Literature DB >> 8645396

Time to return medical schools to their primary purpose: education.

S Abrahamson1.   

Abstract

The author maintains that the quality of medical education has been dropping for the last few decades as medical schools become less and less focused on their primary purpose of training physicians. Until the years immediately following World War II, the administration of the medical school was carried out by a small staff headed by a dean whose role was to provide leadership in educational matters. Academic departments managed the educational program, and the faculty were expected to be teachers and to participate in educational planning, preparation of teaching materials, advising of students, assessment of students' performances, admission, and all other tasks associated with having a teaching position. Today, the administration of a typical school includes any number of assistants to the dean and a wide variety of other staff dealing not only with educational functions but with grant management, public relations, fund-raising, personnel policy, budgeting, and an enormous and complex parallel structure designed to manage clinical practice and to respond to market pressures. The role of faculty has also changed greatly; faculty are expected to be researchers and clinicians first, and teaching is usually shortchanged. The author explains why he believes these changes have come about; for example, the strong federal support of research after World War II, which encouraged a growing dependence of medical schools on research grants and consequently raised in importance those faculty who could obtain such grants. He concludes with common-sense proposals for reform (such as having the education of medical students in the hands of a small number of faculty whose prime responsibility is teaching), but admits that there are fundamental barriers to such reforms, especially vested interests and resistance to change. In the end, change will come only when those in power recognize that medical schools must be returned to their primary role of training physicians.

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8645396     DOI: 10.1097/00001888-199604000-00008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acad Med        ISSN: 1040-2446            Impact factor:   6.893


  6 in total

1.  What kind of curriculum can better address community needs? Problems arisen by hypothetical-deductive reasoning.

Authors:  A Haeri; P Hemmati; H Yaman
Journal:  J Med Syst       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 4.460

Review 2.  University of California Commission on the Future of Medical Education. July 1997. Final report.

Authors: 
Journal:  West J Med       Date:  1998-05

3.  Looking forward to promotion: characteristics of participants in the Prospective Study of Promotion in Academia.

Authors:  Brent W Beasley; Scott M Wright
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 4.  Developing an educational scheme for undergraduate medical Curriculum: the unit of "infertility" as a sample.

Authors:  A Aflatoonian; B Baghianimoghadam; A Abdoli; P Partovi; P Hemmati; N Tabibnejad; P Harasym
Journal:  J Med Life       Date:  2012-03-05

5.  Facilitators of high-quality teaching in medical school: findings from a nation-wide survey among clinical teachers.

Authors:  S Schiekirka-Schwake; S Anders; N von Steinbüchel; J C Becker; T Raupach
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2017-09-29       Impact factor: 2.463

6.  Medical education at the crossroads: which way forward?

Authors:  Samy A Azer
Journal:  Ann Saudi Med       Date:  2007 May-Jun       Impact factor: 1.526

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.