Your second point isn’t entirely correct. In private practice no one will care about about the letters after your name. In academics it will matter more, especially at “top” programs. Not saying DO’s can’t work there way up in academics, but being an MD is an advantage over being a DO
Thank you. I am referring to teaching medicine etc. rather than osteopathic principles. I went the DO route and am board certified by the ABIM (Allopathic residency) but am concerned that if I wanted to get into teaching medical school it may limit my opportunities. At this point in my career its just initials after my name. Thank you!
Thank you!
Yes this is common even in top schools. They make great clinical educators, which i believe are absolutely valuable
Thats abnormal, and never acceptable, all our faculty were pHD's or MD/DO...
We also have an anatomy lecturer who’s a chiropractor, which seems odd to me.
Very very odd and again not acceptable for any medical school(DO or MD)
1. Nope. Not normal. Medical students should not have more education than their lecturers.
Could see a mid level giving a talk on diabetes education or how to do certain procedures. Sure. But actual medical management? No. They don’t think like us.
A chiro teaching anatomy is fine.
Yikes. There's no problem at all having a DO lecture at an MD school as they are equivalent degrees. Also don't have a problem with occasionally being precepted by a midlevel (like for a day or two, shouldn't be constant). But they absolutely should not be lecturing, nor should a chiropractor have anything to do with medical education.
if they're talking about Nouro University Tevada, they technically have masters in anatomy or some kind of medical teaching masters I think. The cadaver lab's curriculum was written by a PhD and has MD/DOs/PhDs who assist during the lab for teaching. Does anyone really need a doctorate to make slides from Netter's and radiopaedia?
Yeah this really has nothing to do with the OP's original question so I'll refrain from repeating what I've said in other threads, but anyone wishing to hear my thoughts on the matter should be able to easily search for those posts. But let's avoid having yet another thread get consumed by the "midlevel encroachment discussion" black hole
Lol wut
Yeah, this is categorically wild and I’m shocked that a medical school faculty member would be okay with it.
Agreed. Having a chiro teach anything at a medical school is embarrassing.
It's all about knowing the bones. The chiro won't be the only guy /gal teaching either.
If you're a DO, I think you'll notice the letters a lot more, but the reality is that there are many layers of separation. Basically DO/low-tier MD vs. low mid-tier MD vs. "solid" but non-elite MD vs. Top 20. Personally I think the top 20 vs. everyone else is where the largest chasm lies. I'd sooner bet on a mid-tier school having equal MD/DO representation on the faculty than I would bet on a place like MGH/JHH/BWH picking anyone with even an upper mid-tier MD for Chief of Medicine, even if they trained at top places and published hundreds of papers afterward. Even Chief of Sections/Divisions at the Ivory Tower places are vast majority top, top-tier MD with gold-plated credentials.
I'm not sure exactly what @83462 is asking, but there's a huge difference between "teaching" and having a tenure-track professorship. Non-titled MDs at medical schools are employees of the hospital that are often recruited for help on clerkships. Then there are a slew of "Instructor" or "Adjunct" positions that have some ties to the medical school and sometimes give lectures. Finally there are the tenure track faculty that have significantly more teaching/research responsibility and a lot more upward mobility within the medical school system. All of them teach in some capacity, but only the tenure-track faculty are legitimately vying for higher and higher promotions and more influence within the med school. The non-tenure track faculty are often paid more, because they spend more time seeing patients, but the DOs teaching at a mid-tier MD school probably aren't in positions that will lead to being Chief of Medicine or getting absorbed into the upper levels of hospital leadership.
It really is crazy. The med school admissions process is a total crapshoot, yet the school you go to can completely carry your residency application or sink it entirely. Then, even 20-30 years later, big academic or hospital appointments like Chief of [Blank] often come down to meaningless credentials like where you got your medical degree. It just looks nice to have someone at the helm without a single "ding" on the resume, just top institutions up and down.
Anyone whose anatomy education included pseudoscience like meridians and subluxations has no business teaching at a medical school.
I don't necessarily disagree with what you have been saying. University faculty are on a promotion track and research is required for advancement. Some prefer clinical research, some prefer bench research. Agreed that many administrators have a pedigree from upper tier institutions. But what is the motivation to be Chief of Anything? Usually The Chief has been riding a desk for 10 or 20 yrs and probably not the person to be taking care of your family. We need administrators to attend meeting and help plot the course of the medical school. It seems like a huge wast of time, money and talent to go through the rigid training process in medicine to sit at a desk, deal with dept drama, and attend meetings all day. This would be " Some Fresh He!! for me. But to each their own.
I don't disagree, but the reality isn't so simple. There aren't enough card-carrying anatomists to go around (not by a long shot), and their numbers continue to dwindle each year. Anatomy graduate programs still exist, but the don't attract enough students to meet demand. Hence, medical schools all across the country have had to rely on people in other fields (like physical therapists and anthropologists) to close the gap. Using physicians to teach anatomy is possible, but it's hella expensive and you end up relying on part-time faculty of variable quality.
There are still DOs in top tier places, even as chairs in places like MGH
www.massgeneral.org
Maybe that’s a void unmatched doctors could fill.
Unmatched doctors can fill voids in a lot of places (it's already happening in many countries). The question lies in whether medical leaders will allow it.
At my school I think we have like one anatomist and a surgeon on the anatomy staff. Then we have part time physicians and fourth year TAs who help round it out. No chiros necessary.
That's your school. Not every institution can find even a single "real" anatomist.
That’s wild. There is that much of shortage?
Yes. Anatomy is the #1 never-ending headache in terms of finding qualified teaching faculty. The running joke is that the PhD anatomists are all finishing their careers as cadavers.
That’s interesting.
If an unmatched doc wants to get some anatomy cred (like a MS, or maybe even a graduate certificate) they can probably find a job somewhere.
Well, you are correct. However, it still needs some context. PM&R is a different world compared to the old guard medical specialties. Even surgery and surgical subspecialties don't hold a candle to medicine.There are still DOs in top tier places, even as chairs in places like MGH
Ross Zafonte, DO - MGH Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Service
This would just come down to preference and how you want to make an impact on your patients and the world. The positions are highly competitive and, depending on the institution, pay 2x the salary of an average Associate Professor, often eclipsing seven figures. This is verifiable on public databases like transparent California. So people chase these positions. It's a lot like the engineering/science vs. management debate that early career scientists in pharma or biotech go through. Some people are passionate about work in the trenches, others want to manage from above. Clinical medicine is unique in that managerial salaries aren't all head and shoulders above what you make in the trenches, but the dynamic is similar.
This is not true for MDs, as there are grads from places like NYMC in major leading positions at MGH in IM subspecialties and having over 600+ papers and overshadowing Harvard-only colleagues. This is also seen in Penn, JHU, Columbia etc. Granted, these guys went to top tier residencies and fellowships so that likely helped a lot
I think you make a good point. I checked the public records of my former neighbor, who is a relatively unimpressive person and started as a practice manager at our local uni.His survival skills are at the level of a cockroach, meaning very impressive. He eventualy slurped his way up to Exec VP. His executive compensation for 2020 was in excess of 2 million. Only 1 or 2 dept chairs slightly exceeded his. I think this helps both our points. Yours that Dept Chairs make well in excess of clinical faculty, and mine that med school cost and training might not justify becoming an administrator as my neighbor who was no academic star did it much quicker and cheaper.
I have a lot of reservations about my current school, but at least the residents and attendings at its associated health system aren't stuck on prestige. At the residency level, it's a solid hospital system that offers solid training and decent research in most specialties, and it doesn't sell itself as more than that - neither do the residents. Med school and residency have enough interesting personalities as it is, so I can't imagine name-fixating ones being added into the mix lol
To clarify, was this neighbor a physician?
Attending job? Yes. Professorship? Not at all. Huge difference between someone who works as an attending vs. as a professor. You will see tons of physicians at top hospitals with job titles like, "Assistant of Medicine" or "Attending Physician," and they are just employed physicians. The hospital where they work just happens to be JHH or MGH or wherever. These positions are not super competitive, and my understanding is that people usually take them for the lifestyle or variety they offer. They offer little academic benefit but pay less than working at a fancy private hospital in a rich area with excellent insurance mix (and far less than private practice).
