Out of this data gathering phase, we developed an understanding of the perceived problems with our current procedures and established a set of general principles to guide our work. We then tackled the procedures themselves. We believe that these changes address the identified problems and provide for a simplified and better focused set of processes. There may be too many levels of review, at least for certain actions, such as reappointments of assistant professors. Particularly in the case of appointments and promotions in the Medical Center Line, there may be inappropriate levels of review.
Board members see their role as providing a mechanism of quality control for faculty appointments.
By carefully examining the record of the search or review process and insisting that positive recommendations be supported by unambiguous evidence of excellence, Board members believe they are helping to maintain a top quality faculty at Stanford. This tension is particularly noticeable with Medical Center Line appointments. Additionally, the difficult judgment call of whether to approve or disapprove a marginally positive recommendation gets made anew at each level of review. Some committee members questioned whether there was value added at each step, particularly in light of the additional time and effort that is frequently required in these cases, and suggested that fewer layers of review might be possible without sacrificing quality. The paperwork associated with the process is cumbersome, unwieldy, and repetitious.