Logo: University of Southern California

Governance

Epstein ISE Department Standing Rules of Faculty Governance

 

Standing Rules Relating to Merit Review of Full-Time Faculty

 

Standing Rules Relating to the Appointment and Role of Academic Personnel

The following standing rules have adopted during the course of scheduled faculty meetings by an affirmative vote of the full time faculty present and eligible to vote (or eligible to submit a proxy vote).
 

Final Criteria for Adjunct Faculty Appointments  -  March 27, 2007

It is clear from current adjunct appointments in the Viterbi School that there is a strong preference for appointing individuals with doctoral degrees to the adjunct faculty ranks. Adjunct faculty members are occasionally appointed for other reasons, such as other graduate credentials or decades of distinguished industry experience. We have identified no one with a Viterbi School adjunct faculty appointment and a BS degree as a terminal credential.

The Epstein Department should subscribe to this de facto standard. We should consider appointing individuals on a case by case basis, and only if there are compelling rationales that speak to the individual’s strong qualifications for the role. These might include distinguished professional service, distinguished professional memberships (in organizations such as the NAE/ NAS) or flag rank.
 
  • It was moved and seconded to finalize the wording of the standards as indicated.
  • The motion passed unopposed.
 

Voting Procedures for Associate Professor and/or Professor of the Practice  -  February 20, 2007
  • It was moved and seconded that all tenure track faculty of any rank and that all full time non-tenure track faculty of the same or greater rank be allowed to participate in committees considering appointments to the ranks of Associate Professor of the Practice and Professor of the Practice appointments, and to be permitted to vote in appointment procedures.
  • The motion passed unanimously.
 
 

Faculty Search Guidelines – January 24, 2007


Epstein Chair Position
 - The search needs to be as broad as possible to identify a leading faculty member in the industrial engineering profession. The most important criteria for selection are the qualifications of the individual. The candidate must exceed the threshold for a full Professor appointment at USC in more than one of the following criterion; membership in NAE or other comparable academics, number of awards, editorship in leading journals, research and publication track record, authorship of leading books in the field, number of patents, ability to connect to multiple areas within or outside the department, etc.

Other Faculty - In this case, the search needs to be more focused, and the selection of the area(s) to search must be conducted under an open process and over several faculty meetings. At the first meeting, each faculty member (if they choose) can propose and make a case for a search in a particular area. At a subsequent meeting, each faculty member first ranks and gives a weight (1-10) for each presented area. The scores are tabulated and a final ranking of the areas is formed. Thereafter, a faculty vote will be conducted to determine how many of the presented areas are included in the faculty search. The Recruiting Committee will then be given the charge of filtering the candidates on the basis of the top ranked areas. The final step of this process is a standard faculty discussion and vote on the candidates that merit the interview process.

Opportunity for Hire - The department should take advantage of opportunities for hire whenever possible. However, it is important that these candidates meet the qualifications for hiring under a regular search process for the commensurate rank.

 
  • It was moved and seconded to adopt the Committee’s recommendations as outlined in the memorandum, with the friendly amendments to consider the candidate’s number of patents and to change Junior Faculty to Other Faculty. 
  • It was moved and seconded to vote on the friendly amendments.
  • The motion passed--8 in favor and 4 opposed.
  • The amended motion to adopt the Committee’s recommendations passed--11 in favor, 1 abstention.

It was noted that the criteria applied to the Epstein Chair search should normally be applied to any search for a chaired faculty position.


Criteria for Promotion to Associate Professor of the Practice and Professor of the Practice  - October 17, 2006

Viterbi School of Engineering Criteria for Use of the Titles “Associate Professor of Engineering Practice” and “Professor of Engineering Practice” 

The Viterbi School of Engineering has two new titles of Associate Professor of Engineering Practice (Specialization) and Professor of Engineering Practice (Specialization) are to be used for Non-Tenure Track Teaching faculty with service, experience and qualification beyond those for Senior Lecturer.

The required criteria for the position of Associate Professor of Engineering Practice (Specialization) will be the following:

  • Leadership position in the Department or the School in the area of teaching, including laboratory, or industrial site coordination, and curricular development
  • Development of new pedagogical methods and teaching materials in engineering with specific emphasis in the practice of engineering in its various forms
  • Service as a mentor to students and graduates
  • Service at least seven years as instructor, Lecturer, or Senior Lecturer

Additional criteria to be considered for the appointment will include receiving Division or Department awards, having given lectures at local, state, or national meetings on teaching methods or educational issues, and having published education-related articles.

The required criteria for the position of Professor of Engineering Practice (Specialization) will be the following:

  • Leadership position in the Department or the School in the area of teaching, including laboratory, or industrial site coordination, and curricular development
  • Development of new pedagogical methods and teaching materials in engineering with specific emphasis in the practice of engineering in its various forms
  • Receive funding for educational projects or studies
  • Service as a mentor to new teaching faculty
  • Service as a mentor to students and graduates
  • Service at least twelve years as instructor, Lecturer, or Senior Lecturer, or Associate Professor of Engineering Practice, or has been previously tenured at another appropriate institution.
 

Additional criteria to be considered for the appointment will include having a Ph.D. degree in Engineering-related fields, having national recognition for instructional materials or innovative teaching methods, received School or University awards, having given lectures at local, state, or national meetings on teaching methods or educational issues, and having published articles or teaching materials that make a significant and lasting contribution to the profession. Appointment and promotion of Non-Tenure Track Teaching faculty to the position of Associate Professor of Engineering Practice and Professor of Engineering Practice will follow procedures analogous to those of Non-Tenure-Track Research faculty as established in the Viterbi School of Engineering. Promotions will be governed by the specific expectations established by each Department. In general, Non-Tenure Track Teaching faculty will have demonstrated significant pedagogical achievements, such as, teaching leadership roles, classroom innovations, and, as appropriate, national recognition before being considered for the promotion to the rank of Associate Professor of Engineering Practice or Professor of Engineering Practice.

 

Epstein ISE Department Procedures for Appointing Personnel to the Rank of “Associate Professor of Engineering Practice” and “Professor of Engineering Practice”

The following procedure outlines the steps to form a dossier to be evaluated for promotion to associate/full professor of engineering practice. This dossier will be evaluated on the candidate's accomplishments in engineering education.

The Candidate for promotion submits
  • CV
  • personal statement
  • samples of teaching materials/publications
  • names of people for letters
    • student letters graduate/undergraduate
    • renowned faculty in education
    • alumni
  • list of teaching awards
  • funding in education
 
The Department Chair
  1. Forms the departmental promotion committee
  2. Gathers information from the candidate
  3. Obtains a compilation of the candidate's teaching evaluations.
  4. Asks for letters on behalf of the committee
 
The promotion committee
  1. Defines the group of people that will submit letters. There should be 10 letters, no more than 4 of them suggested by the candidate. Letters may be from
    • students
    • associate/professors of engineering practice
    • faculty
    • alumni
  2. Obtain evaluations of teaching samples of the candidate. May evaluate a DEN lecture or have a proxy evaluate a live lecture (to preserve the committee's anonymity). Could enlist CET Faculty Fellows, Department Chair, or faculty who are well regarded on teaching for this evaluation.
  3. Evaluate the compiled material and writes a recommendation letter to be attached to the dossier. Emphasis on
    • contributions to department teaching
    • development of new teaching materials
    • mentoring
 

The evaluation to Professor of Eng. Practice requires additional information on:

  • funding on educational projects or studies
  • faculty letters on the mentorship provided by the candidate on teaching
  • evidence of prominence beyond the university on engineering education
 
  • It was moved and seconded to adopt the procedures with the friendly amendment to add “Alumni” and remove “CET faculty fellows” from item no. 1.
  • The motion passed unanimously.
 
 

Voting Rights for Full-Time Faculty Who Are At Least 50% Time in the Epstein ISE Department - October 6, 2004

  • It was moved and seconded that any full time tenure track faculty with at least a 50% appointment in the department be allowed voting privileges inclusive of personnel issues. Voting privileges for other types of joint appointments will be decided case by case.
  • The motion passed unanimously.
 

It was noted that the department has a long standing practice of not permitting jointly appointed faculty with 50% appointments to vote by proxy.


Standing Rules Relating to Faculty Responsibilities to Students

The following standing rules have adopted during the course of scheduled faculty meetings by consensus discussion or by an affirmative vote of the full time faculty present and eligible to vote (or eligible to submit a proxy vote).

Ph.D. Screening Examination – October 11, December 6 and 13, 2005

The screening procedure includes the screening exam, which is course-centered and content-based, and review of the student’s record by the full time faculty. The format of the exam may include a written component.  Faculty members have the option of administering an examination that is written, oral, or both.  There must be an oral component to at least one of the exams completed by each student. Each subject examined includes at least two full time faculty members. If a part time faculty member delivered the course, every effort will be made include him or her in the panel, but only the full time faculty vote. Students are graded “Fail,” “Low Pass,” “Pass,” and “High Pass” by each voting faculty member. The faculty members shall provide separate grades for each student. There is no prescribed minimum vote outcome that defines a passing score. 

Each student’s performance on the exam is discussed by the full faculty along with other aspects of the student’s performance. Advisors might act as advocates in this discussion. Each student passes, fails, or is asked to retake the screening exam based on a majority vote of the full time faculty. A retake is the only remedial outcome possible, and must involve the full exam, not an individual or subset of subjects. The opportunity to retake the exam is not automatic. Students who fail on the first attempt leave the doctoral program. Students invited to retake the exam may do so only once.

It was agreed that the exam should be standardized with the same number of voting members per course for each student, advisors who attend their student’s exams should attend all of the exams in the subject area, and part-time faculty participating in the exam do not vote.

 
  • It was moved and seconded that the following list of courses be adopted for screening:
                      Production                              513, 514, 525
                      Manufacturing                        To be determined
                      Quantitative Methods             536, 538, 563
                      Engineering Management       544, 545, 562, 570
                      Systems/SAE                         SAE 541, SAE 542, SAE 549
  • The motion passed unanimously.
 
Graduate Admissions (Masters Programs) – March 21, 2006

The faculty was asked for its position with respect to current admissions standards. The general consensus was that current standards should be retained but could be strengthened. It was agreed that no one with a GPA below a 3.0 should be admitted unless there is a compelling reason. The faculty agreed to try more rigorously to apply standards.

Graduate Admissions (MSEMT) – November 8, 2005
 

The faculty was asked for its position with respect to establishing practices for admission of non-technical students. 

  • It was moved and seconded that applicants to the MSEMT program must have four semesters of calculus-based math to be admitted.
  • The motion passed unanimously.

It was suggested this standard be used for all programs.


Graduate Student Advisement – November 8, 2005

Graduate student advisement is a faculty role. The chair reminds the faculty to (1) be responsive when graduate students ask to meet for advisement, (2) pick up the student file from the student services office, (3) update the student’s study plan, (4) initial and date approval of technical electives, (5) return the file to Director of Student Affairs’ in-box, and (6) inform staff of actions taken. Ph.D. students should only be advised on academic questions by faculty, not staff.


25% Substitution Policy for Graduate Curricula - September 11, 2003

In response to new University requirements, the chair requires faculty members to submit a memorandum justifying any advisement decisions permitting students substitutions of more than 25% of degree curriculum requirements. Faculty members are strongly discouraged from approving substitutions.


Epstein ISE Undergraduate Exit Survey and the Viterbi School of Engineering Undergraduate Exit Assessment – January 31, 2006

It was decided by the faculty to distribute the ISE survey in ISE 495A and the School’s survey in ISE 495B.