scholarly journals Medical school research ranking is associated with gender inequality in MSTP application rates

2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Caitlin J. Bowen ◽  
Calvin J. Kersbergen ◽  
Olive Tang ◽  
Andrea Cox ◽  
Mary Catherine Beach
Keyword(s):  
Medical School ◽  
Gender Inequality ◽  
Application Rates ◽  
School Research ◽  
Research Ranking

Medical School Enrollments and Admissions Policies

1987 ◽  
Author(s):  
William G. Rothstein
Keyword(s):  
Medical Education ◽  
World War Ii ◽  
Medical School ◽  
Research Training ◽  
Medical Schools ◽  
Federal Aid ◽  
World War ◽  
Research Grants ◽  
School Research ◽  
Research Facilities

After shortages of physicians developed in the 1950s and 1960s, federal and state governments undertook programs to increase the number of medical students. Government funding led to the creation of many new medical schools and to substantial enrollment increases in existing schools. Medical schools admitted larger numbers of women, minority, and low-income students. The impact of medical schools on the career choices of students has been limited. Federal funding for medical research immediately after World War II was designed to avoid politically controversial issues like federal aid for medical education and health care. The 1947 Steelman report on medical research noted that it did not examine “equally important” problems, such as financial assistance for medical education, equal access to health care, continuing medical education for physicians, or “the mass application of science to the prevention of many communicable diseases.” The same restraints prevailed with regard to early federal aid for the construction of medical school research facilities. Some medical school research facilities were built with the help of federal funds during and after World War II, but the first federal legislation specifically designed to fund construction of medical school research facilities was the Health Research Facilities Act of 1956. It provided matching grants equal to 50 percent of the cost of research facilities and equipment, and benefited practically all medical schools. In 1960, medical schools received $13.8 million to construct research facilities. This may be compared to $106.4 million for research grants and $41.5 million for research training grants in the same year. Federal grants for research and research training were often used for other activities. As early as 1951, the Surgeon General's Committee on Medical School Grants and Finances reported that “Public Health Service grants have undoubtedly improved some aspects of undergraduate instruction in every medical school,” with most of the improvements resulting from training rather than research grants. By the early 1970s, according to Freymann, of $1.3 billion given to medical schools for research, “about $800 million was 'redeployed' into institutional and departmental support. . . . The distinction between research and education became as fluid as the imagination of the individual grantees wished it to be.”

Effect of medical school attended on the chances of successfully embarking on a clinical-academic career in the UK

2020 ◽  
pp. postgradmedj-2020-139001
Author(s):  
Callum John Donaldson ◽  
Miguel Sequeira Campos ◽  
Joanne Ridgley ◽  
Alexander Light
Keyword(s):  
Academic Performance ◽  
Medical School ◽  
Medical Curriculum ◽  
Academic Career ◽  
Research Focus ◽  
Numerical Rank ◽  
Application Rates ◽  
Equal Chance ◽  
Intercalated Degree ◽  
The Uk

Purpose of the studyThis study aimed to investigate whether, in the UK, medical school attended influences the propensity to apply to and be successful in obtaining an offer from the Academic Foundation Programme (AFP), thus taking the first step to embarking on a clinical-academic career.Study designA retrospective observational study was performed. Using the UK Foundation Programme’s yearly statistical report data, mean application rates to, and mean offer rates from the AFP were calculated by medical school, between the years 2017–2019. Mean application and mean offer rates were subsequently correlated with metrics of medical school academic performance and research focus.ResultsMean application rates to the AFP were higher in medical schools that had a mandatory intercalated degree as part of the undergraduate medical curriculum (mean=33.99%, SD=13.93 vs mean=19.44%, SD=6.88, p<0.001), lower numerical rank in the Times Higher Education 2019 World Rankings (correlation with higher numerical rank, r=−0.50, p=0.004), and lower numerical rank in the Research Excellence Framework 2014 UK rankings (correlation with higher numerical rank, r=−0.37, p=0.004). Mean offer rates from the AFP were not correlated with any metric of medical school academic performance or research focus.ConclusionsStudents attending a medical school with greater academic performance and research focus are more likely to apply and subsequently embark on a clinical-academic career. However, students wishing to embark a clinical-academic career from any medical school have an equal chance of success.

scholarly journals Examining the Otolaryngology Match and Relationships Between Publications and Institutional Rankings

OTO Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 2473974X2093249
Author(s):  
Evan M. Ryan ◽  
Katie R. Geelan-Hansen ◽  
Kari L. Nelson ◽  
Jayme R. Dowdall
Keyword(s):  
Medical School ◽  
National Institutes Of Health ◽  
Chi Square ◽  
High Ranking ◽  
Home Institution ◽  
Publication Number ◽  
School Research ◽  
World Report ◽  
Top 40 ◽  
Nih Funding

This study examines associations among publication number, National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding rank, medical school research rank, and otolaryngology department ranks of otolaryngology applicants during the 2018-2019 match cycle. Information regarding 2018-2019 otolaryngology applicants was collected from Otomatch.com and verified via department websites. Information was also collected regarding 2018 NIH funding rank and 2020 US News & World Report research rank of medical schools and otolaryngology departments. T tests and chi-square analyses were performed. Top 40 NIH funding rank, top 40 medical school research rank, and home institution department rank were separately associated with more publications and higher rates of matching into highly reputed otolaryngology departments (all P < .01). Furthermore, applicants who matched into ranked otolaryngology departments averaged significantly more publications ( P < .01). Prospective otolaryngology applicants should take into account NIH funding rank, medical school research rank, and otolaryngology department rank, as they are associated with matching into high-ranking institutions.

scholarly journals Undergraduate Science Research: A Comparison of Influences and Experiences between Premed and Non–Premed Students

2011 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 199-208 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lara Brongo Pacifici ◽  
Norman Thomson
Keyword(s):  
Medical School ◽  
Graduate School ◽  
Undergraduate Research ◽  
Science Research ◽  
School Research ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Undergraduate Science ◽  
Rule Out

Most students participating in science undergraduate research (UR) plan to attend either medical school or graduate school. This study examines possible differences between premed and non–premed students in their influences to do research and expectations of research. Questionnaire responses from 55 premed students and 80 non–premed students were analyzed. No differences existed in the expectations of research between the two groups, but attitudes toward science and intrinsic motivation to learn more about science were significantly higher for non–premed students. Follow-up interviews with 11 of the students, including a case study with one premed student, provided explanation for the observed differences. Premed students, while not motivated to learn more about science, were motivated to help people, which is why most of them are pursuing medicine. They viewed research as a way to help them become doctors and to rule out the possibility of research as a career. Non–premed students participated in research to learn more about a specific science topic and gain experience that may be helpful in graduate school research. The difference in the reasons students want to do UR may be used to tailor UR experiences for students planning to go to graduate school or medical school.

scholarly journals Keio Univ. medical school research database.

1997 ◽  
Vol 44 (3) ◽  
pp. 378-379
Author(s):  
KAYOKO HIRAFUKI
Keyword(s):  
Medical School ◽  
Research Database ◽  
School Research

scholarly journals Early surgical exposure for medical students: Efficacy and effect on choice of electives

2019 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Connor Mcguire ◽  
Todd Dow ◽  
Emma Crawley ◽  
Kit Moran ◽  
Dafydd Davies
Keyword(s):  
Medical School ◽  
Career Decisions ◽  
Multiple Choice Questions ◽  
Attrition Rates ◽  
Residency Programs ◽  
Surgical Exposure ◽  
Application Rates ◽  
Surgical Career ◽  
Career Options

Background: The number of students applying to surgical residency programs is declining. The reasons are multi- factorial, however early exposure has been shown to increase application rates and decrease residency attrition rates. The objective of this study is to evaluate the Surgical Exploration and Discovery (SEAD) program, an early surgical exposure program, on its efficacy and influence on medical school electives. Methods: Two online surveys were distributed to participants of the SEAD program from 2016-2017.The surveys addressed demographics and prior surgical exposure, efficacy of the program, and the role of SEAD on influencing choice of electives.The Likert scale was used to measure responses along with multiple-choice questions. Univariate descriptive statistics were completed on all variables. Results: All participants (n = 36, 100% response rate) reported that SEAD made them more likely to enter a surgical career (Mean: 4.1 out of 5, SD: 0.8), helped narrow down career options (Mean: 4.0, SD: 0.9), and improved comfort in the OR environment (Mean: 4.7, SD; 0.5).The majority of students were planning to, or had completed at least one surgical elective in second year (72.2%) and felt that the program will influence their choice of electives in fourth year (Mean: 4.0, SD: 0.6). Conclusion:The SEAD program is an effective method to help students make career decisions, offer early surgical exposure, and help with choice of medical electives.With a lack of early surgical exposure, and declining interest in surgical programs the SEAD program is a valuable addition to medical school education.

scholarly journals Prevalence and predictors of US medical graduates’ federal F32, mentored-K, and R01 awards: a national cohort study

2017 ◽  
Vol 66 (2) ◽  
pp. 340-350 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donna B Jeffe ◽  
Dorothy A Andriole
Keyword(s):  
Cohort Study ◽  
Medical School ◽  
Logistic Regression Models ◽  
Medical Graduates ◽  
Medical Licensing ◽  
School Research ◽  
National Cohort ◽  
Experiential Interventions ◽  
Research Workforce ◽  
To Receive

The size and diversity of the physician-scientist workforce are issues of national concern. In this retrospective, national cohort study of US medical school matriculants who graduated in 1997–2004, we describe the prevalence and predictors of federal F32, mentored-K, and R01 awards among physicians. In multivariable logistic regression models, we identified demographic, educational, and professional development variables independently associated with each award through August 2014, reporting adjusted odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (AOR (95% CI)). Among 117,119 graduates with complete data (97.7% of 119,906 graduates in 1997–2004), 509 (0.4%) received F32, 1740 (1.5%) received mentored-K, and 597 (0.5%) received R01 awards. Adjusting for all variables except US Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 scores, black (vs white) graduates were less likely to receive F32 (0.48 (0.28–0.82)), mentored-K (0.56 (0.43–0.72)), and R01 (0.48 (0.28–0.82)) awards; Hispanic graduates were less likely to receive mentored-K awards (0.68 (0.52–0.88)), and women less likely to receive F32 (0.81 (0.67–0.98)) and R01 (0.59 (0.49–0.71)) awards. After adding Step 1 scores, these race/ethnicity effects were not significant, but women (0.62 (0.51–0.75)) were still less likely to receive R01 awards. Graduates reporting both (vs neither) medical school research elective and authorship were more likely to receive F32 (1.89 (1.45–2.48)), mentored-K (2.48 (2.13–2.88)), and R01 (2.00 (1.54–2.60)) awards. Prior F32 (2.17 (1.46–3.21)) and mentored-K (28.08 (22.94–34.38)) awardees more likely received R01 awards. Findings highlight the need for research-experiential interventions along the medical education continuum to promote greater participation and diversity of US medical graduates in the federally funded, biomedical research workforce.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document