I am forwarding to you for the Senate’s information and comment proposals regarding Clinical and Professional Practice Tracks for the Graduate School of Applied and Professional Psychology; Rutgers Business School in New Brunswick and Newark, and the School of Business-Camden; and the Mason Gross School of the Arts. We will be sending these proposals to the Board of Governors for their review and approval during the current academic year.
As you know, we have well-established and very successful clinical tracks in the Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy, the College of Nursing, and the Law Schools in both Newark and Camden. In Pharmacy, for instance, students, faculty, chairs, and academic administrators have all been extremely pleased with the clinical track. The availability of the track has permitted Pharmacy to provide enhanced instructional opportunities in clinical practice disciplines and to attract and retain superior clinical faculty. Although the faculty on the clinical track are not tenure-eligible, many have progressed through their ranks; nine have been promoted from clinical assistant professor to clinical associate professor since the track was first approved for Pharmacy’s use ten years ago.
The success of the track in Pharmacy, Nursing, and Law has been noted by faculties and deans in units with similar clinical or professional practice needs. The Graduate School of Applied and Professional Psychology clearly has needs in clinical instruction similar to those in Pharmacy and Nursing. The needs of the Business Schools and Mason Gross School of the Arts are not in the “clinical” area per se, but those units too have struggled to use existing titles to attract and retain outstanding practicing professionals in their respective fields, with results that have at times been disappointing. The faculties in both those units have concluded that a “professional practice” track as outlined in their proposals would allow them to attract, retain, and reward the kind of faculty they need to round out their educational programs.
I would appreciate your forwarding these proposals to the appropriate Senate committee for their information and comment. The relevant deans, provosts, and I would be happy to meet with the members of that committee, or with the Senate Executive Committee, to answer any questions you might have regarding these proposed new faculty tracks.
Many thanks. We look forward to hearing from you.
c: Richard L. McCormick