- If you were able to take a one or two month sabbatical (a funding mechanism was available) would you want to?
If so, what would you do during a 1-2 month sabbatical? How would you use this opportunity?
- If you have not taken a sabbatical, would you want to, and could you take one?
- This month we want to discuss sabbaticals, which were once a major mechanism for professional refreshment in academics.
While on the UCSF faculty, have you taken a sabbatical?
If so, what year was this, how long was your sabbatical and how was it supported? Could you take another one now?
- In order to prepare for the Summer Division Meeting on June 2nd, which will focus on cyber security and IT planning at UCSF, please submit questions to ask Chief Information Officer Joseph Bengfort and the Information Technology Senate Faculty Panel.
- 90 degrees in April and the Zika virus shows up in the Bay Area â€“ how important is climate and sustainability to UCSFâ€™s missions? This month our Senate Committee on Sustainability has provided the Question of the Month, as is fitting for Earth Day, April 22nd:
UCSF has an ambitious goal of zero waste by 2020 and has made efforts to provide recycling and compost bins almost everywhere. Still, a lot of materials are deposited in the wrong containers. Why is that and what ideas could improve correct recycling and composting at UCSF? Research labs are a large contributor to plastic waste that could be potentially recycled. Would you as faculty support efforts to change the status quo, for example by proposing new ways how tissue culture plastic waste is handled? Do you have suggestion of other opportunities to reduce laboratory and clinical waste?
- Measures to enhance cyber security have become a prominent issue in the UC system. UCSF has a good record of community engagement in trainings and avoidance of malware. However the risk of intrusion and loss of data or theft of data is increasing, and measures that UC has been taking at the systemwide level have been controversial on some campuses. What concerns do you, as UCSF faculty, have about cyber security? Are you more concerned about external intruders, or loss of privacy to UC faculty? Are you concerned about your academic freedom? Do you think the Academic Senate should focus the June division meeting on cyber security and IT planning?
- Do you have specific requests or questions that you would like UCSF IT to address?
- What concerns do you have, many or few, regarding security and privacy issues and UCSF IT operations?
- In general, are there aspects of your work duties for which you do not receive commensurate compensation, and if so, what are these duties? (examples might be clinical or teaching effort for which compensated time is much different than expended effort time).
- For those who receive salary support from NIH, if your salary is above the NIH cap of $183,000, how is the gap in compensation for your NIH research effort supported?
- Should scientific journals be printed, or offered exclusively in electronic format?
- Did the benefits offered by the current UC Retirement Plan influence your decision to come to work at UCSF or to remain at UCSF? If Yes, please provide details.
- What does UCSF do well to institutionally support early career faculty, and what does not work so well?
If you were able to take a one or two month sabbatical (a funding mechanism was available) would you want to?
If so, what would you do during a 1-2 month sabbatical? How would you use this opportunity?
I would spend the time with colleagues in Germany.
A short sabbatical to learn new surgical techniques could be an invigorating experience.
that would be a perfect time. I would love to do for exploring ideas and discussion with people in different fields.
I would consider going on a sabbatical for 1-2 months to work at a facility with the people and equipment unavailable at UCSF to help me move into a different area of research in my field.
yes, catch up on manuscripts writing and grants preparation
The process of applying for a sabattical is opaque, at least in my department. As a faculty in Clinical-X series I am eligible for Professional development leave but I do not know of anyone in my series taking this leave. At least 3-6 months will be useful. I would use the time to work on unpublished manuscripts, write grants, visit other Institutions doing similar work.
To write more and better grants
Yes. I would use this opportunity to visit other centers with similar research interests to establish collaborations and learn new techniques.
That would be a perfect option - I would use to visit a collaborators lab to see their processes and also enhance our collaborations.
Yes, training in sub-sub-specialty procedures; "benchmarking" at other institutions
Take a class, visit other institutions to see how they do things.
I would like to take a 2 month sabbatical to go to the University of Cambridge, my alma mater, to work in an entrepreneurship program that will expose me to the unique challenges to bring biomedical technologies and devices to development and clinical application in the EU, and to contrast this with differences in the same pathways in the US.
Yes, I would very much want to take a sabbatical.
I would return to South Africa to support a research initiative that is in the planning stages.
Yes, I could use this time to devote to my research.
yes, a 1-2 month sabbatical would be extremely helpful to learn new skills, jump start new research projects/grants, and rejuvenate. I would go learn new skills with colleagues at another institution.
A 1 month sabbatical would be nice to be able to write papers without interruption
i would plan on working w/ a different university in a different country
visit a site with existing studies in my area of expertise and potentially engage in a focused collaboration that would result in a novel paper
potentially learn more in the exercise science realm, or visit a "big data" site
Yes, I would be very interested in this opportunity.
Yes. I would use it to explore and establish research connections in another country--likely Mexico.
Yes, I would spend the time re-aligning my research which is often smashed into whatever little time I have between my teaching and service and professional responsibilities. I definitely think it would further my research and collaborations.
To teach in under served areas of the world while learning from their experiences.
Not sure - possibility of just hanging around with EP fculty
Well the key is "a funding mechanism was available." If available I would study in my field with colleagues elsewhere in the US or abroad.
Yes - I would mostly build on my research program and potentially seek out opportunities to build upon my research skills
Yes! Protected time for writing project.
Yes, I would like to take the this time to allow for development of creative research ideas. The last time time I was able to think of a great idea was when I was on maternity leave! What I mean by saying that is there isn't enough time while covering clinical services to declutter your brain to come up with something creative. Allowing oneself to think outside of the box requires that other demands of a physician's life be somewhat relaxed.
No, I am 50% faculty at UCSF and have a private practice 50% so would be too difficult to leave private practice for a month or two
I would like to spend time at the Sanger Centre in the UK and carry out a collaborative project with one of their investigators.
This shorter interval would be possible from a clinical standpoint. I would develop my research and health policy interests.
Yes, I would. I would use this opportunity to complete writing papers, collaboration traveling to another institutions, and even complete some grant writing. Daily admin duties have consumed much of this time for these tasks.
I would use it to refine my skills in so many ways, take courses on how to improve my daily work productivity, find out how to use technology better both for managing my work, my e-mail, communications and patient interactions. I can make a list so long that there wouldn't be enough space in this free text field. I receive so many announcements of professional development workshops and I simply have no time to even consider them.
immerse myself in a line of science I do not get to d.
Yes- this would be a great opportunity. I would likely use it to get advanced statistical methods training by doing online courses, or if I could make arrangements, travel to work with one of my non-Bay Area colleagues.
Yes I would want to. I would go to an institution to work with experts in my methodological field of interest (statistical medical image analysis) and collaborate on a specific idea that I have in progress to publish a high-impact methodological paper. (Difficult to do this without a dedicated chunk of time and appropriate experts in the field to bounce thinking off of.)
Further collaborations at other leading institutions
Enrich my expertise
Mentoring of trainees at other institutions
I would definitely want to do this. I am a tobacco control researcher, and would use the time to visit a colleague in Australia and study the effects of the tobacco plain packaging law.
I would take a short sabbatical to acquire new technology in another lab
I would absolutely love to take a sabbatical and improve my skills
I would love to. I would use this to learn new surgical skills elsewhere. For me, I would go learn ERCP and advanced endoscopy.
Yes I would. I would use the opportunity for creative activity with regard to writing and my non-profit organization as well as traveling to learn new surgical techniques.
Yes, definitely. I would visit another institution (there are multiple options where I have colleagues) and observe their clinic and collaborate on research.
I am retiring, so it's moot for me, but I don't think 1-2 months is enough.
Definitely would want to. I would write a grant, or a few papers, or develop an educational program, or some other academic project that is difficult to accomplish with limited time.
International medical work/education, a mission type thing
Take a class on and run in depth bioinformatics on collected data that I have not had teh bandwidth to really look at.
Travel and meet with others in the same field and discuss issues and innovations that could be applied to clinical and collaborative efforts at UCSF.
Yes would want to. Would further my work I. Helping solve the issues of food insecurity and poverty and obesity. It would help in my work in the UCSF Weight Management clinic.
Yes, I would either spend the time writing a research grant or develop and disseminate online educational materials for my clinical subspecialty ( essentially an e-book)
Yes. Work on grant planning
Yes, I would want to take a 1-2 month sabbatical if funding was available. Seek funding opportunities- write grants and look for opportunities to collaborate with others, perhaps internationally.
Absolutely. I would visit a collaborators laboratory to learn new techniques relevant to our research.
Complete the scores of manuscripts that I have no time to complete. Accept the multiple offers for international visiting professorships. Take time to learn some of the statistical methods that I have not had time to learn or set up the databases that have not been available to develop... etc, etc, etc...
be visiting faculty member in another country e.g., Philippines
I would be interested in learning from other institutions regarding best practices for directing a residency, QI curricular development, business strategies for residency expansion without GME funding, cutting edge use of IT in residency programs.
Recover and recharge.
Catch up on long -postponed projects and finally catch up on email!
I would use it to develop a new technique in the lab, as I did with previous sabbaticals.
Yes. I would visit with a clinical colleague (or colleagues) for one month to compare approaches to difficult cases and issues in my clinical practice and arrange collaborative studies to answer such outstanding questions. I would also work on updating teaching materials using and sharing my materials with the colleagues that I visited. I might also visit scientific colleagues (nonclinical), but that would take much more effort to pan and execute.
Yes. I would likely visit international collaborators for an extended period of time.
Have protected time for manuscript writing, generating grant application ideas and having time to foster international/global research relationships (that exist but require protected time to further foster and grow)
Yes - travel to collaborate and learn a new skill.
Yes. I would like to take it as a chance to learn some new science.
I would use it to learn a couple of new clinical skill sets such as ultrasound biopsy or brachytherapy. These would enhance the department and the institution.
I'd like to go on a sabbatical. I'd arrange to spend the time as a visiting professor at another institution, seeing how they do things.
I would very much like to take one. I would take the time to write and meet with colleagues doing similar work. I would also simply take some time to think. I work on soft money, so very difficult to think about how I would or could take one.
Yes, if the issue of financial consequences for my Dept could be resolved. I would use it to work on a book-- at least to get launched.
Yes. Spend time in a colleagues lab learning a new technique, which could be used to explore new directions for my lab.
I would love a 2 month sabattical. I have an idea for a monograph that I want to write that explores diversity, transformative learning theory and the neuroscience of bias. I would use the protected time to explore three distinct areas in the literature and to bring them together. Ultimately, it might serve as the basis for a book and a series of workshops to think about education and diversity.
Visit several other institutions observe their patient care processes; take time to write papers (no time to do this now...)
Yes. Catching up on developing some research protocols which I can't do while overscheduled cynically. Advancing my statistics background. So many thingsâ€¦
Yes I would. I would go to another center to get trained on new imaging techniques that we do not currently do.
visit the acgme and take their mini-course on assessment. then work on our dom it challenge grant to implement what we have found.
Not sure I would for the reasons above, but if so, I'd probably go and learn how others are utilizing genomics/methylomics techniques in their diagnostic services.
Visit another institution and learn about a new technology
I would use it to make connections with potential collaborators and to consider writing grants that are at the edge of my expertise.
Would visit collaborators lab, work on grants.
I would do international work.
Learn new skills in a different place. Academic time to write papers, books and grants. Make conections
Yes. I will spend one month in Eurotransplant at the Netherlands to gain knowledge on how the 'pooling' donor organs making use of a central waiting list, on the complex organ allocation rules, novel matching algorithm, and on the transplant community experiences. If I am allowed for 2 months sabbatical, I will spend 2 weeks at DKMS unrelated marrow donor registry at Germany to learn how they coordinate all the donations, and interact all the lists in the country with other lists worldwide. I will spend rest of the 2 weeks at one of the transplant programs and associated Histocompatibility Testing Laboratories in Saudi Arabia, Iran, UAE, or India. The sabbatical will help me to learn how the transplant matching and post-transplant management are done in Europe, and will bring the knowledge back to our UCSF transplant programs. Visiting transplant programs and associated Histocompatibility Testing Laboratories in Saudi Arabia, Iran, UAE, or India will lead to bring Histocompatibility Testing business to UCSF Immunogenetics and Transplantation Laboratory.
Yes, I would like to take a sabbatical to work with colleagues in my field of research to write grants and complete a paper,
Yes! Professional development - explore and area o usually don't have time to
Not applicable. I am retired from UCSF and have a full-time appointment at another university.
Yes. Write, write, write. Optimally away from home and visiting international colleagues to learn something new.
Recommend any funding mechanism support at least 3 months.
1-2 months not enough to be meaningful. Need at least 6 months but 12 months preferrable.
I would prefer a year
YES - I would use this to learn about a research topic related to thrombosis in malignancy, an area of research I would like to undertake, and one that would be very beneficial to UCSF.
Yes. I would like to study digital illustration to further my medical illustration work.
Yes. This would be used for a more focused visit to an international medical school to focus on a clinical research collaboration that is already in progress but could benefit from this time in direct contact.
Absolutetly!!!!!!!!!! I would work in a lab relevant to my area of study and likely learn A LOT during my time there.
YES! I would read up on new methods in the field, read and think outside of my field to gain new perspectives and background, catch up on and review clinical medicine, and write a few papers I've been meaning to write for a long time.
yes- travel out of country
Yes! I would be interested in visiting other schools of medicine with clinical reasoning curricula and exploring what they do; or in focusing on professional development through AACH; or traveling abroad as a guest lecturer; or working on writing
Yes. I would consider doing a visiting professorship at another institution to learn or practice a new method for my research. I would also consider spending a few months improving my clinical skills in certain areas where we are not experts at UCSF
Yes, visit a colleague's lab to learn a new discipline or technique
Yes. I would visit another institution doing similar research but in a different manner. I would use this time to broaden the scope of my research program.
Yes - I would work on a project related to professional development (for example visiting scholar at an institution with expertise in an area related to my research and admin focus (clinical research informatics)
Yes, I would take a 1-2 month sabbatical to fully immerse myself in my research.
Yes, I would want to take a 1-2 month sabbatical. I could take leave for professional development, write a textbook or other medical publication, or practice my field in another country and give my family the opportunity to experience life overseas. My parents took sabbaticals (retired professors) when I was younger and it was beneficial for the entire family.
I would have loved to be an observer in another clinical department doing similar work; Also would have considered training in patient communication.
I would love to take short sabbaticals to work on targetted projects or books.
Absolutely. I would go to another country to work with colleagues there who are working on similar or overlapping projects or to a place where I could learn a new skill set for reserach or to study disease I did not know very well. I might go to the NIH to spend time seeing patients through the Undiagnosed Disease Program and learning how they assess for certain genetic or metabolic disorders. I could go to a country where there is a very dense population of one of the genetic diseases I am studying.
I would love to arrange a visit/stay to another medical school to observe/learn psychiatric curriculum.
yes. I need to learn CRISPR/cas9 and performance and analysis of ChIP-seq and RNA-seq assays
yes - but would prefer 1 year. No funding needed.
I would either learn a new laboratory technique ( if went elsewhere) or would work to expand transitional research/bio specimen efforts in my clinical division
I would write up several papers/manuscripts. This would be of enormous help to thinking out new directions.
Yes, I would travel to another center to learn or be exposed to new techniques and research questions.
yes, would use this to gain experience in clinical trials and regulatory processes
yes, I would take one and I would use the opportunity to: write manuscripts that I have not had time to do, including some that help communicate and advance our work to new audiences. I would also focus on a sustainability plan for our group.
yes. Brief time in a colleagues research group in another institution, or fellowship at the FDA
Yes, definitely. I would use this opportunity to stop seeing patients and work full time on an R01 proposal.
It doesn't make sense to have a sabbatical for less than one quarter.
In a minute. I would arrange to spend time at a foreign university working with colleagues in my field.
Unlike question 2, at my current career stage, I feel a short 1-2 month sabbatical would work well for learning a new technique while visiting a lab.
Absolutely! The temptation is to catch up but it would be fun to think about what I could do with a 1-2 month period of reflection.
Yes, would like to use this opportunity to learn new area of research/technique that can help expand the current research program
YES, most definitely. I would use this to pursue a volunteer activity or research project outside of the everyday grind that would nevertheless enhance my professional pursuits and broaden my horizons.
yes; visiting professor to learn about other training programs, funding, possibly take a leadership course
If you have not taken a sabbatical, would you want to, and could you take one?
Yes, but abbreviated
Yes, but sabbaticals are tricky for surgeons dependent on continuing referrals from other physicians to drive a robust operative practice. Once there is an interruption in service, referrals may simply stay elsewhere when you return.
wish to but not sure If I can do
I would like to take a sabbatical. As a Professor in Residence I don't think I'm allowed, but not sure.
Yes. Not sure how my heavy clinical load will be covered in my absence. Not having funds to support the Y portion of salary is a major issue even if clinical/teaching coverage can be arranged. Losing vacation days beyond maximum accrual is an issue that no one wants to address.
Practically impossible for faculty covering specialized clinical procedures...related issue is losing vacation days after long enough period of service beyond maximum accrual
Yes, and I am eligible.
Yes I would like to. I have not seen many of my peers take sabbatical, so I'm not sure how or if I even can.
I might want to, but don't see how I could with the current funding climate.
Yes I would. I could take one in my current job.
I would not take one
Given the way my funding works, I probably could not
yes, I would like to take a sabbatical. colleagues at other universities and even industry are coming up for their third sabbatical (over 21 yrs).
I would not want to take a long sabbatical because I think coverage would be too hard
i would like to but i am not sure if i could
Yes, and probably in the future
I would want to, but the circumstances of my work would make it difficult, due to the need to carry out funded projects and avoid major disruptions in the care of my patients in clinic.
Yes, I would. I believe that I am eligible to take one, with permission from my institute's director..
Could (with difficulty for others n my service re coverage) - not sure I'd want to
Yes, if I could arrange for someone to cover my administrative duties.
If you mean can I take 1-2 months to learn new skills or study with colleagues elsewhere, then I cannot take one unless I pay my salary during that time from my grants, or perhaps if I take leave without pay.
Yes, yes if I could fund it.
Yes - currently we do not have the ability to take a sabbatical in the School of Pharmacy.
Yes, I would like to take one. There is a provision to take sabbaticals in the dept but its goes through a rigorous approval process.
I have been on faculty for a little over a year and do not feel the need to take a sabbatical
Yes and probably yes
I would be very interested in taking one if this were possible. I doubt that I would be able to stop clinical activity for extended period without losing my referral base.
Yes, I would want to. However, being in clinical X series, sabbatical isn't allowed. As my understanding, sabbatical is only allowed for tenure faculty.
I would LOVE to take a sabbatical. Yes, I definitely could and it is sorely needed.
if I can find the time to do so
Yes- would love to take one and would be able to arrange for clinical coverage.
Yes I would like to take a sabbatical. I believe it would be possible to take a sabbatical but I would need to somehow fund it all myself which I cannot see any possibility of being able to do in the near future.
Yes to both
I would love to take a sabbatical
Yes but no, can't take one rightnow.
I absolutely want and need to take a sabbatical. My department does not support this.
Definitely would want to take one. No sure what is meant by "could you take one." Probably could take a 1-2 month sabbatical.
Eventually might want to
I would love to if my department agreed and I could afford to.
I would very much want to take one, but it seems that there are several barriers. 1) The process of applying for a sabbatical is not clear (no forms or guidance, or maybe if there are forms/guidance, I'm not sure where they are). It would be incredibly helpful to see a list of approved sabbaticals even to help "inspire" ideas for others. 2) Given #1, there seems to be a high rate of rejection (anecdotally) and so it decreases the motivation to even think of applying for one, since it seems it may not be approved. 3) Are there funding mechanisms to support the Y portion of the salary, and what are they? It would be very helpful to know about these.
yes- would want to; but No - do not believe I could take one
Yes, I would want to. Not sure if it is possible to take one given my sources of funding.
Yes, I would want to take a sabbatical. Yes, I could take a sabbatical, but it requires support of the the section/ division/ school of medicine and we do not have the "excess clinical capacity" to allow for one.
I would be interested in doing so at some point but dont know if I could.
yes I would, but no I cannot (clinical X series).
Yes and Yes
I would like to and could take one.
I would want to take one. I cannot take one in my present situation as I am clinical X, and the RVU deficit would be counted against me.
Yes, but I don't know how to go about it. I've not been told anything about my eligibility. I am not sure if I could continue to receive my normal salary.
I would very much like to take one. I would take the time to write and meet with colleagues doing similar work. I would also simply take some time to think. I work on soft money, so very difficult to think about how I would or could take one.
That is the only sabbatical I have taken. I would want to take sabbaticals, but have not been able, partly because of my responsibilities for ongoing projects and partly because if I did my Dept. would suffer financially
Yes. there is no funding mechanism for this
Would want to. As far as I know, I can't.
Yes, but not really available for clinical x in our department.
Yes it would, but I'm told no I cannot.
study effective methods of resident assessment in graduate medical education with the hope of implementing this system at ucsf
In theory, I could take one, but it's very difficult because I have a national/international consult service, which would suffer if I leave town for more than a week or two at a time.
Not at this point in time I have just joined UCSF but it is very valuable for longer serving members . If I has been here fro more time I would value a sabbatical.
I have taken one for almost 13 years. I was eligible for a sabbatical more than 5 years ago but I had a good momentum in my work productivity and progression. I feel ready to take a sabbatical because I need time refreshed my skill and knowledge base. On the other hand, I believe sabbaticals do need to be reviewed as a concept for this institution. Can the institution afford it from a financial and human resource perspective?
Yes I would want to. It would be hard to take one without a reduction in pay.
Could be nice, but not possible.
I would like to take one and believe I could
I would very much like to expand skills and learn new techniques on sabbatical. The most difficult thing about sabbatical would be finding mechanisms to fund clinical effort and insure continued success of my laboratory.
Yes, I would like to take a sabbatical. I am unaware of any clinical faculty in my department taking a sabbatical aside from my chairman. My impression is that there are no funds to support this.
Would want to. I'd need to get funding for one I think
Yes and yes
yes I would want.
no idea how
Yes, I hope so. It seems that the only barrier would be my own department approving it.
Yes I would want to. I would be difficult to arrange clinical and administrative coverage, but with enough planning I could do so.
Sounds like I would have to generate my own salary for the time I took off. So the answer is yes, I would like to but donâ€™t understand how I could do it
Yes I would want one but unsure if it would pan out
I would like very much to take another sabbatical!
would love to- how would I get my clinical responsibilities covered?
Yes, and not sure.
Yes - if I had funding
Yes, I would want to and perhaps I could (would need to figure out factors, such as children).
I would like to take a sabbatical or a leave for professional development, writing a textbook or other medical publication, or to practice my field in another country and give my family the opportunity to experience life overseas. My parents took sabbaticals (retired professors) when I was younger and it was beneficial for the entire family.
Yes would have loved to!
Yes, I would love to take sabbaticals.
Absolutely! I would LOVE to take a sabbatical. I think I could take one, although it would be a little hard with my clinical outpatient responsibilities. I'd have to divide up my clinical patients among my colleagues so that they could be continued to be cared for in my absence. I would also have to find a colleague to cover my reserach patients ....
I would absolutely want to take one; as clinical X I didn't think I was able to.
as above, and would do it again but hard to get away
Yes but not clear how I could fund this
Yes, I would love to! It's hard to know if I could work it out though. But if I had known it was possible, I could have structured my life a little differently.
Yes, but in my current series, a sabbatical would be unpaid.
yes and yes!
I really want to, I have been on faculty for 8 years. But when I ask about it HR isn't sure about what to do. They also say that my position (MD/PhD in Residence series) doesn't get "sabbatical" but rather "professional development leave"
YES. I can but the timing is dependent on others, so maybe not quite when ideal for me.
I would love to, but am not yet eligible.
Yes, I would take one if the appropriate opportunity arose. Although at this point, a traditional longer sabbatical would be premature at my current career stage.
I would love to - who has the time? How would it be funded?
Yes, and yes.
Yes, most definitely would want to take one. Would not even know how to begin to figure out how to take one.
This month we want to discuss sabbaticals, which were once a major mechanism for professional refreshment in academics.
While on the UCSF faculty, have you taken a sabbatical?
If so, what year was this, how long was your sabbatical and how was it supported? Could you take another one now?
No, I have not taken a sabbatical. I've been on faculty at UCSF since I joined in April, 2000.
yes, about 10 years ago, for one year, supported by FTE and department, yes I can take another one now
No, I have not taken a sabbatical. In the mean time colleagues at other Institutions are coming up for their second sabbatical.
I have not taken a sabbatical as I have been at UCSF for 2 years. I was at Stanford for 16 years before this and also never took a sabbatical. In hind sight this would have been a wonderful thing to do.
2002 6 weeks. Saved annual leave at the VA. I would not know how to financially support/justify the leave given my grant funding commitments.
in 20 years as a faculty member, I have never had a sabbatical.
I have not taken a sabbatical
No, I have not taken a sabattical.
Yes; 1981-82 (12 months); NIH grant; no
No, I have not taken a sabbatical.
As a HS faculty, I have never been offered the opportunity.
I have been a faculty at UCSF for over 20 years. I have never taken a sabbatical. I am a little surprised that the question is even asked. Maybe there some few elite faculty who have paid sabbaticals, or who take sabbaticals without pay?
Never taken a sabbatical.
I have not taken a sabbatical while on UCSF faculty
I have not
No, never taken one.
No, have never taken one.
I wasn't aware that sabbaticals were even a possibility in my department. Our department operates on such limited funds that even the thought of my department having "extra" funds to support my work while I take sabbatical sounds like something out of a dream. I would have taken one many years ago if it were available.
I have taken 3 sabbaticals:
1985-86, 1 year support by a fellowship from the John Simon Guggenheim Foundation
1998, 3 months,support by Rotschild/Mayent Fellowship, Institut Curie, Paris France
2006-7, 6 months, The Alexander von Humboldt Foundation Prize (Research Award), Germany
I am considering an additional short sabbatical
I am a physician scientist in the residence series.
Unfortuantely it is not possible to take sabbaticals in this series and I strongly feel this is a major limitation.
Never took it.
I have been here 17 years and have not taken a sabbatical.
I have had two: 6 months in 2002 and 3 months in about 2010. Both were supported by a combination of state funding (my FTE), research grants that I continued working, and pro-fees I had saved from consulting.
Never taken a sabbatical
2002-2003 - one year sabbatical, immediately after promotion to Assoc Prof Clin Peds, supported by department. Not refreshing but definitely mind opening. Yes - I would take another shorter one but do not know if that is possible.
no, I have not taken a sabbatical
Yes. 10-15 years ago, do not recall exactly it was long ago. 6 months. I am ladder rank and had some other funds as well. I took it in my own lab, probably not the best idea.
Hard to imagine how I could take another but would not mind it.
2001-2002 = 12 months - I would have trouble taking one now due to administrative responsibilities.
No. I tried to ask for one about 8 years ago and was told that it would take three people to cover my clinical load, and that therefore it would not be allowed. I would DESPERATELY like to take one...
1993 (1 year), 2000 (9 months). Supported by 19900 and grant funds. I am way overdue for another sabbatical, and I have funding, but it is hard to extricate oneself from daily activities (clinical and research) without burdening colleagues.
~1988 one year, supported by VA, if I recall correctly
~1998 half year, supported by grants and VA, if I recall correctly
I don't think I could now find a way to support myself for a sabbatical (I am In Resdience)
Yes I took a 1 year sabbatical in 2014, funded entirely by my research grants. I could not take another one now as I'm not sure I still have the credits, and my Division would likely not be able to put together the coverage for clinical and teaching duties. Funding sabbatical from research grants is not ideal, because most of my time was spent doing what I typically spend 80% of my time doing anyway, funding that is unencumbered in this way for sabbatical would be preferred. However the time allowed me to travel internationally and build new connections outside UCSF that would not have been feasible otherwise. The opportunity to think about new questions and to make new connections is invaluable.
I am in my 9th year on faculty and have not ever had a sabbatical. I was given two weeks off in my first year of practice to study for the national specialty certification board exam.
I have been on the faculty at UCSF for 25 years, and never taken a sabbatical.
I have taken only 1 sabbatical, during 1999-2000.
It was supported by my continuing to work on a major project, and by the difference in the cost of renting an apartment in Paris and the rent on my house in SF.
I have not taking one
I am currently on a year-long sabbatical, which I am supporting through grant funding (a combination of continuing my work on existing grants, and a new grant to support my sabbatical-associated work). Of course, I also depended on the generosity of colleagues to cover me in various administrative and other roles during my absence.
I have been here for 25 years in TT line and have taken sabbatical twice. Once for two quarters; the second time for three quarters. Both were supported by state, dept and grant funds. I have lost numerous credits over the years, and the plan is to take a year long sabbatical this year.
2000, 6 months. Supported through VA salary and NIH R01 grant. Unlikely that I could take another one now as I would be required to get people to cover my clinical and administrative duties
Never taken one.
No, never taken sabbatical.
I have never had a Sabbatical
1985, one year, CNRS, NIH, UCSF salary; 1995, one year, NIH, UCSF salary; 2006, one year, NIH, UCSF salary
I have taken 3 full one year sabbaticals (1991-2000-01; 2009-10) as Professor in Residence in Medicine. Each sabbatical was supported by NIH R01 grants and some accumulated clinical income. I am eligible for another sabbatical in 2017. Each sabbatical was very rewarding professionally and scientifically and also for my family.
I took a full year sabbatical in 1985-86. It was a chance to learn new technologies of later central importance to my research laboratory.
No, but I did at another University
NO (so sad)
Yes, I have taken a sabbatical for 5 months and worked in a third world medical school to help with their curriculum and assessment development as well as clinical services. This was extremely helpful for me as an educator and I believe it was equally beneficial to the organization I visited. There is much to be learned and much to do around the world to improve global health and health education. Overwhelming majority of the world's population and world's medical schools do not enjoy the priviliges we have in US medical schools and hospitals, and as citizens of this global community we can do much to improve the conditions. Yes I would do another sabbatical now.
PS. UCSF should do more than pay lip service to global health. Individuals at UCSF do marvellous things but in my opinion the institution could have done much more to help or promote their efforts. Global health is not about treating the wealthy foreigners who come to UCSF.
Are you kidding? seems like you need to be independently wealthy to do this
Yes, in 2005, for 6 months. It was fully supported by the World Health Organization. I do not have funds to take a sabbatical now.
2014, 4 months, Department funds
No, not yet!
I have not taken a sabbatical. My understanding is that sabbaticals are available only for ladder-rank faculty. I am in the Clinical X series and I think I can take a "professional leave" to do some sort of advanced training. I don't know how salary support works during this time.
No have not taken
Never, as an In-Residence faculty I was told that we cannot take sabbaticals.
2 times 1998-99 3 quarters and 2006-7 3 quarters
No, I have not taken a sabbatical
1989, 6 months, supported by my NIH grants, but VA part time salary continued
Are you being funny or are you just clueless? I'm a Prof in Residence. No sabbatical.
It is completely maddening that I have brought literally millions of money to UCSF and get no sabbatical, nor even money over the NIH cap for my salary.
2010, 6-month sabbatical
have never taken on and I'd like to!
I have never taken a sabbatical because I have been adjunct and then in-residence faculty.
Never taken one
I took a sabbatical of sorts to focus on my research for 7 months in Kenya--May-December 2007.
Yes. 2003 for about 11 months, supported by existing grants. Then again in 2015 for about 6 months, supported in part by unused vacation time.
yes; 1989 for 10 months supported by my department (I had 8 months of pay spread over 10 months)
2011-2012; 9 months; Fulbright award plus UCSF discretionary funds; after 7-8 years if i can get funding
In order to prepare for the Summer Division Meeting on June 2nd, which will focus on cyber security and IT planning at UCSF, please submit questions to ask Chief Information Officer Joseph Bengfort and the Information Technology Senate Faculty Panel.
How will the increased security be funded initially and on an ongoing basis?
what was the question?
Would UCSF phase out wired IP ?
Should UCSF have dual authentication for logging into clinical applications such as APeX?
With many labs handling very large data sets, some of which are linked to patient secure information for transnational studies, are we in a position to provide secure integrated central servers that have the capacity to store google bytes of data and wifi speeds to support data analyses from these central servers at UCSF, as a future directive? This will support the seamless integration of EMR and big data to the bedside.
90 degrees in April and the Zika virus shows up in the Bay Area â€“ how important is climate and sustainability to UCSFâ€™s missions? This month our Senate Committee on Sustainability has provided the Question of the Month, as is fitting for Earth Day, April 22nd:
UCSF has an ambitious goal of zero waste by 2020 and has made efforts to provide recycling and compost bins almost everywhere. Still, a lot of materials are deposited in the wrong containers. Why is that and what ideas could improve correct recycling and composting at UCSF? Research labs are a large contributor to plastic waste that could be potentially recycled. Would you as faculty support efforts to change the status quo, for example by proposing new ways how tissue culture plastic waste is handled? Do you have suggestion of other opportunities to reduce laboratory and clinical waste?
we need (national) agreement on what goes in what bin!! Some blue recycling bins can take any color plastic and others only white paper!! this is crazy-making. people are, i think, willing to learn this ONCE but not 10 times a day so they default to garbage.
There is no recycling at Mission Bay Hospital
I think that faculty should be strongly supportive of recycling and composting. They should set a positive example, post techniques and support notes above the waste bins in all their labs, and function as positive examples. Office buildings should be set up similarly but I think that they are already far ahead of the labs. The most difficult area is the hospital, particularly the wards and the operating rooms. They generate far more waste and there is little recycling effort. The leadership of the hospitals should be urged to consider this a critically important issue of our times.
Yes, I am supportive of this mission. In general, having the compost/recycle/landfill bins at EVERY SINGLE LOCATION where there is any trash receptacle would be helpful. Using as much biodegradable material as possible is also helpful.
It is cliche, but "reduce, reuse, recycle". There is a tremendous amount of disposable waste in medicine and research. To start with the last of these, I suspect that there is as much discomfort in recycling cell culture containers as there is with drinking water processed from sewage. Can it be done safely? What is even recyclable, and what needs to go in biowaste? For increasing reuse of items, we should ask what are we using today that we can change to non-disposable items? What are the costs of re-use in terms of water, chemicals and human resources to clean/sterilize these items? To reduce, we must ask whether we "need" everything that is opened. In the Operating Room, ("royal") we have undertaken a multiyear process of examining, first, what disposable items are opened and never used (true waste) so that these things may not be opened in the first place. Second, We are examining sets of surgical instruments for instruments to remove items which are rarely used and removing them from sets. Though these instruments are re-useable, the processing of each instrument costs ~$0.64 per instrument per use, based on water, electricity, and human effort. By streamlining the supply chain, we may remove hundreds of thousands of dollars in waste per year from the Preoperative environment.
So here is a start:
1) Are we using the things we use responsibly? Is there any room to simply reduce unnecessary items from the workflow? This may be disposable equipment. This may be investing in energy-efficient lights, and motion-sensor switches.
2) Are there re-useable alternatives that can remove trash from the waste stream without costing more on the processing side?
3) Can we clearly identify and advocate for items that should be recycled within the biomedical environment? Do we need a bio-waste recycling program? Are recycling bins readily accessible next to the cell culture hoods?
This problem requires that we think big about the small items in our daily life, and promote a culture of responsibility.
It would be great to actually have trash cans next to compost/recycling bins. I often see trash placed in compost/recycling bins because there is no trashcan nearby.
Office space is small and it takes a lot of room to have every single type of recycling and compost container not to mention a confidential shredding bin. If my office area, if we had all the required containers, then we'd be violating fire code, or would have to remove our copy machine and a storage cabinet!
Climate research is not a mission for UCSF. Biologists and medical researchers should stick to biology and medical research - not climate research. this is a medical school, not an atmospheric physics school
Measures to enhance cyber security have become a prominent issue in the UC system. UCSF has a good record of community engagement in trainings and avoidance of malware. However the risk of intrusion and loss of data or theft of data is increasing, and measures that UC has been taking at the systemwide level have been controversial on some campuses. What concerns do you, as UCSF faculty, have about cyber security? Are you more concerned about external intruders, or loss of privacy to UC faculty? Are you concerned about your academic freedom? Do you think the Academic Senate should focus the June division meeting on cyber security and IT planning?
I am more concerned about external intruders than loss of privacy. I am not concerned about my academic freedom.
For the Medical Center as a whole, predominantly related to our patients information, I am much more concerned about external intruders. It would be terrible for them to acquire information that could lead to identity theft. However, for myself and other faculty, I am more concerned about loss of privacy based on the University's oversight of my activities. I think it is going down a dangerous path that is being done for good reasons, but is being carried out without enough involvement of the faculty or concern for academic freedom.
Yes to that last question.
I think this is an excellent point for discussion in June. I am most concerned about data loss, particularly clinical data. Privacy is a lesser concern.
External intruders. Yes, focus on cyber security would be appropriate.
I am very concerned about all of the above. I am also extremely concerned about upcoming cuts to the retirement system for any faculty hired after July 1, 2016. Working in an aging department in the School of Nursing, where faculty salaries for those with advanced degrees and experience are lower than typical RN salaries, I fear that one of our only perks that could make us competitive, a decent retirement plan, is going to disappear.
I am concerned about the possibility in the future of excessive oversight by the UC administration and efforts to monitor faculty productivity without the knowledge of faculty members. My concersn aare about the loss of privacy to UC Faculty and being monitored in terms of how time is spent. I definitely also highly concerned about external intruders, at a global level, and our vulnerability as a society (not just UCSF) to cyber terrorism.
I think my work has been seriously hampered by inefficiency due to short-sighted responses to cypersecurity concerns. Seems more focused on liability than the effects on the faculty.
External intruders seem to be a big area of concern. Yes, this should be a focus of an upcoming division meeting.
My main concerns as faculty is due to hackers from the outside that may get into the UCSF system. I am not concerned about academic freedom. I think the Academic Senate should address cyber security.
yes, cyber security is a huge problem, but also can't be so cumbersome that we can't get our work done. Also UCSF Box needs to be more secure (or some sort of cloud system) to help with our work. IT support has been limited ~ and always different person to support us. Centralization has made it challenging for personalized attention.
Since my work is in global health, I hope to have some balance of protection while at international sites but not tremendous difficulty in accessing materials I need. Certainly from everything I see in the news, cyber security needs to be a major priority.
I received an excellent training on cyber security and the IT manager of my research institute, Doug Mc Craken, is always available to answer my questions, so I do not have concerns.
The 3 times my personal data has been compromised was when it was UC itself, or the selected health plan, who were the source of the release of release of confidential data. I suggest that the UC system needs to clean up its own house first.
My concern is actually about excessive installation of software--including encryption software and BigFix--on my computer and my lab computers, which is completely unnecessary. No one in my lab has any access to any confidential or patient information as we only do basic research. Nor do we have access to any protected systems at UCSF. There seems to be a thought that every UCSF computer user is causing the university to be at risk, having to take a long training session and do extensive software installation...just because we do basic research at a medical school does not mean basic research computers and users should be handled in the same way as in a medical center.
I was alarmed to read that a hospital in SoCal paid a ransom to hackers to release threat to their system.
I am concerned about external intruders gaining access to critical systems and patient records.
I am not too concerned about faculty privacy.
I am not concerned about academic freedom and I am not sure what cyber security has to do with that.
I think besides faculty training in the module we did UC should devise a way to make email phishing impenetrable to our systems. I don't really understand how hackers work at the technological level.
No opinion about the June meeting.
More concerned about loss of privacy and academic freedom.
UCSF needs to do a better job protecting our e-mail addresses, which are the first line of defense against malware. I receive >400 unwanted and unsolicited e-mails a month. Right now, a 10 year old with an iPad can easily and quickly mine our e-mails: Firstname.Lastname@ucsf.edu. I know that we want our patients and colleagues to be able to e-mail us but most professional organizations have a requirement to type in a series of random alphanumeric letters/numbers to see your e-mail, which would help lessen â€œharvestingâ€ of our e-mails without unduly burdening our patients and colleagues.
More concerned about privacy - in general. Cyber security is important, and will need to be dealt with (anti-virus software etc), but no need to go further down the road of "Big brother sees you" and into the fiction of "1984".
I think cyber security, as well as academic freedom, are priorities.
This is an important issue with wide range of repercussions. I agree that a focused session on IT and cyber security should occur. I do think that a reasonable approach and balance must be maintained. As is often noted, security and convenience are inversely related in these matters. Recently, well intentioned UC IT policies have added escalating burdens upon UC faculty in their work activities. While we must obviously seek to secure the data of the patients entrusted to our care we should also allow authorized providers to do their jobs efficiently. For example, the Mission Bay landscape is such that mobile computing is essentially a requirement, particularly because working from Misson Hall is so difficult. In using laptops, and other mobile devise practitioners are forced to navigate numerous sequential logins (computer login, VPN login, Citrix & Apex logins). The result is that getting to a patientâ€™s chart involves a ridiculous number of steps and this leads to horribly inefficient practice. Moreover, it is important to remember that when appropriate means of IT use are laborious, people WILL use non-secure routes. They exist, they will always exist and unless UC can make it easy to use secure methods they are only providing a false sense of security. There is obviously much more to discuss but this should be part of our efforts. Not security in name but security in practice that doesnâ€™t further place the burden of care upon chronically unsupported physicians.
I agree that cyber security is ncecessary, but I am even more concerned about the level intrusion and the barriers placed on our ability to work freely and without concern of being monitored by the University is even more vitally important to us within the UCSF community. I think the measures taken as even prevented me to work effectively when I am away from the University, which I am frequently. Moreover, all of the measures taken slows the computer - there has to be a better way to accomplish the goal of cyber protection.
I'm more worried about intrusion than privacy and have gotten phishing emails before.
In my view OE HR is a tremendous problem and merits attention of AS. Everyone is dissatisfied and nothing improves.
concerned about external includers
I find the security measures taken to be uneven and therefore, a mixed message is sent.
UCSF Box is not HIPPA compliant. I see this as unimaginable, as there is very little we do that doesn't have the potential to get mixed up with some level of PHI including research, and documentation. Providing the community with a shared resource that does not meet the required level of privacy/security is not acceptable. mixed message - it's important to maintain security/privacy/compliance, but here's something for you to use that is not.
UCSF desktop computers (not laptop, DESKTOP) were not requite to be encrypted until last year. This is ridiculous, since someone can (and has) stolen items from our office (not a computer to my knowledge, but that is a small step). Mixed message - encryption is required, but not for your desktop, since it's heavy (???!!!). It gives the perception of a casual attitude towards security.
Secure handling of PHI including video and images is still not facilitated by our systems. eg 1) Cell phone solutions for pictures are clunky and do not serve the needs of the faculty (eg, you cannot download pictures captured on haiku, though one principle reason we capture pictures is for teaching). 2) Operating Room video and images are not integrated into a server and there is no mechanism for secure archiving and retrieval. At present, handling of video and imaging requires use of the "sneaker net" and flash drives. Until recently, secure flash drives were not easily available, creating a potential privacy breach. Now secure flash drives are available but are still a work arounds solution for secure video and image storage and archiving/retrieval. I have been privy to meetings where this was discussed dating back 2 years and there has been little done and multiple different groups are involved, but there is little coordination between them. When i am asked questions about it, i am typically informing the administrative groups of what efforts they have going on. Extremely disappointing that this is not taken seriously and not coordinated.
I do not fear at all for my academic freedom and do not fear that i will be spied on, etc, though i am aware that what i do can be tracked. i am definitely concerned about external intruders, as we have already experienced.
more concerned about external intruders
I have a IT concern not related to cyber security. I have been a faculty member at UCSF for nearly 10 years and I am constantly receiving emails that my UCSF Outlook Mailbox is full. Even when I delete large messages/attachments it only helps for a few weeks and then the same message appears. Can UCSF please spend money to increase email storage limits for faculty?
We, like any high powered (or not) large org, do have major cybersecurity risks... and on top of general risks, we have the entire worlds of patient care/confidentiality, trainee confidentiality, and in some cases highly sensitive research data. Very concerned about external intruders. I am always concerned about academic freedom, but cybersecurity issues trump that (sorry to use that verb) more than not.
Hasn't directly affected or impacted my daily activities.
Yes. The more security the better patient safety.
No concerns. I think the university is doing a great job. The encryption software used by IT causes my laptop be slow, but it's tolerable.
this is a great concern, both at work and at home. I am probably most concerned about external intruders given that we have widespread teams and have to rely on systems to allow us to work remotely. have not yet been concerned about academic freedom. am concerned about breaches for PHI with use of APEX from remote settings.
This is an issue in which experts in IT should be developing strategies and security measures and analyses for the faculty to learn and consider. Even though some faculty may be well informed and literate about cyber security, I think the academic senate is the wrong platform and wrong people to develop strategy. I would recommend developing a red-team to assess IT security wekanesses in UCSF and allow them to explore the vulnerabilities and also the overkill or ineffective measures that make life difficult for users but not for hackers. The leadership should also get feedback from users about the difficulties they face when they are encumbered by too much policing. Then the faculty can discuss the analyses of all the data, including the IT team as well as the red team reports to eliminate vulnerabilities.Discussion of this issue without the data will be a waste of time. Sincerely
I'm more concerned about loss of privacy and endless one size fits all data pushes to laptops and desktops causing crashes and other glitches. This type of roughshod behavior by IT is devastating when traveling and security pushes crash one's laptop.
I'm also deeply concerned by the audacity of the administration to continue to charge IT costs to PI direct costs. Just because it is "allowable" doesn't make it right. If IT and internet access are not an indirect cost, then what is? What's next, billing NIH direct costs for toilet paper in the public restrooms because some lawyer gets NIH to agree that it is "allowable".
There is no question, that the cyber security has improved at UCSF as have IT services. I am most concerned about external intruders and less concerned about academic freedom. I do think the Academic Senate should focus on cyber security and IT planning.
I am most concerned with all the phishing emails I get. We need stronger controls to try and stop these. I think this topic should be the focus of the June meeting.
I am most worried about the accumulation of large data sets within a single domain. The UC system appears to be investing large sums of money because of excessive concern about medical record confidentiality. Since we are not an intelligence organization or a commercial outfit with trade secrets there is really no need for the University to have its own security apparatus. Because of HIPPA the medical records should be disconnected from the rest of of the University operation and have a limit placed on the amount of data that can be downloaded at any time. Problem solved, money saved. Overall I would say that UCSF IT support is very poor and quite costly.
Whatever central IT can do to prevent malware of all kinds is a high priority. Not concerned that steps to date impact my academic freedom or my privacy. I don't have an opinion on whether to focus division meeting on this issue.
THis is a major issue for both internal and external sources of data loss. I fully support the idea of trying to keep systems up to date and using the best technology to prevent data loss. My feeling is that UCSF business should be conducted on UCSF machines, so personal communications done on UCSF resources should not be an issue. I think that policies should be in place to state that data mined for security policies cannot be used to compromise privacy of individual faculty, much as the GINA laws protect patients from inappropriate use of genetic testing results. However, I would say that the most frustrating part is the followup from implementation. As an example, we are asked to do a 2 hr training on cybersecurity, yet when I call to report suspicious activity no one knows what to do with the information, or if the issue even is a sign of a security breach...
The mechanisms put into place to ensure security are cumbersome, difficult to implement, and adversarial. All of these contribute to reduced compliance rather than what is sought, which is improved security for all users. One only has to peruse emails from IT to recognize this posture. Rather than implement policies that accommodate to how users interact with IT and their computing devices, the approach is usually to force users to meet arbitrary requirements implemented with little regard to how we work. I believe that security is very important, but the implementation is poorly thought out, and poorly communicated. Finally, as has been noted before, the various 'Help' desks are designed as if we were cable TV subscribers rather than academic physicians and scientists. It has improved, but the assumptions underlying the creation of the Help desks are incorrect, and this failure generates frustration and helplessness.
Nalin Gupta, UCSF Neurosurgery
My main concern is external intruders and potential access to private information, both heath /patient related and financial personal information of faculty and staff. I think the UCs are doing a good job of educating its employees in terms of health information. I don't think these actions are affecting my academic freedom. I do think it is important that IT support for continued security enhancements are maintained and are proportional to the risk.
i like the UCSF pulse. it makes me feel more protected
Do you have specific requests or questions that you would like UCSF IT to address?
I would like help learning how to create Outlook address lists groups and how to import them to programs such as Eventbrite.
Not at this time
Same as above.
1. Pulse: When connected on my home computer, I cannot download my personal email, the internet is quiet slow (compared to when I am not connected), printing take minutes not seconds, and the computer crashes more often.
2. Timeout of secure sites, etc: I seem to spend a lot of time entering passwords over and over again after my work PC, home PC, etc have timed out. These are dedicated and secure computers. Can't some flexibility be made and a longer time be granted before they go to sleep, log out, etc?
It support needs to be user friendly and provided on site. Currently it is done by phone and often with individuals who know less than I do. Given the huge monthly fee, someone competent and accessible should be able to come to your place of work and help to fix the problem.Another very big issue that is related is the huge cost of IT services which is largely passed on to faculty. If the problem is with UCSF Health, the expenses should be borne by that entity, which I understand is currently in the black.
We need HIPAA/FERPA-compliant cloud based storage. With the multiple campuses and the servers so challenging to access via VPN, having a more secure "BOX" is paramount. We all use Dropbox and Box and put HIPAA/FERPA related stuff in it because there is no other way to store this information where it can be easily accessed, and it's just a matter of time before there is a major breach.
more support for MAC parallels; VM ware is not as good
Provide linux support.
Fix the auto-encryption app.
With improvements in IT security and surveillance, under what circumstances will faculty mail, web browsing, and other communication content be retrieved for law enforcement or other forms of scrutiny?
What concerns do you have, many or few, regarding security and privacy issues and UCSF IT operations?
Security and privacy are critical issues of utmost importance. However, I believe UCSF IT is efficient and proactive.
It seems the amount of spam getting through from outside ucsf is increasing. I'm spending more and more time deleting junk and blocking spam
too much surveillance
Challenges with interoperability of various clinical systems
Especially in light of the recent concerns raised publicly by our Berkeley colleagues, I would like UCSF IT to elaborate on what information from our computers is accessible to others. We've got The Big Fix and Endpoint on our computers, presumably just to let IT install security patches, but what information on the computers and what content of e-mails can be viewed by IT security people?
The balance between safeguarding private information and the numerous and sometime onerous 'hoops' that we must go through in attempt to do so - how much is productivity compromised by time spent reentering password, rebooting sites, etc.?
I feel that UCSF IT has not improved security or privacy but has imposed onerous encryption and access demands on the research community. In general, research data is not at risk and privacy concerns have never been a big issue until University wide constraints were imposed. This has everything to do with federal patient privacy laws. I have made suggestions to Bengfort but he has not returned my e-mails.
Encrypted thumb drives should be submitted to all employees.
security needs for those with patient data have become burdensome for those of us who do not have any patient information
I would just point out that every single ticket I have submitted with respect to fixing a problem has resulted in IT prematurely closing the ticket and never addressing the problem. I understand that it is important for the IT department to close tickets in order to demonstrate productivity, but it frustrates me that my requests are never fixed and the ticket simply closed. One of the requests in particular impacts my day-to-day productivity and forces me to work from Starbucks because of insufficient wifi coverage on campus and the ticket was merely dismissed.
My main concern is that UCSF is making every effort to pass on responsibility for security to the individual faculty members and researchers, but is not providing adequate support for this to be achieved. In particular, there is no support to ensure security on linux based machines even though this is a key central platform for 21st century power computing. Everyone is forced to pay for the support so everyone should get support that is using a platform that is widely used in academia.
I find it concerning that document attached to my outgoing e-mails that contain my name (a UCSF patient) and my SSN but have no relevance to me as a patient are screened and automatically encrypted.
What is the financial impact on a typical faculty member to fund IT upgrade proposals?
In general, are there aspects of your work duties for which you do not receive commensurate compensation, and if so, what are these duties? (examples might be clinical or teaching effort for which compensated time is much different than expended effort time).
Inpatient attending has never been compensated commensurate to the time/effort required.
All of my mentoring goes uncompensated, so this would include mentoring post-doctoral fellows (I have 3), as well as mentoring medical students (2 whom I serve as master's thesis adviser to), not to mention junior faculty mentoring as well as any peer review activities.
As I am 95% soft money (grants), any committee work, teaching, or other service is largely unsupported. For example, I am interested in serving on Academic Senate Committees, but cannot justify the time away from my funded work. This creates a disincentive to volunteer and results in a lack of representativeness among those who serve on committees (e.g., they are likely from ladder rank series whose time is protected for such activities).
I don't get compensated for serive in committees and review pannels. Also I supervise clinical fellows what requires a considerable amount of time and I am not compensated at all
Most of my service is not compensated (i.e., committee work) and I'm not compensated for the significant amount of time I spend mentoring.
75% of my effort is charged to my NIH grants, but I spend much more than the remaining 25% on university commitments, including teaching, graduate program responsibilities, search committees, etc. Thus the NIH is, in essence, funding a large portion of my work for the university.
Teaching and mentoring.
e.g. Directed Reading seminar for Medical Anthropology PHD students
e.g. Thesis advisor to Genetic Counseling MAsters students.
e.g. K scholars for clinician researchers
Committees, conferences, teaching, admin, 30% of what I do
For most teaching and some mentoring efforts, there is inadequate compensation.
Teaching effort - I used to be a course liaison for a large MS1 course - no compensation for it at all.
Clinical care - many hours of non billable work. At least 6 hours per week.
My salary is based on expected clinical service, teaching (including a leadership position in medical education), and research/creative work. There are often times when my expended effort time, particularly for teaching and related administration, exceeds the percentage outlined in my offer letter, but I expect this is the nature of the work. In my opinion, leadership in education should be compensated at a level comparable to clinical work (i.e., higher than it currently is).
mentoring. K awards, T awards, etc _REQUIRE_ mentoring from senior faculty for free. for many faculty - especially those who are 100% soft money - it has become harder and harder to find the time for those activities. not every NIH Institute/Center participates in the K24 mid-career faculty mentoring research grant program.
teaching a few lectures here and there
Although it has improved, I still feel as if the support for clinical care with accompanying teaching responsibilities is insufficient for the time spent.
Time spent preparing for clinic--reviewing records and imaging studies for patients coming for a 2nd opinion in my subspecialty clinic (almost all my patients are 2nd opinions). Time spent in family meetings for in-patients. Time spent preparing grants that are not funded. Time spent on clinical program building and running our clinical practice--doing outreach events, speaking to referring providers, working with our clinical practice manager to oversee our clinic practice.
I am currently a theme director for the SOM Essential Core. I do not receive any salary support despite overseeing 40+ hrs of curriculum, recruiting/training 25 small group leaders, and overseeing grading and other admin duties for students.
As a completely soft money faculty, none of the extensive work beyond my research that I do for UCSF is compensated in any way. Those activities eventually come out of my own pocket personally.
medical student teaching and preparation; charting and communicating with patients
I am compensated for teaching administrative time but not for direct teaching which is substantial in effort time.
Clinical work outside of seeing patients (phone calls, charting, electronic messages) are uncompensated. Also teaching medical students is uncompensated. I run a fellowship program T32 training grant which has NO faculty salary support
YES- my clinical time is vastly under compensated. I estimate that i spend 20-25% of my time on patient care, for my 1/2 day of primary care clinic at SFGH. I receive 12.5% complensation. I co-direct a curriculum and receive 2.4% for what takes at least 5% time.
MyChart messages and other pt communication/forms; administrative responsibilities (including committee work such as promotions), mentoring
Clinical duties require much more than compensation for clinical care, including management of patients done through electronic methods.
Mentoring is not compensated at all.
. being a research mentor, especially when helping junior scholars learn how to write NIH grant proposals, and most notably when helping mentees write K-awards because, if funded, the K mechanism does not allow for mentor salary support.
student teaching, research mentoring, committees, program development
Committee time, mentorship. previously (for 10 years) when I was co-director of our residents' monthly journal club.
Yes, teaching effort is under-compensated, and Committee work can be much more time-consuming that department support provided. However, to some extent these intangibly support my research by providing better infrastructure, management, and more educated students for my lab!
clinical work (which does support 12.5% per half-day of clinic, but even the extra 2.5% doesn't cover the time it actually takes to provide good patient care)
As a clinican and a researcher with an unfortunately low salary set at the NIH cap by my dept, I receive >50% less compensation for clinical and education time compared to peers at same level (professor). ALL of my acasdemic effort is set by my research effort salary (and NIH cap) - yet the salary for my clinician/educator peers is paid at their clinical salary for all effort. In addition, I spend a LOT of unreimbursed time on education (student and resident teaching; student, resident, fellow and faculty mentoring) and administration â€“ run 2 fellowships and a K12 for NO salary.
I do clinical work that has no RVU attached to it.
absolutely. there is no financial incentive for service to the dept and broader institution (CHR, site committee leader, PISCES mentor, fellowship director) and I will likely stop all these because of the pressure to bring in funds. Additionally, there is no direct correlation to the number of clinical trials or grants awarded - it is just "expected." In fact, the only financial incentive is to see patients which of course detracts from all of the above.
Mentoring is not commensurately compensated.
Additional clinical effort, teaching and educational outreach are not compensated in our current compensation model, where only clinical time spent on the inpatient service is directly accounted for.
Are you kidding? I do lots of things for which there is no salary support. Teaching, service....
mentoring!! committees. diversity activities
committee service, service to professional societies, paper and proposal reviews, teaching, writing new proposals
For research dollars, every dollar that is over the cap needs to be taken from a non-state or federal account, of which the first 15% of base goes to the department, and each dollar after this threshold is "taxed", 5% by the dean and 20% by the department. The threshold is 15% of base, usually about $20,000 and then taxes set in. Meaning that in order to save as salary savings, I need to meet the threshold of $20,000 and then pay 25% taxes, of which I will receive 75 cents in my salary savings as compensation. So, there is a disincentive to obtain research funds, over the cap.
Yes, research subsidizes clinical care. Discretionary funds subsidize research.
For the definition of "work duties" I include aspects of an academic appointment which are expected for advancement
1) Administrative duties
2) Service on committees
3) Completing clinical notes using apex
4) Teaching and mentoring
5) Serving on extramural scientific committees ( e.g. NIH study section)
6) Service to national societies/journals
In addition to academic responsibilities, I run a core facility that is project/research oriented. I meet new potential clients, help them design projects, write letters of support for grants, and do related 'business development' activities for several hours each month. It is very difficult to bill for this time, and it cuts into time meeting with people in my laboratory, writing my own grants and papers. Nurturing this type of collaborative work at UCSF and growing the facility are also important to me, but the financial strain is considerable. I advocate for institutional support for research resources. Many of our facilities are world-class, but UCSF's policy of self-supporting core facilities makes it very difficult to keep these resources at the cutting edge. Project-based funding does not adequately cover infrastructure and other fixed costs, and NIH has precipitously divested in support of Centers at a time when interdisciplinary research is on the rise.
I lead an NIH training program (a T32), and my leadership of that program cannot be supported by the grant.
Teaching--I teach a non ACGME fellow and this takes hours per week but I get no RVU credit for it as they have to be the billing provider as they are a non-ACGME fellow.
I am the director of a MS specialty program in the School of Nursing. As the director, I review applicants, interview, answer emails, involved in educational programming meetings and decisions, instituting any new systems, advise students, teach, find and place students in community based residencies. My director position was compensated with $5,000 and just reduced to $3,000 this year. I expend on average 10 hours a week at minimum.
Teaching and preparing lectures
Teaching and mentoring. The Dean's emphasis on a certain class of 'educators' has left many of us who do the work year in and year out feeling abandoned.
Teaching effort and reviewing papers
Administrative roles are not well compensated. There is no support for the host of committees I serve on (search committees department/division), academic senate committees, grant review committees. These administrative and university service activities can take up to 10% time. Mentoring roles are not supported except for specific mentoring grants (K24).
Clinical work and teaching.
I have taught on the Med School Prologue course and 2nd year Life cycle since 2004 with no compensation from Department of Anatomy. I have served on numerous committees and held leadership positions in the HDFCCC, but I see this as my Departmental role.
Expended effort time for clinical work consistently and substantially exceeds compensated time-- this is especially the case for non-billable electronic patient management and communication work.
There is no direct compensation for time spent writing grants to bring in new research funding, since there is currently no funding mechanism to support this activity.
Oh, yes. Clinical responsibilities always get in the way (suck away time) of research, admin and teaching. So these are done after hours (nights and weekends).
service on the committe for human research, and teaching
Teaching, tumor boards and working conferences
Teaching is underfunded.
Administration, whether for clinical programs or for training programs, is woefully underfunded
My teaching responsibilities definitely take up more than the 5% FTE I receive. I also do a lot of work for the Academic Senate that I'm not paid for. Grant writing, no compensation, big time commitment.
My research which is 75% of my salary. I can't make my full salary on that.
Almost all my teaching duties (400 hours+ per year) are uncompensated. I have major admin duties that are inadequately supported by the Med Center as a Medical Director. In addition committee work including med center and departmental committee activities lack any support.
Clinical work is paid at 10%, and takes at least 15% time.
Department and division committee work and campus level initiatives (research councils, faculty applicant interviews, etc), totals probably 3% or so.
teaching teaching and teaching
Honestly, none of our activities are provided commensurate compensation, including the clinical work, teaching, administrative work, and research. Private practice physicians get more pay for clinical work. We are not paid for teaching or administrative work. And research takes way more time than the time we are allotted. Nights and weekends and vacation days are when we "catch up". This is a choice we make, and a deterrent to going into our field of work at UCSF.
Service and mentoring place high demands on my time without any compensation.
Clinical effort - attending on the ID service at SFGH compensates roughly half the actual effort required to do a reasonable job efficiently. This is frustrating.
For those who receive salary support from NIH, if your salary is above the NIH cap of $183,000, how is the gap in compensation for your NIH research effort supported?
Faculty members in my division and department were told that funds to cover our NIH salary gaps would not come from the division or department and would need to come from our own discretionary accounts. Unfortunately, some of us do not have discretionary accounts. A very generous senior colleague offered to cover my gap with funds she received for committee work she performed for the university. Wanting to minimize the impact of my salary gap on her, I stopped actively pursuing NIH and other federal grants. I made a conscious decision to purse more activities that were compensated fully, i.e. clinical work and teaching. In the last academic year, my division chief offered to pick up the portion of my gap not covered by my colleague.
My salary is not above the cap. However, I am nearing the cap and there is a proposal to reduce faculty salaries in my division because our department no longer wants to make up the difference between the cap and UCSF faculty salaries (really full professor salaries).
Currently, each year our Division Chief requests this money from the department. It is never guaranteed and there is no indication that it will ever increase. This is disappointing and leads to a plateauing or even decrease in compensation after reaching the NIH cap.
Currently my Division is covering the small difference using part of an FTE that is not being fully used. This is not a long term solution, however.
i don't receive a salary above the cap
My salary above the cap is not compensated, by salary is $183,000. I have colleagues who have experienced a pay cut because they don't have non-government (i.e., NIH) grants.
This is a big problem for faculty members like me who are funded only by the NIH and have no significant discretionary funds. Currently, my Department (Microbiology and Immunology) makes up the difference based on my strong record of university service, but this is a year-by-year decision with no long-term commitment and no provision in the department budget to cover it. I should also add that, although I am well funded by the NIH am currently a Professor above scale, I receive no Y factor, in part due to the use of funds to cover the NIH cap. This is true for other faculty, as well: none of the faculty in Immunology and Microbiology above Step 6 have any Y factor.
Through philanthropic funds.
with great difficulty...I have to pay it out of my comp plan or the other few fund sources that allow above the federal cap.
Salary support from non-NIH grants (little bit), compensated service roles (lot)
1. Unlike my colleagues at other institutions, my Department/Division does NOT support my over-the-cap salary. 2. I support this over-the-cap salary by (a) obtaining non-Federal funds/contracts/grants, (b) performing clinical work - 2 clinics, inpatient consult attending, etc. (c) assuming administrative responsibilities.
State FTE and endowed chair. I am extremely fortunate to have these funding sources. As a division chief, I worry about my faculty who do not have these funding sources. Many of them have their salary capped at the NIH cap since there are no funds to pay their over the cap salary. This means their salaries are lower than their counterparts doing clinical work, and also lower than salaries at many other institutions--i.e., not at all competitive.
I am responsible for covering the full gap using whatever funds I can raise. These funds have included intramural grants, consulting fees, salary support for admin duties, etc.
clinical, foundation grant, philanthropy
Department funds. The salary covered is minimal at this point so there is no push back.
Some times exchange of profees from clinical work, sometimes from endowment funds from our center leader, some times from my discretionary account. It has changed every year and always causes a lot of stress
Clinical revenue or discretionary funds.
non-federal grants + teaching at the medical school
Clinical work revenue
through my discretionary funds
Non NIH funds (when overfunded)
Previously, supplementation from clinical activities
. extramural funding from institutes and foundations with higher caps, e.g., PCORI (cap=200K), Komen (cap=250K)
. funding for divisional research activities from profees
Currently my gap is paid through the small amount of administrative support (2.5%) from my division which is redirected toward the gap. That works for now, but won't work as my salary increases.
grants from private foundations
I am SO HAPPY you are investigating these questions as they remain a HUGE problem for researchers. Despite the lip service that all academic pursuits and missions are equally valued, researchers are systematically paid less than clinicians and educators in our UCSF system. As a clinician/surgeon and researcher, my salary has been benchmarked at the NIH Cap unless I can bring in discretionary (industry) research funding OR do additional clinical work â€“ completely unreasonable for a Professor. (Because of this, I have taken on additional effort outside of UCSF to make ends meet, which impairs my UCSF productivity and muy quality of life and job satisfaction.) Most insulting is that my clinical time is reimbursed at the NIH Cap while similar clinician/surgeons in my division are reimbursed >50% more for the same CLINICAL time. My dept states that they can pay at only one salary level and this must be NIH cap (I.e., cannot reimburse clinical % time at the higher clinician salary level) and they cannot/will not use clinical dollars to support research. Of Note, educators are reimbursed at their clinician salary level when they are given hard support.
I have earned > NIH cap when I have had discretionary money â€“ but had to fight to get permission to use the funds for this purpose.
Other departments have a much more equitable allocation of salary support than my dept and I hope that my dept will soon change out arcane and abusive policies. We have ongoing discussions with our business leaders about this problem --clinician researchers are started at a salary much lower than clinicians (25-50% lower) and have no mechanism to increase the salary to or beyond the NIH cap (we are allowed only to submit grants with our current salary and small annual increases to max of NIH cap).
Division Professional Fee account
by additional clinical trial work and profees.
with difficulty. I currently have a dwindling amount of discretionary funding from non-NIH sources, but this will run out soon and I am not sure where I will get the over the cap funding from.
My division covers the gap.
Our department (anesthesia) has absorbed the difference as part of its research mission.
I had to negotiate a retention package to fill the gap.
other non-NIH funds that I raise, not from my department
Some support from divisional/departmental funds, though it is frankly not enough to offset the gap. This is a HUGE problem and one that only gets worse as you move up the ladder. This is definitely holding salaries down in our division and department, which is a major challenge for faculty living here.
I have to identify an account which is not state or federal funds to "offset" the over the cap, usually a clinical account (SOD)
It is a challenge - have to use discretionary funds.
Clinical revenue from profees, departmental support, use of chair funding
from my discretionary fund...which is dwindling. not sure what will happen when that money dries up.
This has been a difficult issue. A am professor in the In Residence series. For two years I garnered the support through consultation that was submitted to the compensation plan, and it was extremely difficult to earn enough to meet my required minimum salary target (which was in fact required by the faculty series that i am in).
Recently a private donor supported part of my teaching and educational leadership activities, and the donor support has been the source of that gap.
By securing funding for more effort. I need to secure additional funds with commitments of more effort.
Through additional clinical activity.
The cap is now $185,100 as of 1/10/2016. I have used clinical profee revenue to support this over the salary cap. This is becoming increasingly difficult to support since taking on more clinical work pulls me away from my research. There needs to be a shared solution for this problem. Getting NIH support is difficult as it is and we should not be penalized for being successful with NIH grants because it doesn't pay for our actual salary.
Pay for administrative duties and internal institutional funding.
I receive $120K per year from my Department that I can use for any expenses not eligible for federal reimbursement. This can include salary.
The NIH salary Is a very significant problem for senior faculty, and over the long term it will significantly diminish the number of MDs performing NIH funded research. Interesting that NIH worries about the PhD - MD imbalance in other fori but doesn't seem to realize the fundamental adverse effect of the salary cap. For the past 15 years, I've been lucky to be affiliated with Blood Systems Research Institute, a CTSI affiliate located in our local blood bank, which provides salary support under a professional services agreement, allowing me to cover the "gap". However BSRI itself is having significant budget reductions and it seems like this may no longer be a solution to the problem.
I cover part of the gap myself through discretionary funds that must be earned through outside research, speaking, or consultant work. My division also re-allocates some of the percentage effort for my clinical work to cover the gap for the research portion of my salary; to make this possible, my clinical work is compensated at a lower percentage effort rate than would otherwise be the case.
Split between section/department making up the difference and more clinical time (count 7 days per week as percentage of research time, but count clinical week as percentage of 5 weekdays). Also, no reduction in call responsibilities.
by using non federal funds largely pharmaceutical company funds
I am responsible for funding it - or it isn't paid.
usual source = discretionary funds, or clinical activities
My salary support comes from other federal agencies (HRSA and the CDC), which also have to follow the same federal limits. Our department (Medicine) picked up the over the cap amount last year, but I understand from my division chief that that will not happen this year. I have discretionary money that I could use to pay my over the cap, but it's unclear if my division chief will allow me to use it because she is concerned about equity in my division. It seems she'd rather have everyone make the same money rather than have individuals receive over the cap pay, even if they can pay it themselves. I do not agree with this approach, needless to say, and would appreciate some campus-wide guidance on use of discretionary money by faculty to cover pay over the cap.
The department has been covering it, but it's getting harder and harder for the department to do that and some people are being told their over the cap can no longer be supported.
Only about 50% of the gap is covered. I do not make my full salary. The gap in pay is basically enough to bankrupt my department which does not have the funds to pay full salaries for their faculty.
Philanthropy and clinical work
Supported by non federal funds, a very limited source.
By cross-subsidy from a grant from a non-profit organization.
In our department over-the-cap salaries must be supported by non-Federal grant funds or discretionary funds of the faculty member. If the faculty member has no such funds to cover this expense, the department is responsible to provide the over-the-cap amount up to the 1.3x scale. For a department with no reserves, this must be provided by the Dean's office in the annual budget to the department.
clinical pro fees
Additional clinical time, additional funding sources (administrative work for example), and non-NIH (e.g., foundation) funding.
I'm not sure, but my department does give me the research time provided for by my NIH funding. Presumably the difference in compensation is covered by my department and UCSF.
On the backs of junior faculty, postdocs, and students. Faculty who are paid over the cap often feel entitled to this compensation without regard to the strain it places on the entire system. There needs to be a more sustainable pathway.
For every dollar I am paid from NIH and CDC awards (I am 80% extramurally funded), I need to raise $0.40 from non-federal grants to cover that support. Fortunately, I have been successful with receiving funding from several foundations to cover my OTC gap--most of these are short-term grants, putting extreme pressure on myself to cover the OTC.
Discretionary funds from division and my own
It is mostly supported by department funds and by lowering my salary. This is likely to go away soon and i will have to retire.
Should scientific journals be printed, or offered exclusively in electronic format?
exclusively electronic format
if exclusively electronic will be less expensive I would opt for that
I am sure there are a few that like to read the journals in the library but not many
Electronic format should become the majority/primary method. I've not picked up a paper journal in probably 5+ years.
The advantages of electronic journals are ease of access 24/7 and searches. I think that our students will continue to demand only online versions going forward.
Both for the time being---if electronic versions are available free of charge as at UCSF then that would eventually be better
I am in favor of an exclusive electronic format
It is OK to be exclusively electronic (lower carbon footprint, easier to read, less to store). There needs to be better ways to archive and store "important" and milestone manuscripts. Additionally, typography and layout remain important so that a "printed copy" is still easy to read and markup.
exclusively in electronic format
Although printed journals can be useful, if more journals can be offered in electronic format by foregoing a printed subscription, it would be more valuable to have them offered exclusively in electronic format.
At this time, scientific journals should continue to have a print option, at least for the core journals in each field. There are disciplines, such as physics and computer science, for which archiving a journal article online effectively means it has been published and is considered publicly available from that point on. This also is important in addressing claims of which group identified a new finding first. In my opinion, biomedical journals benefit from the portability and image clarity offered by a print version. Many of us also are kinesthetic learners and derive some learning benefit from the tactile aspect of having a print journal available.
As long as ALL of the past/historical copies are available. I recently tried to access a back issue from AAAS/Science (from the 1980s) and could not get electronic access. Also, we should be moving away from supporting subscription journals that maintain a paywall and instead support open access journals.
Exclusively in electronic format
Exclusively in electronic format.
I still find times when reading the paper journal is more convenient than the on-line version e.g. traveling; places without wireless access.
But most of my scholarly work is done on line.
So, I hope the major specialty journals could still come in print.
exclusively in electronic format
I see no need for paper journals anymore in the United states.
In today's context electronic format makes most sense, with most faculty adopting paperless offices
Exclusively in electronic format
electronic format only
Publications must be printed as well as disseminated on line. On line "publication" may be convenient for many applications, but is inherently ephemeral - there is no guarantee that the files will not be altered in the future. I have already seen this happen. In Orwell's '1984', Winston worked at the Ministry of Truth deleting references to 'unpersons'; it has taken a couple more decades, but that world is here, now. Only physical publications can have any chance of surviving intact for subsequent generations.
exclusively in electronic format
I am OK if they go to exclusively electronic. Still like picking up print occasionally.
Yes. Scientific journals should continue to be printed. Most of the time I look only at electronic versions, but I have come across several instances in which data were no longer accessible or of inacceptable quality in online repositories. We also cannot rely on the fact that electronic repositories will not loose data or become obsolete and unreadable. I believe a real library remains essential.
electronic format is sufficient
A print version should be available at a higher cost perhaps.
Offered eclusively in electronic format with printed copies available only upon request (and for a fee).
electronic IF we can always get the PDF of the article we want.
I like the journals I subscribe to to be in print for convenience of reading under various circumstances, but this is starting to change. On the other hand I seldom go to the library for a print edition of a journal I do not normally read when an article of interest appears in my screening process.
Electronically is perfectly sufficient, but I do rely on being able to save the PDFs to my virtual files, and I do print some papers. These functions are important to retain.
Electronic formats provide more information to more people at a lower cost. Some journals and their sponsors seem attached to the printed copies, but I don't know anyone who reads academic journals who prefers the printed format. As there are more and more pressures on office space, no one really wants the printed journals around.
no print needed any more.
i never look at paper journals.
Electronic version only
exclusively in electronic format
Electronic format only.
Electronic, and printed as an option
whatever is cheaper over the long run
Electronic format only is adequate for me, but it does feel like some journals that we were previously able to access, we are no longer able to access, and without print, there is no way to obtain an article of interest.
Only electronic - no one reads printed journals today
exclusively electronic format
Did the benefits offered by the current UC Retirement Plan influence your decision to come to work at UCSF or to remain at UCSF? If Yes, please provide details.
Absolutely. This was one of the more attractive benefits of working at UCSF that other jobs in CA did not offer. I would say this was what pushed me in the send to finally select a full time position at UCSF.
The current UC Retirement Plan is an important incentive to remain at UCSF. When I look at other positions, the UC retirement plan is an important consideration in weighing the benefits and downsides or relocating. Frankly, without the retirement plan I would be highly likely to relocate to a location with a lower cost of living.
Yes, the benefits were a big consideration when we were deciding whether to come to UCSF.
Yes-- I have much lower earning potential by taking a job a UC than if I took a community job. And while there are other benefits in terms of job satisfaction for working at an academic post, the fact that UC has a retirement plan with vesting helps to offset the financial hit my family and I have taken by my working here. Whether it will be enough to keep us in the Bay Area given the current economic conditions (and the ridiculous amount of educational debt that I and many younger faculty currently have) is yet to be determined. But if you want to retain faculty, I think this is an important feature of our benefits.
yes, it's less common now to find an academic program with a defined benefit plan. I worried about faculty retention and recruitment if UCSF changed to a defined contribution plan.
Definetively; UCSF does not provide any tuition reimbursement as other institutions, The retirement plan was a big insentive
Yes, the quality of the benefits significantly affected valuation of total compensation. Realize I joined the faculty over 33 years ago.
Yes, very strongly because particularly in my earlier years my pay was not very competitive. Not to mention housing costs. Our department has lots of younger faculty who are already in significant financial pressure due to Bay Area cost of living, a change like this would definitely have decreased our ability to recruit.
Somewhat, but they were not a determining factor.
Yes, UCRP was a key factor for my recruitment and remains a key factor for my retention at UCSF.
yes, seems like a good package, even after the changes from years before.
yes absolutely Both my co-fellows chose to go to acadamic programs in the midwest and starting salaries were much higher than mine even though the cost of living was much lower. The better retirement plan was a main reason why moving to UCSF was financially viable for my family.
Yes, this was a factor in staying at UCSF vs going to Stanford
The current retirement plan has definitely influenced my decision to stay at UCSF even though other places may provide higher salaries.
Yes, both to come to work at UCSF and to remain at UCSF.
Absolutely. My financial advisor said it was an excellent plan.
Yes. They influenced my decision to remain at UCSF in the face of an outside offer.
Yes, I had offers at 2 UC Campuses and the UC Retirement Plan was stressed during the recruitment to both. It was much better than the retirement plan options at the other universities I was considering and was certainly one (of many) factors in my decision to come here.
Yes , the UC Retirement Plan benefits are now the single most important benefit. I have been very unhappy at UCSF with advancement potential and am actively pursuing outside employment. The retirement plan is keeping me here. The faculty need greater benefits not fewer.
Yes. Without a robust retirement package including pension the costs of working at Ucsf, quite literally, outweigh the benefits.
Benefits were less good than at my previous position. I took the job at UCSF despite worse benefits.
No. The institution I was at previously provided a matching percentage towards ones retirement, and they also had a college tuition program for ones children.
Yes, definitely. I could work less and earn more outside of academia, but I stay. I stay because I appreciate the University's mission, the opportunity to work with outstanding colleagues, the flexibility and the retirement plan. Each is important and substantial change in one would make my future decision to stay less certain.
Yes. I definitely think that I took this into account b/c it mitigates the lower salaries.
Yes. I had offers from two other institutions and one of the deciding factors for me choosing UCSF was the retirement plan, particularly the medical coverage and pension.
No. I left UCSF despite the retirement plan.
Did not influence my decision to work at UCSF, but certainly influences my decision to stay
There are a number of institutions that offer substantial benefits in a number of areas, as well as some "perks" which we instead pay for at UCSF. UC benefits are quite limited. When I meet with faculty candidates, the retirement plan is usually the only benefit they ask about that I can endorse. If it were to be removed, there would really be nothing to allow us to compete with other institutions. Even now, we pay into the system, which we did not do before, so the benefit is diminished.
Absolutely. UC's pension plan is a major stabilizer of our faculty and staff that allows us to retain our excellence in the very competitive market of the Bay Area.
Yes, to remain at UCSF but not to come initially.
No. When I came to UCSF as a junior faculty, I had no idea of a retirement plan, but after 10 years, it became apparent to me that it was a plan, better than other academic institutions. However, this did not weigh into my decision to stay at UC just because of the retirement plan. I am gravely concerned that with the possibility of an at-risk plan, such as one that heavily depends on downturns in the economy, UC may not become as attractive as it used to be when our investments were flourishing in returns. I would caution against a new retirement system that is just comparable to other academic institutions. UC has to remain better and more attractive than our comparative institutions.
come - no, remain - yes
Absolutely. It's a major factor in decision to stay at UCSF.
Yes! It was one of the most important factors in my decision to stay at UCSF over the years.
Yes. It wasn't a big consideration in my initial decision, as I didn't know whether staying long-term would be an option. However, once "in the system", the retirement plan became an important benefit that partially offset the salary and cost-of-living issues.
Yes, that was a substantial part of what was advertised to me as an advantage of working at UCSF.
YES. No question about it.
Yes, most definitely. There is basically no benefit to working at the UC (outside of the pension) in comparison to big name schools where many offer tuition assistance for the children and many other financial assistance programs. MOP Loan for housing assistance is a joke since we are nearing all time low for mortgage rates.
Yes, most definitely. The salary offers here were and continue to be much lower than other offers, but the UCRP is what balances the (relatively) low salary and high cost of living.
Yes, to remain at UCSF
yes- this was an important factor, especially given the lower salary and higher cost of living at UCSF compared to many other academic centers.
to remain only
minimally when I first arrived, but the defined benefit plan which I have does influence my desire to remain at UCSF
The pension structure was a factor in choosing to come to UCSF as opposed to other institutions. On the other hand, a break on UC undergraduate tuition for children who are admitted would have been a more important benefit, as would have been loan assistance for refinance loans in addition to new home purchases.
Yes. It is all UCSF has going for it with respect to compensation (as the faculty climate survey showed). There are two things that keep me here: My collaborators and retirement.
Yes. It is a very nice benefit. But what this institution really needs is downpayment, load, and/or mortgage payment assistance (as Stanford has which is about $20,000 per year for medical faculty) given the cost of living in the Bay Area. It would be easier to recruit faculty with such programs. Higher salaries would help as well.
Most definitely yes.
Yes - influence my decision to remain at UCSF.
yes...when other job offers came, this was a factor in staying
The retirement benefits had a significant effect on my initial choice to join the faculty, and it has been a significant factor in my staying at UCSF.
I became an employee under the UCRP before the 2011 change. The 'old' plan is the most generous in the nation. When I am considering a move, I always look to another UC division. Of course, you cannot use this information to suggest that the upcoming poorer UCRP will damage recruitment because retirement plans at other Universities are equally or less generous in all likelihood.
The benefits, particularly UCRP, were a large reason that I decided to work and to stay at UCSF. Moreover, I have used them in recruiting other faculty. The current plans to change them is a serious blow to our ability to recruit good faculty, particularly young faculty who have no retirement savings as yet. This is an enormous problem, particularly at UCSF, where the cost of living is so high and the salaries are relatively low. We must lobby forcefully to maintain a robust defined benefit plan.
It's a great retirement plan (I'm now Emeritus on recall) but I probably didn't think much about it when I joined the faculty in 1971.
It can influence my decision to remain at UCSF, but when I was coming here I did not think about retirement.
YES! I had several years of UCRP credit from a prior clinical position, so when offered a faculty position 10 years later, I was happy to be able to resume my UCRP accumulations. I'll hit 30 years at age 65, and in the 1976 tier that means a livable pension. Now, with the 2013 tier and the new 2016 tier, I think recruitment and retention efforts for underpaid faculty will be seriously impaired. The effect of decreased benefits or increased cost of benefits is the continued erosion of total remuneration.
No, because I already had so many other reasons for wanting to accept my UCSF offer.
Yes. I have worked for UCSF for many years and the benefits are the main reason I stay. If I had less invested in the retirement plan, I would look for another job. The "Operation Excellence" changes have added considerable work to my already busy schedule. Being a UCSF faculty member gets more exhausting and less satisfying every day.
Yes - I was hired in the 2013 Tier, so the defined benefit plan was not as generous as the previous 1976 Tier, but it was still decent - this was one factor in otherwise offsetting my slightly less competitive salary structure (Especially when corrected for cost of living)
Of course, the defined pension benefit is a major incentive to join UCSF. It makes up for the relative lower salary and missing amenities, Unfortunately the UC system has been in a long, slow decline and this will be just another contributing factor to that decline, if implemented.
Yes, definitely. And I was recruited to another institution, but losing my UC Retirement Plan was a major factor in my decision to stay at UCSF.
Yes. Giving the high living cost in San Francisco, better pension plan and health insurance coverage play a critical role for faculty recruitment and retention at UCSF
Yes because I knew I would be underpaid as a UC employee over the course of my career. This has proven to be the case. I am SIGNIFICANTLY underpaid. I have been at the University for 20 years now and when I compare my current salary to what I could have made in a comparable position in industry or other health care sector, my current salary doesn't even come close. Also, for any COL adjustments UCOP makes, I don't actually see the COL adjustments (X factor goes up, Y factor goes down, take home pay = no change). Add to that the value in working here is eroding and the University can only rely on its reputation so much, after a while, living in this non-affordable city starts to wear on you. Time to rethink my employment.
I started on faculty at UCSF in 2010, and the Retirement Plan as it was in place then did positively influence my decision to work at UCSF. My spouse also is a UC faculty member at another UC campus, and I have seen his retirement funds grow nicely over the last several years. I absolutely wanted to have the same benefits in place. I have friends and a sibling who are faculty members at private universities without pension plans; it is up to faculty at those institutions to make their own financial plans for retirement. I know that as a physician I will not have as many years of pension contribution as my spouse does (basic science, quick route from post-doc to faculty position) but I still think the UC benefits are a very worthwhile program. My parents were faculty members with the California State University system for about 30 years each, and their retirement contributions (managed through CalPERS) have bloomed into something quite substantial and very impressive. Those of us who choose to work for UCSF essentially take a pay cut for opting out of private practice, and the retirement benefits are one way to keep a UCSF position as a competitive option for your best residency and fellowship graduates.
No, but I have been here nearly 40 years.
Not to come, but yes to remain.
Yes - particularly to remain here. However, as UCSF salaries continue to fall behind the national norm, and additional burdens are placed on faculty, the retirement plan becomes even more critical in both recruiting and retaining good faculty.
Most definitely yes. UCSF had one of the best benefit plans of all the institutions that interviewed me.
yes, they are outstanding compared to Stanford or the VA
Yes. Private practice offers higher pay, but the difference was not as great when considering UC's excellent retirement program.
The strong defined benefit plan for faculty definitely influenced my decision to remain at UCSF despite generous offers from other universities on 2 separate occasions during my career here.
Yes, it was highlighted during my recruitment and was a convincing benefit, given that salary relative to living costs was not as high as other places I had offers from.
yes, absolutely, it encourages me to remain at UCSF
Not for coming (too young!) but yes it is an important factor for staying (now in my 17th year).
no - note that I am a retiree (2010 retirement) rather than an active faculty
The benefits did not influence my decision to come work here because I was young and not thinking about that at the time (low financial awareness), but now they are very important to me and they do influence my decision to remain here.
Yes this has influenced by decision to stay at UCSF.
The benefits were not a draw to coming to UCSF but they are a factor in my consideration to stay.
Absolutely yes! In my clinical specialty, the compensation difference between a UCSF academic practice and private practice is about 30-50% (higher in private practice). The excellent UC retirement plan is part of how I justify the financial difference in staying in academics, or even pursuing an academic position in a different institution with higher compensation.
The UC retirement plan did not affect my decision to come to UCSF. It did affect my decision to stay at UCSF.
No, but it would be nice if the benefits were more comparable to competing benefits such as KP. We do lose faculty members to KP because of the far superior benefits package.
Remain at UCSF
yes. influenced my decision to remain at UCSF
Absolutley! I have passed on offers from multiple other institutions over the past 20+ years. The UCRP was certainly an influencing factor -- one that strengthens over time.
No. Not at this time, but may influence if I stay or leave UCSF at a later date.
Yes. Given UC's relatively low compensation, lack of college tuition benefit, and system-wide constraints on promotion and raises, the retirement plan is of major importance. Going to a defined contribution only plan -- as has been suggested by President Napolitano -- strikes me as short-sighted and potentially destructive to UCSF's ability to attract and keep a strong faculty.
Yes. It was the consolation for coming to a non-tenure position. It also is a major factor in making me stay here at UCSF. Many other Universities do not offer a reasonable pension package. The high cost of living in San Francisco, lack of sabbatical, lack of tenure are really balanced by a good retirement plan (although not completely). Now if you take that away, let's think about what are some recruitment factors that we can use to entice or keep faculty?
When I started on faculty many years ago, I did not really understand about retirement so I am not sure it had an impact. On the other hand, it has been hugely influential in my choice to stay at UCSF despite increasing RVU pressures and great opportunities outside of UCSF. It allows for an academic career with the knowledge that the future is secure after retirement.
Not at that time, as a starting faculty one is just so excited to be starting a lab at an amazing institution that UCSF is. But now, knowing how expensive the Bay Area is, I am so happy that I will have string UC retirement benefits.
no, being a non-ACGME fellow I am not afforded these benefits (as they are at other academic institutions...)
YES. Less on the 'to come' part (as I was not thinking that far ahead and I was just excited to get an academic position), but certainly YES on the 'to stay' part.
Yes, most definitely.
Yes to both. The value of the retirement plan by a family member when I came to UCSF as a faculty member, and justified my decision to take a lower salary. The value of the defined benefit pension is one of the reasons I have stayed at the university.
Erosion of the benefits plan, whether threatened or actual, causes faculty to seriously reconsider their commitments to the institution and the state. Nobody wants to be the victim of governmental mismanagement and the subsequent bait and switch, especially if one considers the incredible positive revenue stream generated by UCSF faculty that is so beneficial to the state government.
Yes. And it would behoove us to ensure that the UC Retirement Plan will not be gutted going forward. It is very difficult to hire new faculty to UCSF given the current outside environment regarding housing and excessive private salaries. Eroding the UCRP for future employees will take away another critical tool to ensure that we attract the most outstanding new generation of faculty.
Benefits (except health) did not influence my decision to come to UCSF. However, they have been a huge influence in my decision to stay at ucsf. I have had multiple offers from private universities to leave, for a higher salary. My decision to stay was based on multiple factors (2 career family) but our retirement package was always a consideration that led us to stay. As well, I receive many many inquiries to apply to other Universities. At this point, I don't, primarily because of retirement benefits.
No, my sole intention to be a UCSF was to complete a fellowship.
As a very young PhD researcher and very naÃ¯ve, the answer is no, but it does influence me to stay or potentially leave.
Yes, especially considering the lower salary offered by UCSF.
Not to come to work but maybe a little in terms of remaining here.
Yes, Having 28 years of service, the current UC retirement plan does influence my decision to remain at UCSF despite decreasing support and a degrading environment (Mission Hall library carrels for full professors)
yes to remain at UCSF - especially over the last several years
When I came to UCSF, I was vaguely aware that the plan was very good. However, when considering an outside offer, my financial advisor filled me in on the plan, and its significant worth, which counterbalanced the higher salary in the offer. I think the existing plan has been a major retention factor. I also hear that it is quite important to savy staff hires.
The retirement plan did not influence my decision to work at UCSF. I really only thought about retirement benefits after I had been here for some years. I remained at UCSF for family reasons. But I would have considered the retirement plan, had I thought of leaving.
I was recruited to UCSF from Harvard 7 years ago. My brother and his wife are UCLA faculty members; they explained to me the value of the UC Retirement Plan. It was an important part of my decision process and one key reason that I accepted the UCSF offer. Given the high cost of living in the San Francisco Bay Area and challenges in saving toward retirement, the UC Retirement Plan provides a great solution to retirement. It may be critically important to faculty based in high cost of living sections in California (San Francisco, Los Angeles, potentially San Diego).
yes. I wanted to come regardless, but the pension plan was a plus. A subsequent recruitment from outside had a substantially worse pension plan (no DB) and that helped keep me here.
Though they did not influence my initial decision, I consider it a great benefit I would now be quite reluctant to leave
yes; the salaries in my field were 20 to 30% lower than comparable salaries offered. The defined benefit help compensate for that shortfall.
yes, but the current retirement plan is not sustainable and needs to be modified. It is a nice relic and something current members benefit from but the upcoming generations do not expect this sort of option in the private sector and should not expect it in the public/university sector
Yes. Has Definitely effected my decision to stay here.
Yes the DBP was a significant factor in remaining at UCSF.
yes -definitely was a better choice at the time than offers from other universities.
Not the decision to come here, but it did influence the decision to stay here (somewhat).
Did not influence my decision to work here initially, but definitely influences my decision to remain here
Yes - esp re: retention. UCSF (or UC generally) is really eating its young. Retirees who made no contributions for the retirement plan for 17 years are going to enjoy 20+ years of full benefits and gold-plated health plans while those hired now work harder and harder to support them. My salary is taxed. My department is taxed. And now those hired in won't even have access to reasonable pension benefits! Whatever pain we have to face really should be shared among current AND retired employees. Even if it means taking the unions to court.
Yes, the UC retirement plan did influence me to remain at UCSF.
Indifferent. Too early in my career to be thinking about retirement. I am sure it is going to change many more times before I am nearing retirement.
Yes, not only did they influence my decision to join the faculty 10 years ago, but the pension plan here is one of the main reasons I continue to stay. If we had only a define contribution plan which was entirely portable (like most universities), I would lose nothing if I moved to Stanford, Harvard, etc. I know that if I stay here and continue to accumulate credit for my pension plan, I will be better off in the long run. This makes it more difficult for other universities to steal our faculty.
Absolutely yes. I was made a generous offer (salary-wise) by a recruiter about 2 years ago to join an outside company but chose to stay at UCSF because of the benefits, retirement, etc.
It did. Heavily when offered sub-median salary. Unfortunately, I was mislead about the quality of the UCRP, which is not bad, but certainly not as good as billed, and has only deteriorated since.
Yes. UCSF overall compensation is not quite as competitive as private institutions, or industry. Not having to worry about a reasonable retirement was one of the factors.
Not really but I was always told that the UC retirement plan was excellent.
If it were few years ago, it is yes. But no, the housing price is more concerning for me.
Yes. It was one part of many attractive features in my offer. Whittling away at these benefits will certainly have a negative impact on both current faculty and future recruitments.
Yes -- no way that UCSF salaries would be remotely competitive without it, though I am somewhat skeptical that it will really exist when I'm ready to retire....
no. I can't imagine that as an academic in san francisco I can ever afford to retire, but I stayed for the academic environment.
Yes, the retirement plan positively influenced my decision to come to work at UCSF.
yes--one of the benefits of working for UCSF has historically been a good retirement program.
No, the opportunities and people here did.
Absolutely yes--it influenced both
no. I was very young, right out of graduate school when I came here (30+ years ago). I couldn't imagine retirement at the time
Absolutely. Without this benefit, I would have elsewhere
Yes, somewhat, though not the primary consideration and mitigated by my skepticism that the plan will be there in its current form when I retire in 30 years.
What does UCSF do well to institutionally support early career faculty, and what does not work so well?
Well: Lots of opportunity to interact with other faculty with advanced technologies. UCSF is a great place for scientific input and creativity. Not so well: Insufficient support from the standpoint of financial stability. Startup packages have too much variability (ie some are too short and cover only 3 yrs, and too much direct costs often end up going to basic things like infrastructure (ie network charges, IT services) that should be part of indirect costs. Also, there is no dedicated/consistent system for salary backstop once the startup is exhausted - this is highly stressful. Finally, it would be great to have something as simple as an editorial department that can help with grant/paper proofreading, to improve the quality of submissions -- we are competing against other institutions do this for all their grants and papers.
Lack of child care, lack of help in finding affordable housing, lack of any perks regarding work-life balance makes it exceedingly difficult for early career faculty (who often have young children) to move to and settle in the Bay Area.
The fact that this question is asked shows what a great institution UCSF is in supporting its faculty. Benchmarking early career or all career faculty across different departments and make such data openly accessible could be helpful to everyone involved in the process.
The Faculty Development Day and some of the career workshops are great for everyone. For those that can get them, the junior faculty grants (KL2, RAP) and faculty housing are wonderful. Similarly, some junior faculty get outstanding mentors and others do not, however there isn't a lot of effort other than the initial match to follow up on this. In the same way, some faculty get excellent start-up packages and others get nothing. However at every level UCSF does a poor job providing a safety net for faculty who are dependent on soft money.
There are many support resources and information sources in place, such as the mentoring workshops run by the Chancellor's Council on Faculty Life (Dr. Mitchell Feldman and his colleagues do a great job with these). I also attended the information session in the fall for faculty at all levels - during this, the different series are reviewed and some general information on promotions is presented. I think promotions are quite department-specific, as the criteria in the APM are not very transparent. That could be a good thing for faculty like me who are in the Clinical X series, since we are allowed flexibility to develop our careers as we wish. I also benefited from the presence of Kirkham child care center - a fantastic resource if you can get in! We were on the wait list for about 2 years once I fount out I was pregnant. I think that more explicit support of flexible time and encouraging departments to support working from home would help. For example, I can do a lot of writing, chart review, and report writing from home, but this requires some support with setting up software and having the culture support doing this.
It does not teach faculty how to supervise staff, how to run staff meetings, how to motivate and give feedback to staff, and so forth. Early career faculty obtain funding, know how to develop a research question, and so forth - the science. But then they are put in charge of teams on their projects and don't really know how to work with their staff. They may not have had very good mentors in this.
UCSF has numerous career mentoring talks, sessions, lunches for early faculty to understand the process of promotions, funding, research, writing, etc.
Positive things are access to small grant support.
The absolute largest negative is the RMS policy which requires payment upfront for grant submissions. This is a disincentive/obstacle for early faculty to apply for small grants that are necessary for the purpose of launching a career, especially from less well-endowed departments. I am currently an independent investigator at the Associate level, with multiple government grants that provide millions in indirects to the University, but if I had started my career when this policy was in place I don't think I would have been successful at launching my research program.
(+) UCSF requires early career faculty to have career mentors, with the expectation that the pair meet regularly. (-) UCSF does not have a "faculty club" or other such official gathering site that would facilitate networking and sharing of best practices. (-) UCSF does not always provide adequate guidance for committee work (which committees are good training, orientation packets for new members, name plates for the table).
UCSF does not do much to institutionally support early career faculty, or any other faculty, for that matter. Mentorship programs encourage brief, superficial contacts rather than true mentoring. Pervasive resource constraints encourage senior faculty to hoard rather than share with junior colleagues. Research funding mechanisms such as RAP and the KL2 are highly publicized but can fund only a tiny proportion of eligible faculty. Special funding for early stage investigators has traditionally been focused on personal hardship rather than scientific merit. The postdoctoral fellows we work so hard to train are forced to leave rather than welcomed to our faculty. To quote a valued colleague who left for a job elsewhere, "UCSF doesn't even care enough to kill its young; they are just left by the side of the road to die."
Identify mentors. early career faculty could be supported by the institution to launch their research career while the move senior faculty assume a higher teaching load. i believe some students come to ucsf to work with more experienced faculty. The teaching load for tenured faculty who are expected to continue to submit competitive scientific proposals is very challenging when you are teaching so many courses.
Good Practices - 1. RAP research support, and 2) VPAA outreach workshops
Poor Practices - 1. Concentrated resource allocation to certain junior faculty (relatively large recruitment packages), and 2) Lack of recognition and reinvestment in junior faculty who have made demonstrable progress - once captured by UCSF, the institution just looks pass you.
very good a providing mentoring support to assist new faculty obtain their first grants .....however ONCE they have secured funding....the follow through seems to disappear.....there are official and non official mentors...many "official" mentors don't seem to do much - as a non-official mentor in many cases I meet with early career faculty and spend time helping them to time manage - to navigate publishing their first papers and handle rebuttals - to deal with hiring/managing people in their labs and motivating students/fellows etc...its the follow through that is missing...
good junior faculty mentoring. excellent learning environment.
Salaries are a challenge for new faculty given the high cost of living in the Bay Area.
I moved to UCSF pre-tenure after staring my lab at another institution. The institutional factors driving my move included 1) the strength of the trainees that UCSF recruits; 2) cutting-edge instrumentation and technical expertise with the UCSF community; and 3) the inspiration found within inter-faculty discourse and collaboration. After moving here, I have been surprised by how challenging my relationship with human resources has been. The HR staff seem to exist to obstruct and delay my research program. I have also been surprised by how unhelpful my grants and contracts support staff have been. Finally, I am surprised by how expensive graduate student tuition is for a state university.
career development courses and faculty day are awesome. on the not so well side there is no support with housing or much information on regulations, forms and authorizations needed to start a lab
What works: faculty development day. The KL2 program.
What does not work: although "stopping the clock" is covered in the faculty handbook, the details of how to actually stop the clock in reality is more nebulous and not well advertised. There is also a perception among faculty that it's looked down on to stop the clock.
Daycare options on campus are way too expensive for junior faculty to afford (about 2,400 a month for full time care). There must be a way for UCSF to make childcare more affordable.
From my experience as an early career faculty, UCSF does several things well:
1. Excellent mentorship. I have an excellent mentor who provides every bit of support I need to succeed, from research to professional and personal development. There is also the faculty mentoring program which has been an excellent resource. I have attended several sessions and they have all been well-received. Faculty development day is also a great avenue to network.
2. Funding support: There are several mechanisms to obtain funding for pilot studies that can be used to support NIH proposals.
3. Opportunities to serve on committees with more senior faculty, thus enhancing early career faculty leadership qualities.
What UCSF does not do well:
1. HOUSING for early career faculty. This has been my biggest challenge here at UCSF and takes away immensely from the satisfaction I feel as a faculty here. The inability to secure or afford even a modest home in this area has been disheartening. There has to be something that UCSF can do to assist early career faculty with housing here. Otherwise, that alone is a reason to leave the area. I'm afraid that the prospect of success here can be dwarfed by dissatisfaction of living conditions and associated costs.
Thanks for the opportunity to comment.
What UCSF does well: Provides access to world-class expertise and a range of pilot funding to help early career faculty develop their research.
What UCSF does not do well: Fails to provide many faculty with functional office space. The trend toward activity-based workstations, such as that at Mission Hall, is harmful to productivity, health, morale, and work quality of life. It is also a threat to successful recruitment and retention of talented faculty.
Well: Get a pension plan and personal retirement account going by making things easy!
Not so well: providing a sense of mid-late career opportunities beyond the individual department, and how academic series affects both intra- and extra-department opportunities. In other words, making us think ahead beyond the next 5 years.
K scholars program works well for clinical research faculty. Basic science K-level faculty have no institutional or departmental support. It is nearly impossible to accomplish anything at UCSF at the early career faculty stage given bureaucracy and competing pressures. This contributes to burnout and abandonment of research careers.
Great to have the faculty welcome event in September. Very helpful
Could be good to engage them more--together--after that first welcome. Some way annually to make people still feel connected.
Good: The UCSF "name" and community of scientists/mentors/colleagues is world renowned.
Not good: Suboptimal grants support; too little "hard" money to support promising (note: not all) junior faculty, especially at the K to R transition; minimal infrastructure (office space, lab space if needed). The word on the street is that top academic centers like UCSF, Harvard, JHU, do not need to back up their kind words with actual resources b/c of the "Good" noted above. Please also note that I do not have a great sense for the relative situation for junior faculty at these other institutions.
LSO announcements. It's great that UCSF sends these out via list serve. It's terrible that they are sent out on such short notice, giving investigators too little time to compose a thoughtful application and fostering a constant state of pressure. We can do better. Other universities have these RFAs available well in advance of deadlines.
Pair them up with successful mentors
Well - When effectively used, Mitch Feldman's mentoring program works well for junior faculty in our department.
Not well - networking and support groups for junior faculty
It is department specific. Mentorship is done well by some, and not so well by others.
early faculty need hard money salary support
To my knowledge there is no formal mentoring mechanism in the University for male faculty as there is for female faculty. The University does a poor job of orienting new faculty to the resources available to them.
Some good courses on "Leadership and Management", "Designing Clinical Research", and grant writing (lot from CTSI). Some logistics of starting a lab (e.g. pre/post award) are only learned on the job, and cross-campus networking could be improved
I am new and at my first position. So I'll tell you in a couple years.
There are funding opportunities through CTSI/RAP for junior faculty, and efforts to help in career development (through seminars, faculty development days, etc).
However for researchers, there are challenges in that a career development award often does not cover the requisite 75% of salary, forcing physician-researchers to seek alternative sources of funding.
It has good research support. It has abysmal salary support considering the rental and housing market.