I would be proud, and honored, and humbled

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
But welcome to the real world. Getting ahead is all about networking and dropping the right names. And in that regard, top tier schools are most definetly better than others.
Some of us have actually lived in the "real world" for a few years and trust me, you'll find very quickly that the value of the name on your diploma fades very rapidly and your ability to Do Your Job increases very quickly.

A Harvard on your degree is a great conversation starter at your first job interview. Namely, this is because your really have very little to talk about. But believe me, after one or two years on the workforce, it means very little and what means a whole lot more is what you've done since college.

Members don't see this ad.
 
There's a difference between aiming for the best schools and wanting to get into them, and point-blank refusing to go to any but a Big 10. Personally I don't want to feel that I worked hard for four years in undergrad, did everything I possibly could, and still wasn't good enough. As future doctors I think we should all be aiming for the best in everything: in ourselves, and following that, in our schools.

And yeah, "best" is highly subjective, and yes, USN&WR is flawed. But only we enlightened premeds know that. I had an excellent physician who graduated from a Florida state university. I know some terrific DOs. But personally I will work as much as I can to get into a Big 10, even if I don't end up attending.
 
And in that regard, top tier schools are most definetly better than others.
I'm curious why so many folks on SDN talk about "top tier schools" when talking about undergraduate degrees? The only reason you can talk about "top tier" medical school is because they all teach the same thing: medicine.

But when you're talking about undergraduate institutions, you have to be aware that things like "Ivy League" and "Top Tier School" is just marketing smoke. The question is: how good is your program.

Does USN&WR even rank undergraduate programs? For rankings for Biological Sciences and Chemistry Sciences at the grad level, for example, only 1 Ivy (Harvard) is in the top 5.

The undergraduate reputation and graduate ranking of California Institute of Technology is consistently and widely more respected in the sciences than almost any Ivy, but you don't see puffed undergrads bragging about how they have a degree from CIT, yet you do from folks with science BAs from Ivies. This is telling. Not about the programs, but about the graduates.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
WashU's recruitment strategy is the biggest Ponzi scheme I've ever seen. They invented a reputation out of whole cloth by absolutely bombarding high MCAT scorers with full-press marketing, accepting only a small percentage to their tiny class, and then calling up USNews and saying "Hey lookie here! We let in only a small percentage of our applicants! TeeHee!"

You don't see Harvard or Hopkins doing the "carpet bombing" strategy on high MCAT applicants, do you? No, of course not. Because they don't have to.

They just would not let me alone in my app process since I scored a 36. All they care about is their USNews ranking. Doesn't make them a great school... unless, of course, your purpose in life is to direct Pfizer or Merck-funded drug trials. If that's the case, then yes, WashU is the place for you.
 
Isn't a 36 below par for WashU?

especially if you're not a minority, legacy or some other group.
 
WashU's recruitment strategy is the biggest Ponzi scheme I've ever seen. They invented a reputation out of whole cloth by absolutely bombarding high MCAT scorers with full-press marketing, accepting only a small percentage to their tiny class, and then calling up USNews and saying "Hey lookie here! We let in only a small percentage of our applicants! TeeHee!"

You don't see Harvard or Hopkins doing the "carpet bombing" strategy on high MCAT applicants, do you? No, of course not. Because they don't have to.

They just would not let me alone in my app process since I scored a 36. All they care about is their USNews ranking. Doesn't make them a great school... unless, of course, your purpose in life is to direct Pfizer or Merck-funded drug trials. If that's the case, then yes, WashU is the place for you.

I'm calling the Fire Department, because WashU just got burned!
 
I'm curious why so many folks on SDN talk about "top tier schools" when talking about undergraduate degrees? The only reason you can talk about "top tier" medical school is because they all teach the same thing: medicine.

But when you're talking about undergraduate institutions, you have to be aware that things like "Ivy League" and "Top Tier School" is just marketing smoke. The question is: how good is your program.

Does USN&WR even rank undergraduate programs? For rankings for Biological Sciences and Chemistry Sciences at the grad level, for example, only 1 Ivy (Harvard) is in the top 5.

The undergraduate reputation and graduate ranking of California Institute of Technology is consistently and widely more respected in the sciences than almost any Ivy, but you don't see puffed undergrads bragging about how they have a degree from CIT, yet you do from folks with science BAs from Ivies. This is telling. Not about the programs, but about the graduates.

They do talk about their undergrads at CIT, except they say CalTech, which I have heard a lot.
 
WashU's recruitment strategy is the biggest Ponzi scheme I've ever seen. They invented a reputation out of whole cloth by absolutely bombarding high MCAT scorers with full-press marketing, accepting only a small percentage to their tiny class, and then calling up USNews and saying "Hey lookie here! We let in only a small percentage of our applicants! TeeHee!"

You don't see Harvard or Hopkins doing the "carpet bombing" strategy on high MCAT applicants, do you? No, of course not. Because they don't have to.

They just would not let me alone in my app process since I scored a 36. All they care about is their USNews ranking. Doesn't make them a great school... unless, of course, your purpose in life is to direct Pfizer or Merck-funded drug trials. If that's the case, then yes, WashU is the place for you.

Someone sounds a little bitter about being rejected. Did you hate the school this much when you applied there?

I've got more family/personal ties to WashU than anybody. What do I expect, a courtesy interview followed by a courtesy dead-end waitlist...

It's any school's right to be as exclusive as they want to be. WashU can get away with it because they're they actually deliver.
 
Just out of curiosity, how does someone know they want to be in academic medcine when they graduate high school and begin to plan their career through college and medical school?

Are they, like, test tube babies or something? You know, genetic freaks with large craniums who couldn't score chicks and spend their days researching and plotting towards eventual world-domination as the Chair of Cardiothoracic Surgery at Johns Hopkin at which time, presumably, they might score a good-looking chick as a trophy wife.
 
Just out of curiosity, how does someone know they want to be in academic medcine when they graduate high school and begin to plan their career through college and medical school?

Are they, like, test tube babies or something? You know, genetic freaks with large craniums who couldn't score chicks and spend their days researching and plotting towards eventual world-domination as the Chair of Cardiothoracic Surgery at Johns Hopkin at which time, presumably, they might score a good-looking chick as a trophy wife.

I believe many people find it important to keep as many options open as possible. If one goes to a high power research school, they have the option of going into academic medicine as well as private practice/clinically oriented work. If one goes to less research oriented place, the chances at research positions are more limited. People who come out of a top research oriented residency have an easier time starting in private practice.
 
WashU's recruitment strategy is the biggest Ponzi scheme I've ever seen. They invented a reputation out of whole cloth by absolutely bombarding high MCAT scorers with full-press marketing, accepting only a small percentage to their tiny class, and then calling up USNews and saying "Hey lookie here! We let in only a small percentage of our applicants! TeeHee!"

You don't see Harvard or Hopkins doing the "carpet bombing" strategy on high MCAT applicants, do you? No, of course not. Because they don't have to.

They just would not let me alone in my app process since I scored a 36. All they care about is their USNews ranking. Doesn't make them a great school... unless, of course, your purpose in life is to direct Pfizer or Merck-funded drug trials. If that's the case, then yes, WashU is the place for you.

I agree that their scheme is a little strange, but it does make you feel wanted. I have received 3 large envelopes from WashU and virtually nothing except emails from most others. They need to keep employing this strategy because otherwise how can they expect to keep a 36.8 MCAT average. BTW, I don't think they would bother you if you were applying this year with a lowly 36:laugh: .
 
People who come out of a top research oriented residency have an easier time starting in private practice.

How so? For instance, in Horowitz's survey of employer criteria for successful private practice pathologists (Hum Pathol. 1998. 29:211-4), research was ranked last in the essential skills components. Zero % considered it essential, 13% useful, and 87% unimportant. Essential skills for private practice are ones that are honed by doing clinical work, not research.
 
I believe many people find it important to keep as many options open as possible. If one goes to a high power research school, they have the option of going into academic medicine as well as private practice/clinically oriented work. If one goes to less research oriented place, the chances at research positions are more limited. People who come out of a top research oriented residency have an easier time starting in private practice.


Yeah. But how do they know? Do high schoolers do research or, God forbid, are sixth graders already gunning for a spot at Harvard Medical School? Are there parents pushing them to go to Ivy League schools? My sister is the Director of Admissions at Dartmouth College and she told me that some of the parents are almost too much to believe in their hunger to have their kids go to Dartmouth. It's like a religion.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
As a matter of fact, I believe that the reason many people go into academic medicine is because it is nice to have an entourage of residents, interns, and medical students following you around. Nothing wrong with this, of course, as teaching the next generation of physicians is an important task but it did seem to me last year that my attendings in Family Practice didn't work nearly as hard as their comrades do in private practice, seeing how the residents did most of the grunt work.

It might be hard to transition from academics where productivity in seeing partients is not that important to a private practice.

I just want to say that the more I learn, the more I realize that what goes on at academic medical centers is very different than the way things are done at private hospitals.
 
This past year has taught me the appeal of academic medicine. Specifically clinical trials...

It applies directly to patient care. If you offer clinical trials, the treatment options you are able to provide your patients are dramatically increased. You can give your patient's access to treatments that have yet to be approved, and in some cases, this may be their only hope.

I've seen this make a huge impact in the patient's QOL.
 
99%? Pretty high claim there, got any proof? Check any hospital website and it'll likely list the physician's training. If only 1% cared, do you think this would be the case?



When people look up records of a doctor, its not the school they went to for which they look up so much as their malpractice records. They look up whether you've been sued or whether you have a pretty clean record and are trying to find out how good you are. They dont automatically assume that solely on where your degree came from.
 
Have you heard the rest of that joke? It goes:

"What do you call a med student who graduated last in his class?"
"A Doctor."

"What do doctors call a med student who graduated last in his class?"
"A Pathologist."

:laugh:

Sorry to resurrect this thread, but I just got ahold of the fabled Outcomes Report. Let's look at mean USMLE Step 1 scores for U.S. seniors in the 2005 match. In descending order:

Dermatology - 233
Diagnostic Radiology - 232
Plastic Surgery - 231
Orthopedic Surgery - 230
Radiation Oncology - 228
Transitional - 229
Pathology - 222
General Surgery - 222
Internal Medicine - 220
Emergency Medicine - 219
Med Peds - 219
Anesthesiology - 216
Pediatrics - 215
OB/GYN - 212
Family Practice - 210
Psychiatry - 210
PM & R - 208
 
Do they have a category for ophtho, or is that included under transitional?

Sorry to resurrect this thread, but I just got ahold of the fabled Outcomes Report. Let's look at mean USMLE Step 1 scores for U.S. seniors in the 2005 match. In descending order:

Dermatology - 233
Diagnostic Radiology - 232
Plastic Surgery - 231
Orthopedic Surgery - 230
Radiation Oncology - 228
Transitional - 229
Pathology - 222
General Surgery - 222
Internal Medicine - 220
Emergency Medicine - 219
Med Peds - 219
Anesthesiology - 216
Pediatrics - 215
OB/GYN - 212
Family Practice - 210
Psychiatry - 210
PM & R - 208
 
This past year has taught me the appeal of academic medicine. Specifically clinical trials...

It applies directly to patient care. If you offer clinical trials, the treatment options you are able to provide your patients are dramatically increased. You can give your patient's access to treatments that have yet to be approved, and in some cases, this may be their only hope.

I've seen this make a huge impact in the patient's QOL.

Yeah clinical trials were the only reason I could stomach working in a corporate hospital before I matriculated. We gave free meds, dr. visits and labs to patients that would never be able to afford this stuff even after it was approved and if they had insurance. On top of that many of the meds weren't available yet if you weren't on a study, and these people that tx failed on everything that was available. It felt great pushin that cart chock full o free drugs to clinic everyday knowing that we were really helping people with no where else to turn to. Even patients who tx failed on the studies were so thankful for everything we tried to do for them, it was really touching. The whole corporate atmosphere still made my stomach churn tho, so hopefully i can match into a non-for-profit research hospital . . . not askin tooo much right? :rolleyes:
 
Kinda goes along with that one joke: "So what do you call a med student who graduates last in his class...? A doctor"

I guess you could use it in this situation: "So what do you call a med student who graduated from a bottom teir med school...? A doctor"

And besides, the great destroyer of specialty dreams in med school is the USMLE (sp?) right? Just the same as the MCAT is for undergrad. School name plays a big role but "the test", grades, and what you do with your time play a bigger role.

I call that someone who can't land a residency.
 
Not bloody likely. Stop trying to equate barely accredited Ros Franklin with Hopkins. You belittle the achievements of those that worked hard to gain acceptance into a Tier I school with your comments, premed.

going to a "lower tier" school doesn't necessarily reflect on the individual that is going to that school. Many students choose state schools over higher ranked schools due to financial limitations.

Individuals can get accepted to a "low tier" barely accredited med school like rosalind franklin and still do extraordinarily well on their boards.

A reflection of an individual's ability should be measured by how well they perform on their boards not whether they go to a low tier school.
Same can be said for MCAT versus what undergrad you go to

(I didn't read too many posts in this thread so if someone already expressed this view point then.....AMEN
 
As a matter of fact, I believe that the reason many people go into academic medicine is because it is nice to have an entourage of residents, interns, and medical students following you around. Nothing wrong with this, of course, as teaching the next generation of physicians is an important task but it did seem to me last year that my attendings in Family Practice didn't work nearly as hard as their comrades do in private practice, seeing how the residents did most of the grunt work.

It might be hard to transition from academics where productivity in seeing partients is not that important to a private practice.

I just want to say that the more I learn, the more I realize that what goes on at academic medical centers is very different than the way things are done at private hospitals.


Hahahaha howww true. This neurologist I know said he would fall asleep at his desk after work from exhaustion when he was in private practice. but when he went back to being in academia after 15 years of being out of academia he felt much better and able to have more time.
 
Bottom line. I am going to be a Bad ass physician whether its at Harvard or Meharry. The top tier schools just have the name and extra money. If you want it bad enough you can do it, everybody takes the same USMLEs. As for bedside that is more innate than anything. So take that.
 
Hahahaha howww true. This neurologist I know said he would fall asleep at his desk after work from exhaustion when he was in private practice. but when he went back to being in academia after 15 years of being out of academia he felt much better and able to have more time.


This really varies, but I think that professors at medical schools are doing a lot more work than you perceive. For example, many have most or all of the following responsibilites:

-develop their own courses (lecture notes, homework, quizzes, exams, office
hours, help sessions, coordinate with lab, TAs
-run a research program
-grant writing (constantly, and usually several at the same time)
-grant administration
-review other people's manuscripts and proposals
-organize and chair symposia and conferences
-prepare poster and oral presentations
-conduct research
-direct undergraduate students, graduate students and postdocs in research group
-group meetings
-evaluate progress reports
-countless meetings with their students
-write progress reports to grant agencies
-write manuscripts (journal articles, book chapters)
-attend divisional and departmental and university meetings
-organize, host and attend seminars and meet with the speakers
-come up with new research ideas and develop them
-give lectures at other universities and companies
-attend graduate student seminars, qualifying or cumulative examinations (and
make up and grade the latter)
-attend thesis defenses
-compliance meetings (e.g. OSHA, budget, technology transfer, etc
-review textbooks
-participate in university committees

oh yeah, and they SEE PATIENTS too. Admittedly clinical faculty will have fewer of these responsibilites, but academics work very hard regardless, at least in my experience.
 
This past year has taught me the appeal of academic medicine. Specifically clinical trials...

It applies directly to patient care. If you offer clinical trials, the treatment options you are able to provide your patients are dramatically increased. You can give your patient's access to treatments that have yet to be approved, and in some cases, this may be their only hope.

I've seen this make a huge impact in the patient's QOL.

Yeah clinical trials were the only reason I could stomach working in a corporate hospital before I matriculated. We gave free meds, dr. visits and labs to patients that would never be able to afford this stuff even after it was approved and if they had insurance. On top of that many of the meds weren't available yet if you weren't on a study, and these people that tx failed on everything that was available. It felt great pushin that cart chock full o free drugs to clinic everyday knowing that we were really helping people with no where else to turn to. Even patients who tx failed on the studies were so thankful for everything we tried to do for them, it was really touching. The whole corporate atmosphere still made my stomach churn tho, so hopefully i can match into a non-for-profit research hospital . . . not askin tooo much right? :rolleyes:

Yes, I have to say, being able to do clinical trials in my specialty is looking like a very appealing aspect of medicine -- something I will be definitely and seriously considering if I get in med school.
 
This really varies, but I think that professors at medical schools are doing a lot more work than you perceive. For example, many have most or all of the following responsibilites:

-develop their own courses (lecture notes, homework, quizzes, exams, office
hours, help sessions, coordinate with lab, TAs
-run a research program
-grant writing (constantly, and usually several at the same time)
-grant administration
-review other people's manuscripts and proposals
-organize and chair symposia and conferences
-prepare poster and oral presentations
-conduct research
-direct undergraduate students, graduate students and postdocs in research group
-group meetings
-evaluate progress reports
-countless meetings with their students
-write progress reports to grant agencies
-write manuscripts (journal articles, book chapters)
-attend divisional and departmental and university meetings
-organize, host and attend seminars and meet with the speakers
-come up with new research ideas and develop them
-give lectures at other universities and companies
-attend graduate student seminars, qualifying or cumulative examinations (and
make up and grade the latter)
-attend thesis defenses
-compliance meetings (e.g. OSHA, budget, technology transfer, etc
-review textbooks
-participate in university committees

Most clinical faculty don't do nearly any of these things on a regular basis. The ones that do come out of their regular hours, in other words, time spent hosting and attending seminars is time not spent on the wards.
 
This past year has taught me the appeal of academic medicine. Specifically clinical trials...

It applies directly to patient care. If you offer clinical trials, the treatment options you are able to provide your patients are dramatically increased. You can give your patient's access to treatments that have yet to be approved, and in some cases, this may be their only hope.

I've seen this make a huge impact in the patient's QOL.

Offering clinical trials in order to treat your patients is an ethical no-no. Research is not treatment, it's research. If you know enough to say the investigational drug is a better treatment, you're denying some of your patients that better treatment on purpose and have violated the principle of clinical equipoise.
 
By typing just period (.), I think you're just trying to increase the number of your posts! Hate when people do that!! :smuggrin:

:D

moooo you :D no, it was a double post and i don't know how to delete it. if u know, let me know. yes and thank you, i just increased my post number :smuggrin:
 
Offering clinical trials in order to treat your patients is an ethical no-no. Research is not treatment, it's research. If you know enough to say the investigational drug is a better treatment, you're denying some of your patients that better treatment on purpose and have violated the principle of clinical equipoise.

Unless you're an oncologist.
 
Geez, it's gettin' all elitist up in this piece. :eek:

I mean, half the people who apply don't make it every year, and those are all pretty smart people already if they've completed college.

You can't be serious. Some of the kids that graduate around here can't even tie their shoes. Others are so outrageously brilliant that I'd give anything just to see the world from their vantage point for a day...

Alas, relegated to above average intelligence and near-overachiever status.

Seriously though, I think that a med school is a med school is a med school. USMLE scores show a hell of a lot more than undergrad GPA or even MCAT results (and thus admittance criteria into most US med schools)... Why? B/c they demonstrate more than just an aptitude in the sciences; they demonstrate the ability to problem-solve within medical science applications... I would be more impressed by people who have excellent stats combined with incredible experiences such as traveling to Africa to fight the AIDS epidemic, working at a cancer institute, etc...
 
Offering clinical trials in order to treat your patients is an ethical no-no. Research is not treatment, it's research. If you know enough to say the investigational drug is a better treatment, you're denying some of your patients that better treatment on purpose and have violated the principle of clinical equipoise.

Alot of the patients who participate in clinical trials as treatment have no other options, as they have run thru the gamut of FDA approved treatments for their usually serious disease and are desperate to try anything that might save them. Also, alot of the clinical trials are on already approved drugs that otherwise patients couldn't afford. Either way it is for the good of your patient. The are getting a treatment that they otherwise wouldn't. They are fully consented and made aware of all treatment options and all the known risks and the fact that there are probably unknown risks too. I don't think that a practice that takes place throughout academic medical centers qualifies as an ethical no-no. These trials have to make it thru ethics comittees to be approved before they are even offered to patients as an option.
 
Offering clinical trials in order to treat your patients is an ethical no-no. Research is not treatment, it's research. If you know enough to say the investigational drug is a better treatment, you're denying some of your patients that better treatment on purpose and have violated the principle of clinical equipoise.

I disagree.

If a patient has failed to respond to all convential therapy, then the natural route is to resort to the unconventional.

Case in point.

~1/4 to 1/3 of all CML patients fail to respond to Gleevec which is the Gold Standard treatment for the disease. In the past 2 years, a new drug, Sprycel, has been in phase III clinical trials and shown to help a majority of these patients. While this drug just gained FDA approval, only academic physicians had access to it beforehand. Was it unethical for them to provide it to the patients that had failed previous treatments?

Furthermore, at which point must you only offer trials to some of your patients. A sufficient sized research institution is capable of offering trials to most patients that seek them.

Research is capable of being both research and treatment. If you believe a patient might benefit from a therapy that has yet to recieve approval, it is your ethical obligation to offer it to them (and all other eligible patients).
 
Here is the thing. What are you looking for?

Harvard is a better medical school that Rosalind Franklin, yes. Guess what though!! The first 2 years of medical school everyone learns the same material so that they can pass the same test. (USMLE 1) The second 2 years of medical school are LARGELY dependent on what hospitals you end up working in because you spend ALL OF YOUR TIME THERE. Some of the hospitals that Havard is associated with are great, but they are individual hospitals which are NOT RANKED by any system so US News and Weekly World report aren't going to help you there. At the end of the day, you apply to residency and where you get in depends largely on your board scores.

Check out RSU's match list and you'll see that they put students into competitive residencies as well.

Bottom line: Its just status. People who earn that status should get recognition, but everyone from these schools will be a doctor. I know people who are very successful from Harvard. I know people who are very successful from lesser ranked schools. This applies in medicine and just about any other career you want to examine. Give the overacheivers their congrats, but make their salary too. No one should be complaining.
 
ha..i didnt check the last post...i meant hear hear to the OP!
 
The second 2 years of medical school are LARGELY dependent on what hospitals you end up working in because you spend ALL OF YOUR TIME THERE. Some of the hospitals that Havard is associated with are great, but they are individual hospitals which are NOT RANKED by any system so US News and Weekly World report aren't going to help you there.

But...US news does rank hospitals
 
But...US news does rank hospitals

Yes. True. But show me the thread where SDNers have mapped US medical schools the the group of hospitals that they are affiliated with and then determined a ranking based on this information. (A weighted average of hospital ranks based on the average time ones spends at each during their 3rd and 4th year, for example)

Doesn't exist AND no one talks about it.
 
to be admitted to any accredited medical school in the United States. So these comments about "lower tier medical schools" are an insult to the profession that we seek to enter and honor. If we are educated at any accredited medical shool and licensed as professionals who can be servants to the sick and dying, what an honor and a priviledge ...kill your egos, folks.

Searun

It's so funny because this is SUCH a PREMED issue.....get into school, learn medicine, practice with knowledge and compassion, and no one cares where you went to school. I can't imagine what some of you arrogant premeds think of osteopathic schools or even PAs and NPs.

Why is it that a place like Harvard or Mayo or whatever is automatically equated with being a great doctor. It is true that you may be a brilliant doctor. but in no way does it correlate with your clinical judgment and interpersonal skills when dealing with patients.
 
It's so funny because this is SUCH a PREMED issue.....get into school, learn medicine, practice with knowledge and compassion, and no one cares where you went to school. I can't imagine what some of you arrogant premeds think of osteopathic schools or even PAs and NPs.

Why is it that a place like Harvard or Mayo or whatever is automatically equated with being a great doctor. It is true that you may be a brilliant doctor. but in no way does it correlate with your clinical judgment and interpersonal skills when dealing with patients.

YES. :thumbup:
 
(and all other eligible patients).

This is the issue. In a standard clinical trial, you have two groups of medically equivalent patients. One gets the investigational drug, and the other gets a placebo, or sometimes the best publically available treatment (say Gleevac). If, in your clinical judgement, you can say the investigational drug is better than Gleevac (or placebo), than you are denying the control group the best treatment. If, in your clinical judgement, you can't say the investigational drug is better, than you can't approach the situation as if you were providing the experimental group a better or more advanced treatment. This is why your IRB gets preliminary data from clinical trials. If they believe you've passed the standard of evidence, and the investigational drug IS a better treatment, they'll stop the trial so that everyone can get the drug. If you don't, there are some disturbing similarities between your trial and the clinical research a few folks did down a Tuskegee not long ago.

There are some slippery ethical issues here in the application, yes (do a pubmed search for 'clinical equipoise' for reading on this). But the basic idea is pretty fundamental, and widely accepted among ethicists. It stems from the ethical principle of beneficence. As a researcher, you can't give participants a treatment you know to be bad. And the corollary, you can't give some participants a treatment you know to be better or more advanced than others.
 
Most clinical faculty don't do nearly any of these things on a regular basis. The ones that do come out of their regular hours, in other words, time spent hosting and attending seminars is time not spent on the wards.


At the medical schools where faculty do almost no research, this is true. This can also be true for clinical faculty (i.e. non-tenure-track). But at the research-oriented med schools, faculty do a lot of research, and your statements are incorrect (at least for tenure-track faculty). I know that at the medical school with which I am most closely familiar, the tenure-track faculty in clinical departments (pediatrics, ophthalmology, internal medicine, etc.) work very long hours. I know this to be true for a number of other research-oriented medical schools. It is actually a well-accepted fact, and true, FYI. I can't speak for clinical, non-tenure-track faculty or faculty at primary care medical schools. Then again, I don't even really consider these individuals as academics because, although faculty in name, they are essentially contracted physicians that conduct no research, which is the mainstay of academia.
 
At the medical schools where faculty do almost no research, this is true. This can also be true for clinical faculty (i.e. non-tenure-track). But at the research-oriented med schools, faculty do a lot of research, and your statements are incorrect (at least for tenure-track faculty). I know that at the medical school with which I am most closely familiar, the tenure-track faculty in clinical departments (pediatrics, ophthalmology, internal medicine, etc.) work very long hours. I know this to be true for a number of other research-oriented medical schools. It is actually a well-accepted fact, and true, FYI. I can't speak for clinical, non-tenure-track faculty or faculty at primary care medical schools. Then again, I don't even really consider these individuals as academics because, although faculty in name, they are essentially contracted physicians that conduct no research, which is the mainstay of academia.

You are correct. At my program we have mostly clinical faculty.

I just want to reiterate, however, that working in academia is a personal choice, as is trying for tenure. If you don't like it you can go to private practice. It is true that medical school and residency are also personal choices. However, once you commit to a residency program your options for changing if you don't like it are severely restricted.
 
This is the issue. In a standard clinical trial, you have two groups of medically equivalent patients. One gets the investigational drug, and the other gets a placebo, or sometimes the best publically available treatment (say Gleevac). If, in your clinical judgement, you can say the investigational drug is better than Gleevac (or placebo), than you are denying the control group the best treatment. If, in your clinical judgement, you can't say the investigational drug is better, than you can't approach the situation as if you were providing the experimental group a better or more advanced treatment. This is why your IRB gets preliminary data from clinical trials. If they believe you've passed the standard of evidence, and the investigational drug IS a better treatment, they'll stop the trial so that everyone can get the drug. If you don't, there are some disturbing similarities between your trial and the clinical research a few folks did down a Tuskegee not long ago.

There are some slippery ethical issues here in the application, yes (do a pubmed search for 'clinical equipoise' for reading on this). But the basic idea is pretty fundamental, and widely accepted among ethicists. It stems from the ethical principle of beneficence. As a researcher, you can't give participants a treatment you know to be bad. And the corollary, you can't give some participants a treatment you know to be better or more advanced than others.

Yeah, we're all bastards here in clinical research. I must be going to hell for getting these cancer drugs to the public...

Side note: Everybody on the phase II and III Sprycel trials got the drug, the only randomization was dosage.
 
Guedj-LaLaLand.jpg

Nobody noticed how funny this is?
 
You are correct. At my program we have mostly clinical faculty.

I just want to reiterate, however, that working in academia is a personal choice, as is trying for tenure. If you don't like it you can go to private practice. It is true that medical school and residency are also personal choices. However, once you commit to a residency program your options for changing if you don't like it are severely restricted.


Agreed.
 
it's funny how alot of people really want to keep reminding others that med schools are separated by tiers, once they get into a top tier med school. alot of these people are the same ones that whine and cry in the "will my undergrad school matter"? threads that coming from a no-name, low tier undergrad makes no difference in the med school admissions game (because they of course have a 4.0 from a ****ty small unheard of college or bad State U- and it is no different than getting a 4.0 from an Ivy League school!- as if they would know). whether you are are for or against tiering schools- be consistent. if you go to a no-name undergrad and find yourself accepted to a top-tier med school, don't get all self-righteous and belittle people at lower tiered med schools- alot of people in the "low tiered" med schools went to wayyyyy more rigorous/better undergrads than you and may have had a lower gpa because of it- this doesn't make them at all less capable than you.
 
it's funny how alot of people really want to keep reminding others that med schools are separated by tiers, once they get into a top tier med school. alot of these people are the same ones that whine and cry in the "will my undergrad school matter"? threads that coming from a no-name, low tier undergrad makes no difference in the med school admissions game (because they of course have a 4.0 from a ****ty small unheard of college or bad State U- and it is no different than getting a 4.0 from an Ivy League school!- as if they would know). whether you are are for or against tiering schools- be consistent. if you go to a no-name undergrad and find yourself accepted to a top-tier med school, don't get all self-righteous and belittle people at lower tiered med schools- alot of people in the "low tiered" med schools went to wayyyyy more rigorous/better undergrads than you and may have had a lower gpa because of it- this doesn't make them at all less capable than you.

Good point.
 
Top