Anita P Mayer1, Janis E Blair, Marcia G Ko, Sharonne N Hayes, Yu-Hui H Chang, Suzanne L Caubet, Julia A Files. 1. Dr. Mayer is chair, Division of Women's Health-Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona, and associate professor of medicine, Mayo Medical School, Rochester, Minnesota. Dr. Blair is consultant, Division of Infectious Diseases, and professor of medicine, Mayo Medical School, Rochester, Minnesota. Dr. Ko is consultant, Division of Women's Health-Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona, and assistant professor of medicine, Mayo Medical School, Rochester, Minnesota. Dr. Hayes is consultant, Division of Cardiovascular Diseases, Mayo Clinic, and professor of medicine, Mayo Medical School, Rochester, Minnesota. Dr. Chang is research associate, Division of Health Science Research, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona. Ms. Caubet is education and development analyst, Office of Leadership and Organization Development, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. Dr. Files is consultant, Division of Women's Health-Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona, and associate professor of medicine, Mayo Medical School, Rochester, Minnesota.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Over the past 30 years, the number and type of academic faculty tracks have increased, and researchers have found differences in promotion rates between track types. The authors studied the gender distribution of medical school faculty on the traditional tenure track (TTT) and clinician-educator track (CET) types. METHOD: The authors analyzed gender and academic track type distribution data from the March 31, 2011, snapshot of the Association of American Medical Colleges' Faculty Roster. Their final analysis included data from the 123 medical schools offering the TTT type and the 106 offering the CET type, which excluded any schools with 10 or fewer faculty on each track type. RESULTS: The original dataset included 134 medical schools representing 138,508 full-time faculty members, 50,376 (36%) of whom were women. Of the 134 medical schools, 128 reported at least one of four track types: TTT, CET, research track, and other. Of the 83 medical schools offering the CET type, 64 (77%) had a higher proportion of female than male faculty on that track type. Of the 102 medical schools offering the TTT type, only 20 (20%) had a higher proportion of female than male faculty on that track type. CONCLUSIONS: Medical schools offering the CET type reported higher proportions of female faculty on that track type. Given that faculty on the CET type lag behind their TTT colleagues in academic promotion, these findings may contribute to continued challenges in gaining academic and leadership parity for women in academic medicine.
PURPOSE: Over the past 30 years, the number and type of academic faculty tracks have increased, and researchers have found differences in promotion rates between track types. The authors studied the gender distribution of medical school faculty on the traditional tenure track (TTT) and clinician-educator track (CET) types. METHOD: The authors analyzed gender and academic track type distribution data from the March 31, 2011, snapshot of the Association of American Medical Colleges' Faculty Roster. Their final analysis included data from the 123 medical schools offering the TTT type and the 106 offering the CET type, which excluded any schools with 10 or fewer faculty on each track type. RESULTS: The original dataset included 134 medical schools representing 138,508 full-time faculty members, 50,376 (36%) of whom were women. Of the 134 medical schools, 128 reported at least one of four track types: TTT, CET, research track, and other. Of the 83 medical schools offering the CET type, 64 (77%) had a higher proportion of female than male faculty on that track type. Of the 102 medical schools offering the TTT type, only 20 (20%) had a higher proportion of female than male faculty on that track type. CONCLUSIONS: Medical schools offering the CET type reported higher proportions of female faculty on that track type. Given that faculty on the CET type lag behind their TTT colleagues in academic promotion, these findings may contribute to continued challenges in gaining academic and leadership parity for women in academic medicine.
Authors: Daniel M Blumenthal; Andrew R Olenski; Robert W Yeh; Doreen DeFaria Yeh; Amy Sarma; Ada C Stefanescu Schmidt; Malissa J Wood; Anupam B Jena Journal: Circulation Date: 2017-02-07 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Erica T Warner; René Carapinha; Griffin M Weber; Emorcia V Hill; Joan Y Reede Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2017-08-03 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Sarah Chauvin; Benoit H Mulsant; Sanjeev Sockalingam; Vicky Stergiopoulos; Valerie H Taylor; Simone N Vigod Journal: Can J Psychiatry Date: 2019-01-07 Impact factor: 4.356