This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on ISI (1)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

To the Editor.—Perhaps it is comforting to some readers and clinician-educators to think that medical school promotion committees consider teaching contributions important when making promotion decisions about faculty clinician-educators, as indicated in the findings of a survey of promotion committee chairs reported by Dr Beasley and colleagues.¹ However, we need to remember that what is important to the faculty members at issue—and to the future of medical education—is not what promotion committees say, but what they do.

Nada L. Stotland, MD
Chicago, Ill

1. Beasley BW, Wright SM, Cofrancesco J, Babbott SF, Thomas PA, Bass EB. Promotion criteria for clinician-educators in the United States and Canada: a survey of promotion committee chairpersons. JAMA. 1997;278:723-728. ABSTRACT

To the Editor.—We appreciate the attention that Dr Beasley and colleagues¹ have given to the measurement and performance of clinician-educators with regard to promotion. It is encouraging to see that many prominent institutions around the country are recognizing the academic importance of excellence in teaching as well as excellence in research. However, we were concerned to see that the least important criterion used in evaluating . . . [Full Text of this Article]