When the math does not add up: rethinking the small-grant economy in medical education

In academic medicine, extramural grant funding is widely regarded as a hallmark of scholarly success. Yet, in medical education (MedEd), the economics of grant funding are poorly matched to the scale and cost of most scholarly projects. Small-dollar MedEd grants, typically under $10,000, have low success rates that rival those of large clinical awards, but still require time-intensive applications. Using an illustrative economic model, the authors estimate that the faculty labor required to prepare a typical MedEd application, approximately 40 hours, often costs the institution more than the proposal's expected monetary value. These conservative estimates exclude indirect cost limitations, the added burden of reviewer time, and the applicant's opportunity cost: every hour invested in a low-probability application is an hour not spent designing studies, collecting data, analyzing results, or publishing scholarship. Thus, for most small MedEd projects, the math does not add up. Repeated applications can drain time, money, and energy, while constant grant chasing risks undermining the very scholarship that funding is intended to support. The authors encourage institutions to reconsider blanket expectations for extramural MedEd funding, shifting instead toward more sustainable support models. These include internal micro-funding to cover modest research costs, protected-time awards that address the major constraint on faculty productivity (ie, time), scholarship-first mindsets that reward contributions irrespective of external dollars, collaborative funding mechanisms that pool institutional resources, and scholarly communities of practice that offer ongoing mentorship and infrastructure. The authors further argue that institutions supported by student tuition and public funds have an ethical obligation to subsidize educational research and innovation, as the quality of educational practice is inseparable from the quality and safety of healthcare itself. Redirecting faculty efforts from low-probability, low-yield grant chasing toward scholarship can foster a more sustainable research culture that rewards quality, drives innovation, and delivers lasting educational impact.