research vs primary care

[fang]

There seems to be a division between research-oriented schools and primary care-oriented schools. Like many of you, I'm deciding where to go this fall and this distinction has me a little confused. What does it mean when a school has an excellent research reputation but a poor primary-care focus? What about vice-versa? Some schools seem to excel (or not) at both, while others are highly disparate. Here are a few sterotypes of mine... I'd be interested in other people's views.

1. Research schools attract students with better "numbers", while primary care schools attract people with more of an interest in the non-scientific aspects of medicine (does this mean they will have better people-skills?)

2. Primary-care schools are more applied in their approach to teaching medicine, so students graduate better prepeared for residency.

3. Research schools, because they are perceived as more competative, have a higher percentage of students getting their top resdiency choices.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[doepug]

Hmm. The division between "research" and "primary-care" oriented schools is, in reality, artificial.

In response to your points:

1. True, but it's a fallacy to assume that students in "primary care" schools have better people skills.

2. Absolutely false.

3. True. This is probably linked to #1, in that most "research" schools tend to get students who have better numbers. As a rule, in order to get a "competitive" residency, students at "primary care" schools need to be at the very top of their class.

Perhaps the division should be "national" versus "regional" medical schools; most "primary care" institutions are state schools that are geared at producing general practitioners who will settle in their state.

Cheers,
doepug (MS III)

 

[kreno]

You know, as physicians and future-physicians, we are many things. We are healers, teachers, and life-long learners. Above and beyond, I believe, we are interpreters... we guide people and ourselves, through our expertise, so they, and us as physicians, can make the best decisions given the context of the culture, situation, time and place.

As such, it is imperative that as PHYSICIANS we have a thorough understanding of the scientific-method, and are able to UNDERSTAND research dynamically. Therefore, personally, I have absolutely *NO* desire to be a "researcher" or a "physician scientist"; rather, I see myself 100% clinically oriented and geared... primary care is what piques my interest most. HOWEVER, the research driven schools are where I want to go because it is there that I will learn, intimitaely, how not only cutting edge technology, but more importantly, how to really understand and apply my skills as a life-long LEARNER.

A lot of the primary-care institutions are such because they're simply small institutions, that is, they don't have research focus, and I think when that happens potential problems arise. I think every physician should have at least some major research aspect integrated in their curriculum, like Yale or Duke, now the University of Michigan, because only then can you really learn what research is about and learn how to interpret it... regardless of whether or not you want to continue that track later in life.

Lastly, the USnews primary-care rankings are essentially worthless... and while certainly the research rankings aren't perfect, I think they give SOME ball-park estimates about, not so-much the quality of an education, but rather the future opportunities you will have both in and after medical school.

Regards,
Kreno