Part of Pete Schwartz’s 2016 application for promotion
In Summary
Past reviews indicate that while my student-centered research is excellent, there are concerns about both my teaching and service to the physics department.
- While my service to the wider community has been commendable and adequate for service, I need to strengthen communications with my department and better clarify the value of my service. I believe that my campus-wide promotion of sustainability and interdisciplinary collaboration helps build a stronger, more progressive university. Additionally, I provide a service to students who fall outside of the mainstream interests of their departments who find meaning in either technical applications dedicated to environmental sustainability and equity or some of the new fields addressing complicated challenges requiring interdisciplinary approaches. Lastly, over the past four years, I have been more attentive to the important details within the department that keep us working smoothly.
- While my energy and innovation in teaching was acknowledged, it was suggested that I improve my connection with students as indicated by student evaluation numbers. As I explain in my teaching statement and the student evaluation statements, I have since made an effort to better market the novel teaching method and actively study the student change experience. My student evaluations have improved. Additionally, a manuscript describing my students’ novel learning model has been provisionally accepted for publication in The Physics Teacher.
I am submitting this application with the belief that I have favorably addressed the two concerns above while increasing and strengthening my research activities.
Additional Information
I have previously applied for promotion to full professor three times:
2011: I withdrew my application after unanimous rejection by the physics PRC.
2012: After unanimous support from the physics PRC, the promotion was denied in a process that included a public appeal or “grievance”.
2013: I withdrew my application after unanimous rejection by the physics PRC.
This process illustrates the need expressed by past reviews to improve communications with my department. I appealed the rejection of my 2012 promotion on the grounds that my department is closest to my work and thus should have the strongest say in whether I should be promoted. At the hearing, the physics department chair testified on behalf of the university, explaining that when the physics 2012 PRC members unanimously supported my promotion, their intention was actually not to promote me, but rather to have me rejected at a higher level as to preserve the rejection in my permanent file. I had pursued the 2012 grievance hearing as well as the subsequent 2013 application erroneously thinking I had the support of my department. The 2012 grievance hearing was in January of 2014, after my 2013 application was evaluated by the Physics PRC. The applications of 2011 and 2013 are included in this application because they influenced the application of 2012, and because there is common knowledge of these applications among evaluators at all levels. In fact, the the existence of the 2011 and 2013 applications were made apparent at my hearing through the questions to, and testimony of the department chair. Thus, I find it appropriate that these PRC reviews be included herein. I think it is worth noting that for over a year, the department chair and I had differing models of my applications. From discussions with the PRC chair, I understood that the shortcomings in my application of 2011 had been addressed in my 2012 application. My department chair indicated that I had submitted the same application in 2011 and 2012, and that the significant work evaluating the application necessitated that I be rejected at a higher review level to stop this process for continuing “forever” and that the rejection is “taken to the heart” to motivate change.
My priorities with respect to promotion.
After the first departmental rejection in 2011, my understanding was that the reason for rejection was because I had inadequately described my activities, accomplishments, and funding. I contemplated my poorly-written application and questioned why I had not done a better job on my application. The only answer that made sense is that promotion was not important enough to me. This statement refers both to the lack of time and attention spent on the proposal itself, as well as the way my teaching, scholarship and service have been guided not by attention to promotion, but rather by my intrinsic priorities. These priorities include teaching in a way that some students don’t like, researching societally relevant topics that do not require considerable funding, and service that is largely outside of the physics department but central to Cal Poly’s mission statement. I do want to be promoted, but not enough to direct my professional and personal priorities. Since I came to Cal Poly as a lecturer in 2000, I have pursued the academic career that I have always aspired to have. Then, shortly before submitting each application for periodic review, a permanent faculty position, tenure, and promotion, I do my best to represent my personal accomplishments consistent with the stated requirements. Consequently, I was hired, promoted to associate professor, and tenured but it was always close… until 2011. I have given this application process in 2016 considerably more attention, because I am interested in the process itself and what it means about academe.
I am content to remain an associate professor and continue the academic pursuits that I find of value. After the grievance hearing in January of 2014 I continued my life as if I were a full professor – I just get paid less and have less responsibility in choosing department leadership. However, I am applying for promotion to full professor because I find these same academic pursuits that I prioritize to be crucially important to the university’s mission and purpose. Thus I deserve to be promoted not just for me, but for Cal Poly as well. I think it is very important that new hires see a diversity of opportunities to serve Cal Poly. I am informed from past evaluations and verbally by the evaluators who rejected my promotion that I do deserve to be promoted. Thus, they advised me to raise my student evaluations and serve on department committees. I considered doing this, but realized that it would compromise my attention to the very pursuits that I feel make me deserving of promotion. My response to these reviews is that if I do deserve to be promoted, please promote me for what I am doing. Promotion and rejection for promotion is how Cal Poly demonstrations its priorities to the public and to junior faculty. This being said, I describe herein and in my “case for promotion”, how I have addressed the concerns expressed in previous reviews.
Service History and Concerns
After being hired as tenure track faculty in 2003, I enthusiastically signed on to a faculty search in 2004-2005 in order to do my part. Additionally, I held a meeting to redesign the speed of sound lab. In my subsequent periodic review, the chair of the review committee informed me that my service was not only inadequate, it was detrimental: my counterpoint created more work for the rest of the search committee. Additionally, the speed-of-sound laboratory redesign proved to be ineffective. Despite the unanimous approval to run the lab in a more open format and with simpler technologies, the changes were never invoked. The next instructor in charge of the classes (who didn’t attend our meeting) chose to keep the lab unchanged. In accepting myself as I am, as well as accepting my department, I sought service opportunities where my efforts are effective and appreciated. I reached outside of my department and inward toward individual collegial support. I have found my work effective this way. Additionally some letters of support reflect gratitude on the part of those who I serve. Lastly, the physics department, with 33 tenured or tenure track professors and 14 full time lecturers has always had enough personnel to cover the department’s committee obligations. My choice of service is usually to provide what I see as an otherwise unmet need.
From 2010 – 2012, I overextended myself directing the Guateca collaborative field school in Guatemala, holding down classes, and conducting research. Attention to department meetings and the paperwork for my activities were often compromised causing difficulty for the office staff. One of the lessons that emerged from Guateca and my work with SUSTAIN during this time is the importance of supporting one’s community. I regret my lack of support for my own department community by my poor bureaucratic stewardship and how it caused more work for our office staff. Subsequently, I attend to department obligations and paperwork as soon as it is available; because I know that waiting will make the task worse; and because I am acutely aware that behind the paperwork are people that I care about. This change is likely reflected in a letter of support from Shirley Huston, the physics administrative support coordinator, who was one of those inconvenienced previously by me and who continues to be invaluable supporting the ~20 students, 4 grants, and international travel I directed this summer, 2016.
Organization of Application versus Standardization of Activities
During the grievance hearing in January, 2014, the university representative asked each witness about the experience of reading my application. Their response was that it took longer than other applications, and many described my application as “disorganized”. Thus, I have given great attention to presenting my application in a more organized fashion, consistent with how I organize the classes for which I am responsible. However, this application is still likely to be more complicated to review than most applications because I myself and my activities are more complicated than that presented in most applications. I recognize little boundary between teaching, research, service, and my personal life. Additionally, my efforts in teaching, research, services, and my personal life involves others outside of the physics department and likely contrast from the norm. I have done my best to cast myself and activities in a form consistent within the COSAM Application Guidelines. Similarly, I know that the reviewers will do their best to evaluate my application in this context.