combined teaching and research responsibilities of the tenure track faculty. Accordingly, job duties of a teaching professor appointment should not require conducting research, publishing its results, or advising graduate research students. Teaching professors may choose to participate in such activities, especially when related to pedagogy, and should stay current with research in their area to best incorporate it into their teaching. Nevertheless, research activity must not be required for appointment, reappointment, or promotion along the teaching professor track.”
Our rationale for excluding research activity is stated in the first sentence of that paragraph. Were we to add active research requirements to TPs, we would risk creating a non-tenured shadow of the tenure track. We have now moved up that statement about research from §I.D to §I.B so as not to keep the reader guessing.
We are aware of DBER (discipline-based education research) faculty who have been hired in the TT with the expectation of conducting research on pedagogy. The requirement of research for DBER, and the anti-requirement for TP, distinguishes them.
AFPSF Comment 7:
“The proposed limitation in numbers needs to be more consistent among the documents. For instance, 45% is a suggested percentage of R faculty, and the definition of R faculty is unit dependent, i.e., it could apply to only one group of RTE faculty or any combination thereof. Per the enabling legislation, the example provided only applies to RTE teaching professors, which means that the sum of all RTE faculty (not just teaching faculty) may substantially exceed that of tenure-track faculty in the unit or College. The 45% is implied as an upper limit and is without clear justification. As an Ivy League premier research (R1) institution and with ever-increasing numbers of RTE faculty in our ranks, there is concern about preserving sufficient tenure track faculty to maintain our status as an R1 institution and any required accreditation from outside organizations for specific units. Each unit and the University as a whole should consider the implications of the percentages of the RTE and tenure track faculty (within and across departments) on the longevity and sustainability of the unit within a premier research institution. We also recognize that limiting the number of RTE faculty in Professorial titles may continue to create inequity within units.”
We agree with you on the need for careful consideration by the colleges in maintaining the premier status of Cornell as an R1 institution and in maintaining accreditation in specific units. With that in mind, we respond to two points that you raise.
Point 1. “Per the enabling legislation, the example provided only applies to RTE teaching professors, which means that the sum of all RTE faculty (not just teaching faculty) may substantially exceed that of tenure-track faculty in the unit or College.”
Response to Point 1: The EL says,“R, the number of RTE teaching faculty”, not “R, the number of RTE teaching professors” [emphasis added]. Further, the EL says, “extension and research faculty could also be incorporated in the calculations.”
Point 2. “The 45% is implied as an upper limit and is without clear justification.”
Response to Point 2: The EL offers a justification: “this results in at least a 55 percent TT majority.” The implication here is that an upper limit of 45% clearly maintains a majority of TT faculty with some “wiggle room” that keeps the percentage comfortably below 50.
Another response to Point 2: We have data from IRP on Fall 2022 faculty headcounts that were stated in Table 1 of our September Senate presentation. Those data indicate that the current percentage (as stated in the EL as the hypothetical model for calculation — and excluding research and extension RTE faculty) ranges from 18% to 45% for the various colleges, with four colleges in the 40–45% range.1 So the ground truth is that parts of Cornell are already at this 45% upper limit for RTE teaching faculty.
To address these points, we have now revised the discussion of percent limitation in the EL to include the need to maintain R1 status, accreditation, and the importance of considering a cap on all RTE faculty.
1 One college is actually at 60% according to those data. We consulted with the T4 representative from that college. We learned that the IRP data did not include 0% appointments, which are used heavily for TT faculty in that college. When including those TT faculty, the college satisfied the 45% bound.
Dear Eve,
Thank you for soliciting the input of the EPC on the issue of the proposed Teaching Professor RTE titles.
The full committee has considered the documents and weighed in. We submit to you the
following observations and comments.
EPC comments
• We support the proposal, with preference for the coexist option.
• We suggest that the distinction be based on work status rather than intellectual impact.
The Lecturer and Senior Lecturer titles should be reserved for <50% appointments, for
short-term or non-PhD hires.
Comments in favor
• It is difficult to recruit top teaching talent if our title scheme is seen as reflecting a
negative culture for the person being recruited.
• Ten of Cornell’s peer universities have implemented this track.
Summary
• The two-tiered lecturer titles were created in 1973, after research associate and extension
associate tracks. Nearly 400 Cornell faculty currently serve as Lecturers and Senior Lecturers.
Lecturers focus on undergraduate teaching.
• More recently, the three-rank Research Professor, Professor of Practice, and Clinical Professor
tracks were established at Cornell.
• Lecturers lack the term “professor” in their titles and have only two tiers, which projects a sense
of the lecturer positions being a notch down from the professorial faculty. This is (actually or
potentially?) not appreciated by the lecturers or by students, parents and donors. The
perception issues lead to recruitment and retention problems.
• In a document dated 11 Sept 23, Clarkson and Van Loan suggest the creation of a Teaching
Professor track with assistant, associate, and full levels. They note three general implementation
options, favoring the idea that these titles supplement (coexist with) the Lecturer titles, with the
latter being part-time, short-term and/or more narrowly focused.
• While the document is well structured and argued, the authors note that it is not a full-fledged
proposal.
Observations
• Different units (schools, departments, etc.) vary in the intensity and nature of reliance
on RTE v. tenured faculty. This varied exposure and experience may influence our
individual perspectives.
• The “professor” title is valued. Teaching faculty at Ithaca College have professorial
titles. Some people that have moved from IC to CU have had to drop their valued
professorial titles to take jobs at Cornell, which is seen as a loss.
Other comments
• We are not aware of the financial implications and thus have not considered that issue
seriously.
• Some concern was expressed that these titles might be misused by hiring people on the Teaching Professor track when tenure-track appointments might be justified.
Thanks for considering our perspectives.
Rebecca for the EPC
Summary of CAPP review of “Toward the Establishment of a Teaching Professor Title: An Exploratory Discussion of Options and Issues”
Mark Milstein (chair)
Overview
CAPP was asked to review the presentation material entitled “Toward the Establishment of a Teaching Professor Title: An Exploratory Discussion of Options and Issues” and supporting material which included: 1) A Study of the Teaching Professor Track at Some Peer Universities of Cornell; 2) Senate Deliberations on Teaching-Related Titles; and 3) Towards the Establishment of a Teaching Professor Track: An Exploratory Discussion.
Summary of CAPP Review
Overall, the committee found the documentation does an excellent job of outlining the issues and possible solutions and supports moving the issue forward to the Senate for their discussion.
The committee reviewed the material from the perspective of whether or not there existed any omissions that ought to be addressed (vs. whether or not the committee was for/against the proposal) before presentation to the Senate. The only potential omission identified related to process.
The idea of the positions of Assistant Teaching Professor, Associate Teaching Professor and Full Teaching Professor potentially replacing Lecturer positions was seen as an interesting way to help establish parity among teaching staff.
At the same time, it was noted that professorial faculty, even those who are very committed to knowing and understanding the employment conditions of lecturers at Cornell, are not always familiar with the all the informal details of work arrangements, the social pressures of various responsibilities of expected of different roles, and the hidden ways in which power is exerted over them due to structural inequalities that are simply unavoidable when some teachers have tenure-line appointments and others do not. Moreover – and very importantly – this varies quite a bit across units.
A reorganization of existing titles along these lines has the potential to be extremely divisive within the ranks of our lecturer faculty. Any one of the proposed changes would likely create new cleavages in status and position that don’t currently exist in institutionalized forms. And the desire to regulate the conditions and particulars of these titles will create a lot of anxiety among the potentially affected faculty. It could force a lot of questions into the open in units that are already dealing with difficult issues. Many people would likely not want to even confront these questions, much less answer them, particularly if they are afraid of the implications of doing so.
The committee would urge anyone involved in this process to be sensitive to these issues and aware that even the most collaborative and open environment will not be able to accommodate the voices of the range of lecturers who would be affected by the outcome of the decision.
If it has not been done already, it is hoped that this complex issue will be debated in full at the faculty senate and ideally by a committee that includes those impacted. It simply would be odd and inappropriate (perhaps even insulting) to the lecturer community for the faculty to have a discussion about lecturers without having the proposal be socialized among – and getting input directly from – lecturers themselves.
I strongly support the creation of a Teaching Professor track and thank the task force for their work. However, I am opposed to keeping the Lecturer and Senior lecturer titles. That means there will still be faculty in those two-tier titles that this initiative is trying to rectify, and they are at the will of their college as to whether or not the TP titles will be adopted and after how long. Also, I don’t see a clear distinction between the work/description of the TP and L tracks worthy of keeping both titles. The language says they will be around “for the foreseeable future.” I had hoped this task force would call for an elimination of the L track titles with this resolution, but if not hopefully there will be a move to do so in the very near future.
I am a new sr. lecturer in CALS and my former institution had this kind of position (called term assistant, associate, and full). I was promoted in my time there to full and I received a 1-semester paid sabbatical so it was hard to take a sr. lecturer position knowing that I have nowhere else to go financially, which may impact my decision on whether or not to stay after my 5 year contract expires. I play a strong role in my department (soon to be DUS, mentoring undergraduate AND graduate students, leading department pedagogy talks, etc.) and am supported/respected but I know this is not the case in all departments at Cornell.
I am in full support of Cornell establishing a teaching title track but it needs to come with a clear process for promotion and whether or not these positions are eligible for sabbatical and salary increases.
I think the replacement option makes sense if Cornell wants to lead our peer institutions who are heavily using the “Coexist Option” (80%) as they will likely continue to face HR recruitment and retention challenges. I attended the session last fall and read the 12-page exploratory discussion draft (not yet a proposal) and appreciate Charlie and his team’s efforts to address this business problem and respond to our ever-changing teaching needs that have evolved over the past half century. Thank you for your due diligence in trying to move Cornell in this area. With much gratitude, Peggy O.
I would love to see this for Research and Extension RTE faculty as well. It would serve as a great incentive for young Senior RTE faculty to stay, rather than pursue tenure track positions elsewhere – especially if the final tier of promotion came with grad student advising privileges.
I strongly support this suggestion. This issue has also been a long standing source of poor morale among research/extension RTE. Addressing the issue only for T while leaving out R&E will make morale worse for R&E faculty who feel that they have been overlooked once again.
I am writing in support of the general efforts to create a Teaching Professor (TP) track at the university. Allow me to provide some rationale from my own experience:
I am currently a Senior Extension Associate in CALS, and though my appointment is theoretically 100% extension, I have undergraduate teaching and advising responsibilities that account for nearly 50% of my time. As an aside, I have 11 years of undergraduate teaching experience at another institution before coming to Cornell 23 years ago.
I am considering stepping back from my extension role at the conclusion of my current 5-year extension appointment. At that time, I would like to get another 5-year appointment, but this one would be entirely undergraduate teaching and advising related. So this TP proposal affects me directly – would I become a Senior Lecturer or TP?
I also echo a point that Anonymous #1 made above. When the Professor of the Practice (PoP) title was created a few years ago, I too looked at the qualifications/expectations for that position. I noted that my current responsibilities as a Senior Extension Associate aligned perfectly with nearly every one of them. Which begged the question: If I’m doing the same work, should I not be considered for this new title of PoP? I was told by a an administrator in our college at the time that the answer was a resounding “no”.
Of the options presented in the PPT slide deck from the senate meeting last spring, my preference would be the replacement option. Coexistence results in too many titles and confusion for us, and for our internal/external stakeholders as well. If the replacement option does not garner enough support, then I suppose one of the merger options (version 1 or 2, NOT version 3) would be my next choice.
Thanks again for taking up this issue. I hope this helps.
I strongly support the creation of a Teaching Professor title, with the understanding that many or most of our current continuing lecturers and senior lecturers would qualify for one or another of the proposed ranks under the new title. If the title “lecturer” has a 50 year history, then the lack of recognition for continuing lecturers as full-fledged members of the university faculty also has a 50 year history. It is long past time for this substantial cohort (evident in the numbers presented by the committee) to achieve this next step of recognition.
While I support this initiative whole-heartedly I reiterate that the new title should be granted —at the appropriate rank—to the vast majority of Cornell’s already employed lecturers and senior lecturers. In support of this argument, I offer the following cautionary tale.
Within Arts and Sciences (the college that has employed me as a lecturer/senior lecturer for 20+ years) the creation of the Professor of the Practice title several years ago represented a notable failure to recognize the contributions of current continuing lecturers. When the Professor of the Practice title was created—with teaching and service expectations, as well as renewal expectations—that are virtually identical to those of senior lecturers, senior lecturers were explicitly ineligible. The argument was made that Professors of the Practice had qualifications outside of normal academic training (e.g. in journalism or the arts) that made their contributions distinctive, even though the courses they taught were identical with those taught by senior lecturers.
The argument that the new title would be useful for, say, dual-career recruiting ran up against the fact that many aspiring academics are married to other aspiring academics, and many job candidates who recently completed graduate school have spouses who also recently finished graduate school. They may not have had the opportunity to build impressive careers in non-academic fields. Whatever the intent, the effect was to create a new rank with higher pay and higher prestige then dozens of long-term senior lecturers.
As the committee’s work demonstrates, peer institutions often grant Teaching Professor status to colleagues doing the same work that senior lecturers do at Cornell. In Arts and Sciences, this includes large cohorts of language and writing teachers.
As a final note I would say that I became aware of this initiative quite recently, when I was elected RTE senator-at-large for my college. As I’ve pointed out to various people over the years, my program—composed entirely of lecturers and senior lecturers—has no direct representation within the Faculty Senate. (This is some of why I ran for an at-large seat). I hope that the move to Teaching Professor, when it comes, also accounts for this and other ways that RTE faculty are under-represented within venues that engage in faculty governance.
I strongly support the general thrust of this proposal. This action is long overdue.
There is a wide range of activities that our teaching professionals can engage in: course lecturing/teaching using largely pre-existing materials; creating new course materials and activities (curricular infrastructure development); evaluating and providing feedback on course materials; laboratory experiment and lecture demonstration development and feedback; developing entirely new courses; developing additional programs and supplementary courses to help support diverse students; supporting professorial faculty in their teaching and curriculum development efforts; providing training and support to new faculty and new graduate TAs; developing improved metrics and methods for evaluation of educational impacts and helping to collect and analyze the data; providing long term memory and continuity regarding teaching practices in a department; assisting or leading in the writing of internal and external proposals supporting teaching initiatives; . . . Our teaching professionals can also provide oversight and feedback to leadership on whether Departmental and College teaching resources are being effectively deployed.
Few of our professorial faculty have the time or interest to engage in many of these activities, activities that are critical for delivering on our promise to provide an excellent education and (to our less blessed students) upward socioeconomic mobility.
The extent to which our teaching professionals engage in these activities varies widely depending on their interests and on their individual and departmental circumstances. We currently have too few titles to reflect the diversity of roles that our teaching professionals play and to encourage those interested in maximizing their engagement. One may be an excellent classroom teacher but do little innovation and little outside their classes, while another may be a strong classroom teacher, engage in and support curriculum development and evaluation efforts, be an excellent mentor to new faculty, and actively participate in broader discussions around teaching and technology in the Department and University. Yet both may share the same title: Senior Lecturer. This makes no sense.
We need both types of education professionals, but we especially need to support, encourage and recognize those who go beyond the core and have the agency and energy to engage in the many activities required to strengthen our overall teaching mission.
Maintaining a strong teaching culture in R1 university departments is challenging because of the pull and rewards of the research side on professorial faculty interests and time. Our teaching professionals can provide the core of that culture, and some should have professor titles that reflect their broad vision, activities, and accomplishments.