Schools that encourage specialization

[DoctorSwagger]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Hey Guys, I have been reading about the different medical schools and a lot of them seem to really focus on primary care. I know that's what the bulk of medicine is but are there MD schools out there that encourage their students to specialize? I know this is a stupid question but I can't seem to find the answer anywhere




Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[Goro]

These tend to be the state schools, and some of the more service loving schools, like SLU, Loyola etc. If you browse through MSAR at what their graduates are doing (or look at match lists) you get a feel of who is more PC-loving.

 

[efle]

are there MD schools out there that encourage their students to specialize

MSAR shows the percent that go into various specialties, that's a good place to look at schools of interest.

Generally speaking though, the highly competitive research powerhouses seem to have a lot more people interested in specializing.

 

[DoctorSwagger]

Okay thanks for the insight goro and elfe


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[efle]

elfe

ಠ_ಠ

 

[bbccpp]

I would guess that there aren't schools that encourage specialization, but rather that the characteristics of the students who wanted to go to those schools is weighted towards specialization.

 

[AnatomyGrey12]

I would guess that there aren't schools that encourage specialization

There are definitely schools that encourage specialization... my state school openly pushes it, and often disparages primary care even though that is their mission. I would also go out on a limb and say that private schools tend to be more specialization focused but that is just a generalization

Disclaimer: I do not think my state school is representative of most state schools.

 

[bbccpp]

interesting to know, thanks!

 

[libertyyne]

Another confounder is the people that tend to have the drive and application to get into research powerhouses may also have the drive and application to specialize. It is hard to differentiate what impact the school has , if any. The other thing to keep in mind is that most medicine specializations occur after IM residency so it's hard to see after looking at a match list what subset of people will stay in IM vs specialize.

 

[JJRousseau]

Another confounder is the people that tend to have the drive and application to get into research powerhouses may also have the drive and application to specialize. It is hard to differentiate what impact the school has , if any. The other thing to keep in mind is that most medicine specializations occur after IM residency so it's hard to see after looking at a match list what subset of people will stay in IM vs specialize.

There is a logistical reality here. Pushing the frontier of a field well requires complete mastery of current knowledge. The wider the scope, the more unlikely one will obtain that mastery and be successful. Therefore, the research demands focus on a handful of closely related problems. As a clinician addressing those problems it makes the most sense, for the sake of medical practice and research, to specialize synergistically. That is, to be most effective one wants to have the most narrow research and practice scopes possible, where these scopes are aligned. There are exceptions, but these exceptions generally have a lot of help or collaboration with full time scientists. Also, it's a bit chicken or the egg. If you are designing and consenting patients for a seizure trial as a neurologist, you will be making a point to see a high load of seizure patients. Before you know it, you will be one of the best docs for seizures pushing the boundaries of the field, but by virtue of clinical volume, will not be as competent in other neurological condition - de facto specialization. High volume academic centers also see enough volume and variety of specific diseases to facilitate this process.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[libertyyne]

There is a logistical reality here. Pushing the frontier of a field well requires complete mastery of current knowledge. The wider the scope, the more unlikely one will obtain that mastery and be successful. Therefore, the research demands focus on a handful of closely related problems. As a clinician addressing those problems it makes the most sense, for the sake of medical practice and research, to specialize synergistically. That is, to be most effective one wants to have the most narrow research and practice scopes possible, where these scopes are aligned. There are exceptions, but these exceptions generally have a lot of help or collaboration with full time scientists. Also, it's a bit chicken or the egg. If you are designing and consenting patients for a seizure trial as a neurologist, you will be making a point to see a high load of seizure patients. Before you know it, you will be one of the best docs for seizures pushing the boundaries of the field, but by virtue of clinical volume, will not be as competent in other neurological condition - de facto specialization. High volume academic centers also see enough volume and variety of specific diseases to facilitate this process.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

I don't disagree with the thinking, but this mastery is more indicative of quality residency training vs ug medical education. There is no medical student that has the level of expertise or field exposure to warrant saying they are an expert in said field before starting residency. My contention was that driven people with the right pedigree and connections get into t20 schools these same people self select into competitive residency programs. So it may be less of a function of the school and more of a function of the people that actually end up attending that school.

 

[JJRousseau]

I don't disagree with the thinking, but this mastery is more indicative of quality residency training vs ug medical education. There is no medical student that has the level of expertise or field exposure to warrant saying they are an expert in said field before starting residency. My contention was that driven people with the right pedigree and connections get into t20 schools these same people self select into competitive residency programs. So it may be less of a function of the school and more of a function of the people that actually end up attending that school.

Too true, my assumption was that folks interested in such residencies want to attend schools with resources linked to those academic residencies.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[efle]

Jalby: nah guys, it's just that smarter people go to top 5/10/20 and the prestige lands them the competitive high pay careers , which are all specialized. Even if you have no interest in academia you're likely to specialize when you're the Top X type.

 

[AnatomyGrey12]

Jalby: nah guys, it's just that smarter people go to top 5/10/20 and the prestige lands them the competitive high pay careers , which are all specialized. Even if you have no interest in academia you're likely to specialize when you're the Top X type.

Nah man, it doesn't matter the field at all. The graduates of top 5s will always make more than those of top 20s in the same field, except for myself of course.

 

[DoctorSwagger]

There are definitely schools that encourage specialization... my state school openly pushes it, and often disparages primary care even though that is their mission. I would also go out on a limb and say that private schools tend to be more specialization focused but that is just a generalization

Disclaimer: I do not think my state school is representative of most state schools.

As an MO resident, I have been looking at Missouri Columbia med school and even though their page says that they believe in primary care, a lot of their matched residents are going off to competitive specialties, and ofc many of the internal medicine residents are likely to go on to further specialization


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile