In the current medical climate, medical education is at risk of being de-emphasized, leading to less financial support and compensation for faculty. A rise in compensation plans that reward clinical or research productivity fails to incentivize and threatens to erode the educational missions of our academic institutions. Aligning compensation with the all-encompassing mission of academic centers can lead to increased faculty well-being, clinical productivity, and scholarship. An anonymous survey developed by members of the A.B. Baker Section on Neurologic Education was sent to the 133 chairs of neurology to assess the type of compensation faculty receive for teaching efforts. Seventy responses were received, with 59 being from chairs. Key results include the following: 36% of departments offered direct compensation; 36% did not; residency program directors received the most salary support at 36.5% full-time equivalent; and administrative roles had greatest weight in determining academic compensation. We believe a more effective, transparent system of recording and rewarding faculty for their educational efforts would encourage faculty to teach, streamline promotions for clinical educators, and strengthen undergraduate and graduate education in neurology.
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Clinical Neurology