2023 Match Data

[rowsdower88]

Changing the culture of medicine to be more tolerant of part-time and/or lower hour full-time work DOES hurt society.

The arguments for affirmative action I'm focused on are the measurable benefits that occur for addressing the racial/ethnic disparities in healthcare. That's the goal. It's a utilitarian argument I'm making by saying the pros of AA are "reductions in racial disparities in healthcare" and the cons are "impaired meritocratic ideal". Based on the research I've linked in other posts, I'm of the opinion that the pros outweigh the cons. There are absolutely other ways to help address the disparity, and the report I've linked to includes them; but in the grand scheme of things, affirmative action as it exists now has very small negative effects on the people it harms (white and asian applicants) as I've described elsewhere.

I don't dispute that the shifts toward part-time work among physicians hurts society. The questions then become: what are some options we have to address the problem, and what are their pros and cons?

So next, the onus is on you to suggest some potential options to address the problem of physicians who work part-time. We could then look at the pros and cons, and maybe come to some sort of agreement on what a sensible policy would be to address the issue.

You suggest that part of this problem is due to an increasing number of female physicians. Lets assume for the sake of argument that you're proposing some sort of affirmative action for male physician applicants (which it sounds like you think that's where my values lead?). We could ask ourselves what the pros and cons of such a system would be, and conceivably, I could be in favor of it if the studies suggest it results in better outcomes for society.

So hypothetically, if the cost to female applicants was a 1-2% decrease in female matriculation, but a corresponding increase in tens of thousands of physician hours worked over decades... that doesn't sound so terribly burdensome to female applicants and the resulting benefits enjoyed would be large. But of course we need additional evidence to back up these claims.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[aneftp]

Listen man, I've responded to Blade on like 3 different threads on this issue. But the short answer is there are population level effects that suggest affirmative action has significant benefits over the status quo. Addressing healthcare disparities is important.

As a counter point, I would suggest to you that the scores on a test don't reliably predict how good of a doctor you'll be for the United States.

NEJM perspectives (03/09/2023) on “Diversifying the Physician Workforce- From Rhetoric to Positive Action”

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2211874 I thought NEJM is a respectable and high quality journal for original medical articles and meaningful perspectives in medicine…and definitely not for pushing an agenda based on biased perspectives. No thanks…I am cancelling my subscription!

forums.studentdoctor.net

Once Supreme Court overturns affirmative action in June 2023. What will liberals solution be?

See just because AA has been the standard for the last 60 years doesn’t make it right. Just like separate but equal clause was deem status quo and good for the country for 60 plus years till brown vs Topeka board of education.

People get suckered into what is good for society.

Affirmative action was good for society in the 1960s. For part discrimination. We through 3 different generations now. And even the current Supreme Court justices question university of North Carolina liberals how they keep harkening back on O’Connor “keep affirmative action for another 25 years statement”. 25 years is almost up with her statement to save affirmative action. And university of North Carolina liberals lawyer flat out had no answer for the Supreme Court justices when is the end game. Because there is no answer for continued reverse discrimination that violates the equal protection clause

Now the DEI agenda is just another variation of AA in another form. It’s just pure violation of equal clause protection. In disguise as “better for society”. We are dealing with public funding for residency programs. If they want DEI. Have congress pass the law. Good luck with that. So once Supreme Court over turns. The only way to defend diversity is to make laws.

 

[rowsdower88]

See just because AA has been the standard for the last 60 years doesn’t make it right. Just like separate but equal clause was deem status quo and good for the country for 60 plus years till brown vs Topeka board of education.

This isn't anywhere close to my argument. I hope someone slaps me if I ever make an argument that's dependent on whatever SCOTUS decides.

 

[vector2]

You get the absolute wrong impression. I had many minority residents in my residency, and they were all highly competent and intelligent individuals in anesthesia.

However, you are right that anesthesia is much, much different than other specialties, both in the attitude it takes to do the job well (crisis management and teamwork skills), and in the time investment and aptitude required to get the knowledge of anesthesia down. These skills are very difficult to quantify, and may be better learned by teasing out whether a student worked well in teams or is cool under pressure, which can be done in the interview setting I think.

I believe Step 1 functions as a reasonable proxy for pure intelligence, drive, and ability to spend hours obsessing over a single task for months on end. These traits are highly desirable in surgeons, in my opinion, and that's where I think the test scores can be most useful.

The people who would obsess over step 1 are also largely the people who would spend countless hours practicing suturing, memorizing tomes of anatomy, and generally being hyper-focused on their craft without regard for work-life balance. That's who I want in my surgeon, personally.

Anesthesiology as a specialty simply doesn't require as much time or meticulous, painstaking repetition to become an expert at it versus a surgical subspecialty. In fact, our residency is substantially shorter because of this.

I think you underestimate the intangibles that go into surgery vis a vis decision making, coolness under pressure, efficiency, leadership, and on and on. Plenty of step 260 surgical residents who can't handle the pressure or the multitasking of being on a trauma rotation with 45 patients on the census.

And anecdotally, I've worked with a lot of great and bad surgeons, and some of the worst surgeons and surgical subspecialists I've ever worked with came from ivory tower pedigree.

 

[aneftp]

This isn't anywhere close to my argument. I hope someone slaps me if I ever make an argument that's dependent on whatever SCOTUS decides.

Your argument about diversity and for the better of the Public is like an attorneys argument for alimony for a rich person spouse.

Meaning it’s all fake evidence. Made up stuff. What is the need for society for diverse physician workforce. No one knows. Same as rich spouse soon to be ex wife. Do they need 5k or 10k a month for their lifestyle. Who the f knows.

So you believing it’s Better for society for diversity is the same as an attorneys advocating it’s better for the non working spouse to receive 10k a month in alimony. All fake news. All gray areas where no one knows what the right answer it.

 

[vector2]

.

So you believing it’s Better for society for diversity is the same as an attorneys advocating it’s better for the non working spouse to receive 10k a month in alimony.

Lol what in the world

 

[Dr. Rude]

I feel like the general tenor of your posts about the scores thing gives the impression you think all the URMs who match in a competitive specialty all barely passed step I and all the white guys who were getting passed over got 260s. Which is of course nonsense.

Are either of you guys in academics? I am, and just like a bunch of other programs (whether they admit or not), we have screening cutoffs for who gets an interview. That cutoff essentially says that this person, most likely, is not going to have a significant problem passing the basic and advanced. I have seen a gazillion med studs and residents who had 225s and a gazillion med studs and residents who had 250+s. There's no denying that scores, aptitude, and raw intelligence are important in anesthesia, both for taking tests and practicing, but anesthesiology (more so than many, many other specialties imo) requires characteristics that can't be measured on a standardized exam.

There are countless examples of step 260 residents who destroy the ITE every year, but who don't have any situational awareness or decision making capacity, and who just freeze like a deer in the headlights when faced with a circuit alarm or unexpected hypotension or a brady down on abdominal insufflation, etc. And then of course there are extremely arrogant step 260 residents who know how smart they are, and who think that means they don't have to take any criticism or suggestions from their attendings who've been doing this forever because they did a truelearn question on the topic of contention the night before.

Long story short, once a residency applicant meets a reasonable cutoff of test-taking ability / intelligence, the idea that anyone above that cutoff is getting excluded on "merit" becomes more and more nebulous.

Just curious, when evaluating med student applicants, what criteria do you believe is most predictive of who make excellent residents?

 

[aneftp]

Lol what in the world

My point is it’s all gray areas. One side can push for one argument.

Other side can push for another argument.

Anyone who’s taken a law course would know that.

I prefer to use the “eyeball” test to determine what’s good and not good

The eyeball tests says the DEI is bs stuff. Like believing a 350 pounder bmi 62 year old woman claims she can do 6 nets. When I see her huffing and puffing yesterday as she immediately desat during induction

Eyeball test says DEI is made up crap by liberals to try to discriminate.

 

[rowsdower88]

As for how to address it, that's not my concern

Why? You're an American presumably. You have some interest in low SES people here and the healthcare they recieve. You could potentially become destitute. Seems like you could have some concern.

If that could be proven, I would absolutely be in favor of this myself.

Then why are you arguing with me about the premise of the hypothetical and not on what the research actually says regarding racial disparities and the means to address them?

Your argument about diversity and for the better of the Public is like an attorneys argument for alimony for a rich person spouse.

Meaning it’s all fake evidence. Made up stuff. What is the need for society for diverse physician workforce. No one knows. Same as rich spouse soon to be ex wife. Do they need 5k or 10k a month for their lifestyle. Who the f knows.

So you believing it’s Better for society for diversity is the same as an attorneys advocating it’s better for the non working spouse to receive 10k a month in alimony. All fake news. All gray areas where no one knows what the right answer it.

This was written by someone who isn't interested in what the literature says or interested in ways we can address racial healthcare disparities.

 

[rowsdower88]

I prefer to use the “eyeball” test to determine what’s good and not good

The eyeball tests says the DEI is bs stuff.

This is the person I'm having an ethics and public health discussion with? Time to put the phone down.

 

[paintrain1]

I think you underestimate the intangibles that go into surgery vis a vis decision making, coolness under pressure, efficiency, leadership, and on and on. Plenty of step 260 surgical residents who can't handle the pressure or the multitasking of being on a trauma rotation with 45 patients on the census.

And anecdotally, I've worked with a lot of great and bad surgeons, and some of the worst surgeons and surgical subspecialists I've ever worked with came from ivory tower pedigree.

So you’re saying a low scoring minority can do a better job?

 

[rowsdower88]

That's clearly the best solution to the problem that is immediately actionable, though.

That is absolutely debatable. We could look at more relevant studies and there are definitely reasons to think there would be more cons with such a policy than with AA on racial grounds (as well as less predictable benefits). Similarly, there are other options to address racial healthcare disparities aside from AA.

We don't need to be immediately concerned with short term options in any case.

 

[paintrain1]

That is absolutely debatable. We could look at more relevant studies and there are definitely reasons to think there would be more cons with such a policy than with AA on racial grounds (as well as less predictable benefits). Similarly, there are other options to address racial healthcare disparities aside from AA.

We don't need to be immediately concerned with short term options in any case.

You think these studies have real life correlation?

 

[vector2]

Sure, but I would bet there's plenty MORE step 220 residents who can't do all of those things either. I would also bet that step score correlate extremely strongly with clinical rotation scores and AOA status. If you can't handle the pressure of a test or grind through a practice test question book efficiently, why would you be more likely or as likely to handle a long census or other time pressure events efficiently than a person who has shown aptitude at those things?

See, this is where I disagree, because I've seen it in actual real life enough times where past a certain score cutoff (i.e. ~230 nowdays is the old-school 220), the benefit of that higher step is so incremental as to be almost meaningless. I do ICU as well as anesthesia, which is enlightening cause the high scoring surgical subspecialty residents rotate with me too in addition to the gen surg and anesthesia residents. I've had neurosurgery residents who are wizard crushers. Just extremely well-read with bulletproof reliability. And then I've had high scoring ENT and ortho residents who are lazy AF, don't know anything about their patients, copy their notes day after day, and who are just trying to do the bare minimum to make it to the end of the month. It's because persistence, dedication, and stamina sitting there staring at your qbank is not the same as the one required to run a large patient census.

Again, I maintain that there is just so much more that goes into being good resident and physician that once a residency applicant meets a reasonable cutoff of test-taking ability / intelligence, the idea that anyone above that cutoff is getting excluded on "merit" becomes more and more nebulous.

Your second statement precisely is why step scores are so useful and important too. The ivory tower medical school pedigree insulates people who score badly from that deficiency. Focusing on the objective criteria will on average lead to better applicants overall. Step 1 is the equalizer across the ivory tower and directional state universities or even the Caribbean med schools.

I agree with you too. Ivory tower residencies are way too cush and have way too little autonomy to make great surgeons in many circumstances. Some are good, but a lot of them stink at the autonomy part especially. I'd never trust an ortho resident from Hospital for Special Surgery over one from University of Iowa with my knee replacement personally.

I'm referring to people who trained at ivory tower surgical residencies, which presumably meant they were a high step scoring applicant. You may be right that autonomy is part of the issue, but it kind of highlights my point that a decent step score is necessary but not sufficient to make a good physician.

 

[vector2]

So you’re saying a low scoring minority can do a better job?

Yeah, those are the precise words I used.



Be more disingenuous, guy

 

[rowsdower88]

I'm talking about the overall physician shortage, not anything related to racial makeup of physicians. None of it has to do with race. I just advocated for more minority male physicians in my post, because I think they might be more likely to work more hours than white counterparts.

I'm confused why you brought up that example then... but in any case, even if we increased the percentage of male physicians relative to female physicians, that on its own might not address the racial disparities in healthcare as well as racial affirmative action can.

One reason why is that some studies show minority physicians tend to practice more often than non-minority physicians in underserved areas. So the additional benefit of man hours the hypothetical additional male docs would provide, would still be unevenly distributed if they kept to the status quo on racial admissions.

 

[vector2]

This is why I for the most part don't really care about steps once the anesthesia applicant hits that 225-230 step 1 mark.

Anesthesiology Resident Performance on the US Medical Licensing Examination Predicts Success on the American Board of Anesthesiology BASIC Staged Examination: An Observational Study

Correlation has been found between the US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 examination results and anesthesiology resident success on American Board of Anesthesiology (ABA) examinations. In 2014, the ABA instituted the BASIC examination at ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[Simba1711]

How does the surgeon work on a cataract for 90 minutes though. Someone please help me. Teaching residents?

I never said the surgeon took 90 minutes. Usually 30 minutes and the anesthesiologist in charge would undersedate or oversedate them. Oversedate them to the point of having to reverse or mask bag them.

 

[paintrain1]

Yeah, those are the precise words I used.



Be more disingenuous, guy

I mean, you’re making it a point ivory tower physicians can’t cut the mustard while avidly backing the push for white/Asian discrimination. Not sure how else to take it.

 

[rowsdower88]

I think the bigger deal is that "underserved" areas tend to be in large urban areas. Physicians want to live in these places, and subspecialists get referrals from all over their respective regions regardless.

The reason minority patients aren't getting care in cities is because of their insurance, not because there aren't enough minority physicians.

Truly underserved areas in this country (that have no subspecialist access period) now are overwhelmingly rural, which is overwhelmingly white.

If you're a physician who works, you will preferentially take the better payor mix. If you work more, then you have more latitude to take the lesser paying patients because you have higher volume of patients you see. If you work less, then the lesser paying patients will be the first ones you cut. Female docs work less than male docs. Only one class of patients will suffer if there are more female docs, and it's the underinsured ones.

The point I'm making is that we need physicians who work more, not less. I don't care which race they are, any doctor is better than no doctor.

Please consider the research I've cited on physician practice preferences which contradicts your opinion. Specifically recommendation 5.3.

Unequal Treatment: Confronting Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health Care - PubMed

Racial and ethnic disparities in health care are known to reflect access to care and other issues that arise from differing socioeconomic conditions. There is, however, increasing evidence that even after such differences are accounted for, race and ethnicity remain significant predictors of the...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

The report is over 20 years old at this point, but as far as I know more contemporary research confirms this.

You're right in that "underserved areas" is an inaccurate term.

 

[vector2]

I mean, you’re making it a point ivory tower physicians can’t cut the mustard while avidly backing the push for white/Asian discrimination. Not sure how else to take it.

You need some serious work on your reading comprehension. Or you're probably just being dishonest and trolling. But I'll humor you in either case. Let's look one more time, shall we?

"Are either of you guys in academics? I am, and just like a bunch of other programs (whether they admit or not), we have screening cutoffs for who gets an interview. That cutoff essentially says that this person, most likely, is not going to have a significant problem passing the basic and advanced.
...
once a residency applicant meets a reasonable cutoff of test-taking ability / intelligence, the idea that anyone above that cutoff is getting excluded on "merit" becomes more and more nebulous.
​

Read what I wrote one more time. Then read it again very slowly until you're sure it's seeped into that brain of yours. And then ask yourself if that in any way sounds like we match "low scoring" people in our residency.

 

[rowsdower88]

If minority patients had the best paying insurance, they'd all get the best care and be first in line for it. Full stop. Regardless, I want more minority male physicians as it is, not less.

We agree on most of this issue. The only thing I take issue with is all but one of Stanford's surgery class being female. That is bad for the healthcare system and bad for minority patients.

??? Alright man. 👍

 

[paintrain1]

You need some serious work on your reading comprehension. Or you're probably just being dishonest and trolling. But I'll humor you in either case. Let's look one more time, shall we?

​

"Are either of you guys in academics? I am, and just like a bunch of other programs (whether they admit or not), we have screening cutoffs for who gets an interview. That cutoff essentially says that this person, most likely, is not going to have a significant problem passing the basic and advanced.​

...​

once a residency applicant meets a reasonable cutoff of test-taking ability / intelligence, the idea that anyone above that cutoff is getting excluded on "merit" becomes more and more nebulous.​

​

Read what I wrote one more time. Then read it again very slowly until you're sure it's seeped into that brain of yours. And then ask yourself if that in any way sounds like we match "low scoring" people in our residency.

Bro anyone who regularly reads this forum knows exactly where you stand. Stop being clever

 

[vector2]

In the defense of the subspecialty residents, the probability of them caring anything about their ICU rotation is next to nothing. Hell, I didn't even care about my ICU rotation as an anesthesia resident in comparison to OR rotations, though I definitely cared more than the subspecialty surgery interns.

Their low performance in the ICU has nothing to do with persistence, dedication, or stamina. Maybe professionalism, but definitely not the other things. Not to mention ICU interns don't carry that large of a census to begin with. When those interns kick it into high gear, they're waaaay more competent at organization and carrying multiple patients than the average anesthesia resident.

They're lazy because the ICU is their break time, not because they're disorganized. They probably wrecked the anesthesia matching med students when it came time to get the honors vs pass in their ICU rotation in med school.

I don't think you really know our SICU / trauma ICU, so it's kinda strange you're presuming you know what the hours are like for the interns/residents or how many patients they have to carry (especially at night when they're cross covering / going to every activation at one of the busiest trauma centers in the country).

You can make whatever excuses you like, but being lazy and purposefully not having any persistence, stamina, or dedication doesn't magically become any better just because the resident is doing it purposefully. In fact, in many ways it's worse. And indeed, as you say it reflects extremely poorly on professionalism. Not to mention, how many times here have we made a joke about a clueless surgeon or ortho not having any idea how serious his pt's critical illness is?

Ultimately, even if I hypothetically only agreed with you on the professionalism aspect, you're still making my point here. There are more aspects to making a good resident and physician (such as professionalism!) than simply one's scores. For instance, I'd take the former division IA athlete or active duty military applicant with the 230 step ten times over compared to the 255 whose application I knew nothing else about.

 

[vector2]

Bro anyone who regularly reads this forum knows exactly where you stand. Stop being clever

I don't really need you to believe me when I tell you I'm in academics and that's how our selection process works. Carry on chief

 

[chessknt]

Imagine being a medical student that finds this thread, thinking they could get insights into the 2023 match. After some brief discussion over this it quickly devolves into a discussion about the excessive diversity in matching classes and thinly veiled racism/misogyny as concern over the future of all fields of medicine because of declining candidate quality being promoted for 'woke' causes.

Lots of dog whistles being blown in this thread and it reads really poorly.

 

[dannyboy1]

I don't think you really know our SICU / trauma ICU, so it's kinda strange you're presuming you know what the hours are like for the interns/residents or how many patients they have to carry (especially at night when they're cross covering / going to every activation at one of the busiest trauma centers in the country).

You can make whatever excuses you like, but being lazy and purposefully not having any persistence, stamina, or dedication doesn't magically become any better just because the resident is doing it purposefully. In fact, in many ways it's worse. And indeed, as you say it reflects extremely poorly on professionalism. Not to mention, how many times here have we made a joke about a clueless surgeon or ortho not having any idea how serious his pt's critical illness is?

Ultimately, even if I hypothetically only agreed with you on the professionalism aspect, you're still making my point here. There are more aspects to making a good resident and physician (such as professionalism!) than simply one's scores. For instance, I'd take the former division IA athlete or active duty military applicant with the 230 step ten times over compared to the 255 whose application I knew nothing else about.

Meh. I didn’t care too much on my ICU rotations. I had plenty of experience taking care of ICU patients in the OR. Things like tube feeds, antibiotic selection and duration and family meetings held little interest to me. Why should the ortho guy care? He wants to replace knees and “fix” backs. Just because someone decided it should be in the residency curriculum doesn’t make it gospel.

 

[vector2]

. Things like tube feeds, antibiotic selection and duration and family meetings held little interest to me.

Yeah, those are definitely the only things in the ICU to learn about. Certainly no anesthesia resident in the ICU ever learned anything about sepsis, COPD, heart failure, TBIs, mixed shock, multi system organ failure, pressors, ecmo/mechanical circulatory support, advanced vent management, ARDS, longer-term analgesia/sedation, doing procedures in challenging pt positions, or how surgical decisions outside the OR affect the pt in the OR and vice versa. And even if they did, none of that would ever be useful to an anesthesiologist, right?


Sheesh, no wonder the nurses think anesthesia is nothing more than flipping the vent to simv and asking the surgeon if they want ancef.

Why should the ortho guy care?

Surprisingly enough, attending physicians have duties and responsibilities which they'd rather not have, but they gotta do anyway. Believe it or not, it actually means something when med studs and residents do well and actually try on rotations where they'd rather be fcking off.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Imagine being a medical student that finds this thread, thinking they could get insights into the 2023 match. After some brief discussion over this it quickly devolves into a discussion about the excessive diversity in matching classes and thinly veiled racism/misogyny as concern over the future of all fields of medicine because of declining candidate quality being promoted for 'woke' causes.

Lots of dog whistles being blown in this thread and it reads really poorly.

It's still true and the med students all know it's true. That means Med Students can either use it to their advantage or understand they are at a disadvantage. You believe society benefits from these racist, DEI initiatives and I believe society, along with medicine in general, suffers because of it. And your last comment is typical progressive attacks on anyone who disagrees with the now conventional dogma we must social engineer our med schools and residency programs rather than admit the most qualified applicants.

I don't even understand the misogyny comment as there are plenty of highly qualified female applicants and I have always taken the position that metrics/qualifications matter the most not race, gender or sexual orientation. I do think Vector 2 makes valid points in that metrics may only matter up to a certain point. But, I'm not sure that I agree a minimum passing score on an exam is that level we should be striving for.

Don't Impose DEI at Med Schools

DEI standards will likely lead to substantively harmful medical policy.

www.newsweek.com

 

[rowsdower88]

It's still true and the med students all know it's true.

 

[chessknt]

It's still true and the med students all know it's true. That means Med Students can either use it to their advantage or understand they are at a disadvantage. You believe society benefits from these racist, DEI initiatives and I believe society, along with medicine in general, suffers because of it. And your last comment is typical progressive attacks on anyone who disagrees with the now conventional dogma we must social engineer our med schools and residency programs rather than admit the most qualified applicants.

I don't even understand the misogyny comment as there are plenty of highly qualified female applicants and I have always taken the position that metrics/qualifications matter the most not race, gender or sexual orientation. I do think Vector 2 makes valid points in that metrics may only matter up to a certain point. But, I'm not sure that I agree a minimum passing score on an exam is that level we should be striving for.

Don't Impose DEI at Med Schools

DEI standards will likely lead to substantively harmful medical policy.

www.newsweek.com

Are you reading the same thread? Multiple comments from different people about how women drop out of the work force or scale back while men don't which will cause a surgery shortage!

Imagine wanting to become a surgeon and having the chops to match at Stanford but some dinosaur anesthesiologist thinks you don't deserve it because you might one day want to have a child and take a few months off work and that you spot should go to a man instead because the country needs surgeons that work not DEI. For ****ing shame.

Maybe if the women all agree to sterilization then they can reach parity with men to some of the posters in this thread.

 

[Southpaw]

Are you reading the same thread? Multiple comments from different people about how women drop out of the work force or scale back while men don't which will cause a surgery shortage!

Imagine wanting to become a surgeon and having the chops to match at Stanford but some dinosaur anesthesiologist thinks you don't deserve it because you might one day want to have a child and take a few months off work and that you spot should go to a man instead because the country needs surgeons that work not DEI. For ****ing shame.

Maybe if the women all agree to sterilization then they can reach parity with men to some of the posters in this thread.

Let's be honest here. There are posters here also admitting that a small percentage of whites and asians aren't achieving something because of nothing having to do with their entire life other than the color of their skin. Meaning, if their skin color were black, of if they could check the hispanic box, they'd be in. There is a word for that...

At the same time, my guess is if you looked across the whole spectrum of medicine, as a percentage of women vs men, my guess is women are working fewer hours than men. There are lots of reasons for that, and certainly one is the desire to have children/raise a family/be more an integral part of their child's life. Absolutely nothing wrong with that of course. From my viewpoint, women cut back on hours more than men. Does that mean that for one individual, the female aiming for surgery at Stanford, that she shouldn't try to reach her dreams because of what any other woman in medicine may choose to do with her life? Or because of what some randos on the internet are saying? Of course not. She certainly has thicker skin than that.

 

[deleted1156722]

The reality is “Admissions process is a Zero-Sum game” with fixed number of positions in each school. When racial preference is given to any single group, the other groups are automatically disfavored.
If you don’t see the above point, either you are not very good with math, or are being very disingenuous.

As the statement goes, “the only way to stop discriminating on race - is to stop discrimination on race”.

Hoping for SCOTUS ruling in Affirmative Action:
6-3 win : SFFA vs UNC
6-2 win: SFFA vs Harvard
100% win: everyone
🤞

 

[nimbus]

Quasi relevant to this discussion.

Anybody notice that one of the Stanford anesthesia R matches is from the Stanford integrated plastics program? Glad she saw the light!

My old residency director liked to say, “The department of anesthesia is grateful to the department of surgery for providing us with some of their best residents.”

 

[aneftp]

The reality is “Admissions process is a Zero-Sum game” with fixed number of positions in each school. When racial preference is given to any single group, the other groups are automatically disfavored.
If you don’t see the above point, either you are not very good with math, or are being very disingenuous.

As the statement goes, “the only way to stop discriminating on race - is to stop discrimination on race”.

Hoping for SCOTUS ruling in Affirmative Action:
6-3 win : SFFA vs UNC
6-2 win: SFFA vs Harvard
100% win: everyone
🤞

Agree.

That’s why the liberals agenda is to bullet proof their diversity agenda by getting rid of test scores. To make it harder to distinguish qualified candidates by removing objective testing

Let me tell you this. I have a good anesthesiologist friend. They didn’t even know their dad who raised them was Hispanic. Seriously. They were 19 at community college when the non biological dad that raised them died. So their mother told them the truth their biological father was Hispanics.

They did DNA testing with the biological father to confirm. The mother knew. Obviously that’s shocking to a 22 year old who didn’t get into medical school.

But that same diagnosis also allowed them to mark Hispanic on their medical school application the next year. Same Mcat score 25. Got into state school.

That alone tells you the admission process is racist.

My friends kids are half peru (Asian looking but Peru has large asian population in Peru). U betcha they put Hispanic on their application even though they are 90% asian. Look 100% asian.

 

[agammaglobulin]

"Well, that looks really fair to asian and white applicants."

Alright, I'll bite. The problem here is that the total numbers of applicants aren't included in this graph. When you look at it from that perspective, you'll see that black and hispanic applicants are an almost insignificant portion of total applicants.

If you're an average asian or white applicant, your odds of "losing" a spot to another Asian or white applicant with lower scores than you are higher than "losing" it to a black person regardless of their score.

If you eliminated EVERY black applicant accepted to medical school and gave those seats to white applicants of any score, you increase a white applicants chances of acceptance by about 2% (47% chance to 49%).

The sky is not falling. Even the seemingly significant affirmative action programs your graph depicts have only a minute impact on white or asian acceptance.

The harm here to white or asian applicants is trivial.

Affirmative action doesn't hurt white medical school applicants

Quit whining that a black applicant "stole your spot" in medical school. She didn't.

www.statnews.com

When Asians are not admitted just for being Asian, that is not trivial. That is racism.

Another example:

Interesting how for an Ivy league schools, there seems to be a threshold most schools won’t admit over even as Asian population grows. It’s almost as if they are systemically discriminating against them and only allowing a certain percent in, regardless of academic performance.

 

[agammaglobulin]

Source: Statistics Indicate an Ivy League Asian Quota - NYTimes.com

 

[agammaglobulin]

Med school admissions GPA and MCAT by race 2022-23. DEI is a zero sum game where people are discriminated against by race. It’s not possible to give one group an advantage and not harm another. Past discrimination does not permit current discrimination.

 

[nimbus]

When Asians are not admitted just for being Asian, that is not trivial. That is racism.

Another example:

View attachment 368417
Interesting how for an Ivy league schools, there seems to be a threshold most schools won’t admit over even as Asian population grows. It’s almost as if they are systemically discriminating against them and only allowing a certain percent in, regardless of academic performance.

While affirmative action probably hurts admissions chances for Asian applicants, that is not the same as an “Asian quota” which is a related but different subject. We should be careful not to conflate them.

Apparent Asian “quotas” can result from other reasons like legacy admissions and most likely, the engineering by admissions offices to give their students a specific experience while in college and give a certain “look” to their campuses. When my daughter was in high school, she would overhear some of her classmates say they would not want to attend Cal or the other Univ of California campuses because they are “too Asian” and they do not want to attend a school rife with “Asian gunners”. Is it possible for a campus to be “too Asian”? Are Ivy League administrators concerned that their campus will become “too Asian”? I do think some people choose schools like Southern Methodist University or Loyola Marymount University (both fine schools) because they are not “too Asian” or “too diverse”.

Asian quotas are a related issue but it’s not the same as affirmative action.

 

[deleted1156722]

While affirmative action probably hurts admissions chances for Asian applicants, that is not the same as an “Asian quota” which is a related but different subject. We should be careful not to conflate them.

Apparent Asian “quotas” can result from other reasons like legacy admissions and most likely, the engineering by admissions offices to give their students a specific experience while in college and give a certain “look” to their campuses. When my daughter was in high school, she would overhear some of her classmates say they would not want to attend Cal or the other Univ of California campuses because they are “too Asian” and they do not want to attend a school rife with “Asian gunners”. Is it possible for a campus to be “too Asian”? Are Ivy League administrators concerned that their campus will become “too Asian”? I do think some people choose schools like Southern Methodist University or Loyola Marymount University (both fine schools) because they are not “too Asian” or “too diverse”.

Asian quotas are a related issue but it’s not the same as affirmative action.

How can you achieve Diversity without using Quota in a Zero-Sum game called Admissions?



I genuinely want to know if there any other fields other than college admissions where there is a worry about “too many Asians/ too many Whites/ too few Blacks/ too few Hispanics”?
What about the HBCU or Hispanic serving institutions? Does that logic apply here?

 

[rowsdower88]

When Asians are not admitted just for being Asian, that is not trivial. That is racism.

Another example:
Interesting how for an Ivy league schools, there seems to be a threshold most schools won’t admit over even as Asian population grows. It’s almost as if they are systemically discriminating against them and only allowing a certain percent in, regardless of academic performance.

I'm starting to think a lot of the people on this forum aren't utilitarians. Which is fine, but it just means any talk of the greater good isn't going to break through the thick skull of deontology or whatever virtue ethics that's been constructed.

When I say trivial, I mean the racial discrimination done to asians/white applicants through affirmative action programs seems to be much much smaller than the expected benefit other minority (and especially black) communities receive from them at a population level. Affirmative action as a public health initiative.

Under the status quo, if you're an average white or asian applicant your chance of "losing" a spot to a white or asian applicant with lower scores than you is higher than "losing" your spot to a black student.

No one DESERVES a spot in medical school. If we all agree that medical school spots are a finite resource that are highly sought after, then we should take into account population level effects of their distribution.

Affirmative action is trivial racial discrimination against asian and white students, and I'm ok with that for the greater good.

 

[vector2]

I'm starting to think a lot of the people on this forum aren't utilitarians. Which is fine, but it just means any talk of the greater good isn't going to break through the thick skull of deontology or whatever virtue ethics that's been constructed.

When I say trivial, I mean the racial discrimination done to asians/white applicants through affirmative action programs seems to be much much smaller than the expected benefit other minority (and especially black) communities receive from them at a population level. Affirmative action as a public health initiative.

Under the status quo, if you're an average white or asian applicant your chance of "losing" a spot to a white or asian applicant with lower scores than you is higher than "losing" your spot to a black student.

No one DESERVES a spot in medical school. If we all agree that medical school spots are a finite resource that are highly sought after, then we should take into account population level effects of their distribution.

Affirmative action is trivial racial discrimination against asian and white students, and I'm ok with that for the greater good.

I see it from the utilitarian perspective as well, wherein I think it's a net positive to society and to patients to have physicians that reflect, in part, the respective communities they serve. Day after day, I find it suboptimal that I work in a hospital in a city that's 70+% black and yet there's nary a black attending to be found. Of course, when any dogwhistlers learn that fact, the next line out of their mouths will be something about how "that culture" doesn't value education, etc.

Yes, it sucks that a small percentage of white or asian applicants such as myself may "lose" a spot, but ultimately the Churchill quote about democracy comes to mind. Except replace the word democracy with affirmative action.

 

[vector2]

While affirmative action probably hurts admissions chances for Asian applicants, that is not the same as an “Asian quota” which is a related but different subject. We should be careful not to conflate them.

Apparent Asian “quotas” can result from other reasons like legacy admissions and most likely, the engineering by admissions offices to give their students a specific experience while in college and give a certain “look” to their campuses. When my daughter was in high school, she would overhear some of her classmates say they would not want to attend Cal or the other Univ of California campuses because they are “too Asian” and they do not want to attend a school rife with “Asian gunners”. Is it possible for a campus to be “too Asian”? Are Ivy League administrators concerned that their campus will become “too Asian”? I do think some people choose schools like Southern Methodist University or Loyola Marymount University (both fine schools) because they are not “too Asian” or “too diverse”.

Asian quotas are a related issue but it’s not the same as affirmative action.

I posted this in the other thread awhile back but it should be restated that Asian Americans support affirmative action to the tune of ~70%

69% of Asian American Registered Voters Support Affirmative Action - AAPI Data

In spite of racially charged campaigns by opponents of affirmative action that have portrayed Asian Americans as adversaries, a strong majority of Asian American registered voters supports the policy in university admissions. Moreover, Asian American support has remained stable and high for...

aapidata.com

70% of Asian Americans support affirmative action. Here's why misconceptions persist.

With the Harvard affirmative action case a step closer to the Supreme Court, Asian American activists say much of their work involves dispelling myths about affirmative action's impacts.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[agammaglobulin]

Your right. The difference is I’m not ok with racism. Period. You’re ok telling an 22yr old Asian kid he’s not getting into med school just because of their race. Similarly, telling a 22yr old black kid they’re only getting in because of their race. That’s sad.

Who decides what the “greater good” is? How far are you willing to go to accomplish this goal? Especially in an academic institution, you’d think academic excellence is the primary goal.

 

[rowsdower88]

Your right. The difference is I’m not ok with racism. Period. You’d be ok telling an 22yr old Asian kid he’s not getting into med school just because of their race. That’s sad.

Who decides what the “greater good” is? How far are you willing to go to accomplish this goal? Especially in an academic institution, you’d think academic excellence is the primary goal.?

Yup. I'd even pull the lever that diverts the trolley from killing ten people to kill one. I'd go to that person's family and tell them what I did too.

All those answers (and more!) can be found in your local library's philosophy section.

 

[deleted1156722]

I disagree with the disrespectful mischaracterization of the opponents of Affirmative Action as “Dog Whistlers” in the above message. This is exactly why we can never have a fair and successful debate and policy-making in this country: the innuendos and name-calling that is thrown around.

Both sides on this forum are trying to have an intellectual debate regarding one “moral sensibility” being superior to the other, which then poses the problem of “inequality” in our society. We can argue on alternative metrics to use instead of race to help the marginalized communities-for instance using SES instead of Race. That would be a way of looking at the Affirmative Action and DEI from a morality and equality POV.
This is why morality of Affirmative Action is complicated, but definitely not it’s legality.

The SCOTUS’s constitutional role is not to decide political or moral value of Affirmative Action; that is the exclusive domain of our legislatures and if that’s what the people want, then make the laws to enable that.
The strict role of SCOTUS is to apply our laws as written.

Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act demands that “No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”

All I can do is hope for SCOTUS ruling in Affirmative Action soon:
6-3 win : SFFA vs UNC
6-2 win: SFFA vs Harvard
100% win: everyone

 

[BLADEMDA]

Your right. The difference is I’m not ok with racism. Period. You’re ok telling an 22yr old Asian kid he’s not getting into med school just because of their race. Similarly, telling a 22yr old black kid they’re only getting in because of their race. That’s sad.

Who decides what the “greater good” is? How far are you willing to go to accomplish this goal? Especially in an academic institution, you’d think academic excellence is the primary goal.

Clearly, the Progressives on here get to decide the "greater good" and "fairness" in our society. Those of us with a different opinion are labeled racists, MAGA Insurrectionists and other names. The irony is liberals used to support diversity of thought and freedom of expression especially when advocating for a color blind society even if it comes at the cost of so-called "greater good."

I want to point out if your are the person who didn't MATCH in 2023 due to DEI this entire discussion hits home. If you are the target of Progressives in Medicine, White/Asian Male, then factor that into your rank list for 2024. Remember to include programs where your stats are clearly superior to the Class of 2023 in case the Residency decides to use less "objective data" when selecting their class.

This is a ZERO SUM game so prospective applicants to Residency and then academic careers need to take this into consideration.

 

[rowsdower88]

The morality of Affirmative Action is complicated, but definitely not it’s legality.

The problem is your side hasn't even argued the morality. You just assert that any racial discrimination is bad, full stop, regardless of the positive outcomes that occur. To a utilitarian or even to a consequentialist, that's deeply unsatisfying.

If you wanted to make the argument that even the tiny amount of affirmative action programs currently in place are measurably detrimental to the public good, that would be one thing. But your side isn't interested in that.

You just have Blade moaning about every DEI initiative in the country and telling me the sky is falling, you pointing to SCOTUS as some moral arbiters of truth and law, and agamma telling me to go apologize to asian kids. It's not even a debate really.

 

[vector2]

Whatever man. It’s backed by hard data that women in medicine don’t work as much. If you want to dispute that fact, then I suggest you find me some papers to counter the assertion. It has zero to do with whether they deserve it or not, but it’s indisputable that female physicians on average work less than male physicians. I’m of the belief that they’re all extremely qualified and I’d be HAPPY to be cared for by any one of them.

No one is disputing that women work fewer hours over their career. The dispute is about whether only women should get penalized for thinking children gain benefit from spending more time with their parents as opposed to strangers.

 

[Dr. Rude]

No one is disputing that women work fewer hours over their career. The dispute is about whether only women should get penalized for thinking children gain benefit from spending more time with their parents as opposed to strangers.

When evaluating med student applicants, what criteria do you believe is most predictive of who make excellent residents?