Dare you to reply!

[RadOncMegatron]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Regardless of what the cause is, if URMs and women can show they are competent to be physicians/ROs, they should be given the chance to do so

But if you favor quotas, why should Asians who immigrated here recently (lots of first or second generation) pay the price for white people's mistakes? Why should an Asian / Indian / Jewish woman pay the price for a white man from the South?

 

[medgator]

Do you have evidence they are not being given a chance? By all means, show us the PD racially discriminating against them and let’s get that person fired

I'm speaking in general, not specific to RO.

 

[medgator]

But if you favor quotas, why should Asians who immigrated here recently (lots of first or second generation) pay the price for white people's mistakes? Why should an Asian / Indian / Jewish woman pay the price for a white man from the South?

Like i said, why should i pay higher marginal rates than someone else?

 

[RadOncMegatron]

Like i said, why should i pay higher marginal rates than someone else?

Sorry, I guess I don't full understand the analogy. Appreciate the convo. As you know, in real life, not too much over the isle conversations with intelligent people. So I appreciate it.

 

[Mandelin Rain]

I'm hoping someone throws out a #alllivesmatter at some point, just to complete the circle.

 

[deleted480308]

I'm hoping someone throws out a #alllivesmatter at some point, just to complete the circle.

If it will help you, all lives do actually matter and police shouldn’t be inappropriately killing anyone

 

[deleted480308]

I'm speaking in general, not specific to RO.

My agreement with firing anyone actually proven to be racially discriminating still applies

 

[Mandelin Rain]

Two sprinters set up to run the 100m. Sprinter 1 is moved to 75m and the other to 125m. Sprinter 1 finishes the race in 10.0 seconds. Sprinter 2 finishes the race in 10.1 seconds. Obviously, Sprinter 1 is the superior sprinter because he won this "fair" race. It is morally unjust and discriminatory to suggest otherwise.

 

[w00tz]

Although

Thanks for being upfront. I do have a sincere question though. I am being earnest here. Let's say I agree with you. The systemic racism is caused by white people / privilege/ history of oppression against blacks. Why should "ORMs" pay the price of what white people have done? Again, I don't agree with this, but isn't the movement saying the samething? Why should Asians, Indians, and Jews pay the price for what other races did. It makes sense if you were to give away white people and men's spots, but why the ORMs. I'm being serious (I'll let you know when I'm trolling).

Personally for me, it's not just about race. There a lot of privileges or obstacles someone can experience which can greatly one's trajectory in life. Race, money, health, family, friends, environment, schools, etc. Unfortunately, in the US and many other countries, being of one race can have a large influence on the other factors. If I have 35 MCAT (I don't know how they score it anymore), it should be compared with people of similar backgrounds. I'm NOT on the same playing field as the mom who had to study for the MCAT while raising a kid or the black college student who grew up in a poor neighborhood with no prep courses available to him. If they pull a 32 MCAT and everything else is similar, I would argue that they probably were able to pull it off because they had more grit than I do and deserve the admission over me.

 

[OTN]

Two sprinters set up to run the 100m. Sprinter 1 is moved to 75m and the other to 125m. Sprinter 1 finishes the race in 10.0 seconds. Sprinter 2 finishes the race in 10.1 seconds. Obviously, Sprinter 1 is the superior sprinter because he won this "fair" race. It is morally unjust to suggest otherwise.

To suggest that we can identify which sprinter is which based only on skin color is false.

My wife is white, grew up in a trailer, and was the daughter of factory workers. Her sister and brother-in-law are still rather poor, as are her nieces and nephews of course, and lack all the support and infrastructure necessary to succeed academically in the world. My best friend is black, is an orthopedic surgeon, and his wife is a pediatrician. Their children are not growing up poor.

 

[KHE88]

Two sprinters set up to run the 100m. Sprinter 1 is moved to 75m and the other to 125m. Sprinter 1 finishes the race in 10.0 seconds. Sprinter 2 finishes the race in 10.1 seconds. Obviously, Sprinter 1 is the superior sprinter because he won this "fair" race. It is morally unjust and discriminatory to suggest otherwise.

This is a false equivalence. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that equality of opportunity does not exist. Lowering admission standards for a certain group does not address an inequality of opportunity if it exists. Rather, it attempts to force an equality of outcome. The former is morally justified. The latter is morally unjustified.

I'm hoping someone throws out a #alllivesmatter at some point, just to complete the circle.

Are you saying all lives don't matter? They definitely do! I am shocked good people would think otherwise. We are all created equal by God, and this is the premise of America. The founders understood that. They realized that the system was not perfect at the time (Thomas Jefferson, for instance, despite owning slaves abhorred slavery and wrote extensively about it) but created a society unlike any other in the world where we set this ideal and would continue to try and achieve it. Look at the progress that has been made since that time. Just because it wasn't 100% perfect from the get go doesn't mean the entire system should be razed to the ground and replaced by a Marxist state like the 1619 project suggests. That progress would NOT have been made if such a system did not exist. Such progress cannot be made in authoritarian one-party Marxist states.

Either all lives matter equally or some lives matter more than others.
Which is it? How is it that the former statement has somehow become offensive to say? This is straight up 1984-level newspeak.

 

[RadOncMegatron]

Although


Personally for me, it's not just about race. There a lot of privileges or obstacles someone can experience which can greatly one's trajectory in life. Race, money, health, family, friends, environment, schools, etc. Unfortunately, in the US and many other countries, being of one race can have a large influence on the other factors. If I have 35 MCAT (I don't know how they score it anymore), it should be compared with people of similar backgrounds. I'm NOT on the same playing field as the mom who had to study for the MCAT while raising a kid or the black college student who grew up in a poor neighborhood with no prep courses available to him. If they pull a 32 MCAT and everything else is similar, I would argue that they probably were able to pull it off because they had more grit than I do and deserve the admission over me.

I agree. If it were nuanced as such, then there would probably be little to no argument on this topic.

 

[Mandelin Rain]

To suggest that we can identify which sprinter is which based only on skin color is false.

My wife is white, grew up in a trailer, and was the daughter of factory workers. Her sister and brother-in-law are still rather poor, as are her nieces and nephews of course, and lack all the support and infrastructure necessary to succeed academically in the world. My best friend is black, is an orthopedic surgeon, and his wife is a pediatrician. Their children are not growing up poor.

No doubt. Poverty is crippling in this country. But case match dollar for dollar White poor/middle class/rich vs Black poor/middle class/rich and you get the same outcome. One is starting at 75m and one at 125m. It's a systemic response to a systemic problem.

 

[Mandelin Rain]

This is a false equivalence. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that equality of opportunity does not exist. Lowering admission standards for a certain group does not address an inequality of opportunity if it exists. Rather, it attempts to force an equality of outcome. The former is morally justified. The latter is morally unjustified.



Are you saying all lives don't matter? They definitely do! I am shocked good people would think otherwise. We are all created equal by God, and this is the premise of America. The founders understood that. They realized that the system was not perfect at the time (Thomas Jefferson, for instance, despite owning slaves abhorred slavery and wrote extensively about it) but created a society unlike any other in the world where we set this ideal and would continue to try and achieve it. Look at the progress that has been made since that time. Just because it wasn't 100% perfect from the get go doesn't mean the entire system should be razed to the ground and replaced by a Marxist state like the 1619 project suggests. That progress would NOT have been made if such a system did not exist. Such progress cannot be made in authoritarian one-party Marxist states.

Either all lives matter equally or some lives matter more than others.
Which is it? How is it that the former statement has somehow become offensive to say? This is straight up 1984-level newspeak.

[chef kiss]

 

[RadOncMegatron]

Two sprinters set up to run the 100m. Sprinter 1 is moved to 75m and the other to 125m. Sprinter 1 finishes the race in 10.0 seconds. Sprinter 2 finishes the race in 10.1 seconds. Obviously, Sprinter 1 is the superior sprinter because he won this "fair" race. It is morally unjust and discriminatory to suggest otherwise.

The main problem with this is due to sheer numbers (think most bad pregnancy outcomes happen at younger ages due to sheer volume, but older females have higher rates of issues) white people as they make up most of the population will have the most people sprinting 125 m. See what @OTN said. There are many poor white people who have it bad and some URMs that have it well. Why should the poor white women growing up in as single parent home be further disadvantaged? Or flip it, poor immigrant ORM, parents working overtime at liquor store or dry cleaner why should they pay for someone else's sins? Shouldn't they also get privilege points?

Again, the problem is correctly identified, but the solutions (which are MUCH harder to come by) may exacerbate the issue.

 

[medgator]

No doubt. Poverty is crippling in this country. But case match dollar for dollar White poor/middle class/rich vs Black poor/middle class/rich and you get the same outcome. One is starting at 75m and one at 125m.

Bingo.

Are we going to sit there and argue that stuff like redlining etc wasn't happening well into the last century? Or that even now, crap like this isn't happening?

 

[KHE88]

Here am I am as an over represented minority wondering the same thing. If I grew up black without my above average resources, would I have still have gotten in my med school? Gotten the same MCAT without my expensive study course? Had guidance from my college-educated parents? To be given the benefit of the doubt, because I'm the "model minority"? It works both ways man.

You're talking about socioeconomic factors, not racial factors. Most honest people will admit that the family and resources you grow up with have more of an effect on your future academic success than your skin color.

One of the biggest issues in this country is the level of incarceration of black men. This creates a large number (I think 40% was the number I heard) of blacks being raised by single moms, which greatly predisposes for a life of poverty and crime resulting in further incarceration and perpetuating the cycle.

And the solution to this is to remove police from these crime ridden neighborhoods? Literally WTF.

The solution is to reduce crime, invest in good local police departments (isn't it funny how abolishing the police means abolishing all law enforcement except the FBI?) by increasing standards and raising pay and increase police presence in crime-ridden areas, invest economically in undeserved communities, and pursue evidence-based policy that works to strengthen families and reduce the number of blacks being raised in single parent households.

Black Lives Matter disagrees with this. Their organiztaion, and you can read this on their mission page opposes the concept of the traditional nuclear family. Most people don't realize that. Little known fact: you can believe that black lives matter but not support the BLM organizaiton, who describe themselves as trained Marxists who want to raise each others children in a collective.

 

[KHE88]

[chef kiss]

And there it is. Everyone just buries their head in the sand because they are so entrenched that when backed into a corner regarding the logical fallacies of their ideology you get something like this, or typically the much more nasty last resort of a pointed finger and screams of racist and threats of doxxing.

Bingo.

Are we going to sit there and argue that stuff like redlining etc wasn't happening well into the last century? Or that even now, crap like this isn't happening?

We elected a black president not once, but twice. Literally nobody is denying that horrible injustices existed in the past, but we have continuously improved from slavery through segregation and the Jim Crow south, redlining, the civil rights act, etc. And the reality that America is not only the least racist that it has ever been, it is the least racist, most free country on the planet. Where is the evidence that we have somehow started to go backwards and stop our progress towards freedom and oppurtinty for all the founders envisioned? And the solution is what exactly? Cutting a check for reparations? Would that immediately solve everything? Perhaps just tearing up the constitution, especially the 1st, 2nd, and 5th amendments, and writing a new one with de facto one party rule?

One of the most fundamental tenents of a just society and most major religions is that we are not responsible for the sins of our fathers. We are all judged equally as individuals and we all have individual responsibility and free will to live just and honest lives. If we make poor choices in our life, we deserve to suffer the consequence of those choices. We are teaching our children now the exact opposite. That if you make poor choices it is not YOUR fault and someone else will take responsibility for your poor choices. This will not end well.

 

[scarbrtj]

 

[elementaryschooleconomics]

There's a lot of Ben Shapiro-esque strawmen arguments being thrown around here.

To say "the system is flawed and should be adjusted" DOES NOT equate to "racism against white people".

Since we're in the RadOnc forum, a thought experiment:

Many of us agree there is an oversupply of RadOnc trainees and young attendings. Why? The system, lead by academic departments and chairs, benefits financially by having an abundance of cheap labor.

Many of us argue that the system needs to be corrected by reducing the number of trainees. This needs to be intentionally and methodically done. The argument being that we all benefit from a more balanced system.

It is painful in the short run.

Am I discriminating against department chairs with my opinion?

I would posit no. I think the system, as it stands, is flawed, favoring one group over another. "Fixing" this means some win, some lose. It is what it is.

 

[deleted480308]

Bingo.

Are we going to sit there and argue that stuff like redlining etc wasn't happening well into the last century? Or that even now, crap like this isn't happening?

You’re building strawmen. Racist people exist. And this time, the system seems to be responding appropriately

 

[deleted480308]

You're talking about socioeconomic factors, not racial factors. Most honest people will admit that the family and resources you grow up with have more of an effect on your future academic success than your skin color.

One of the biggest issues in this country is the level of incarceration of black men. This creates a large number (I think 40% was the number I heard) of blacks being raised by single moms, which greatly predisposes for a life of poverty and crime resulting in further incarceration and perpetuating the cycle.

And the solution to this is to remove police from these crime ridden neighborhoods? Literally WTF.

The solution is to reduce crime, invest in good local police departments (isn't it funny how abolishing the police means abolishing all law enforcement except the FBI?) by increasing standards and raising pay and increase police presence in crime-ridden areas, invest economically in undeserved communities, and pursue evidence-based policy that works to strengthen families and reduce the number of blacks being raised in single parent households.

Black Lives Matter disagrees with this. Their organiztaion, and you can read this on their mission page opposes the concept of the traditional nuclear family. Most people don't realize that. Little known fact: you can believe that black lives matter but not support the BLM organizaiton, who describe themselves as trained Marxists who want to raise each others children in a collective.

We should also decriminalize weed

 

[KHE88]

There's a lot of Ben Shapiro-esque strawmen arguments being thrown around here.

To say "the system is flawed and should be adjusted" DOES NOT equate to "racism against white people".

When you make policies that preferentially select for individuals over other individuals on the basis of skin color, this is by definition racism. This is incontrovertible. Now if you want to make the argument that racism is justified in this instance, fine you can make that argument if you want, but you need to at least be intellectually honest about what you are doing and call a spade a spade (apparently this idiom is racist so excuse my mea culpa while I find another one to replace it with).

Also, it's ironic that you would point to a strawman logical fallacy in the same sentence using another well-known logical fallacy, the ad hominem (because Shapiro said something, similar comments to his must not be taken that seriously).

 

[RadOncMegatron]

There's a lot of Ben Shapiro-esque strawmen arguments being thrown around here.

To say "the system is flawed and should be adjusted" DOES NOT equate to "racism against white people".

Since we're in the RadOnc forum, a thought experiment:

Many of us agree there is an oversupply of RadOnc trainees and young attendings. Why? The system, lead by academic departments and chairs, benefits financially by having an abundance of cheap labor.

Many of us argue that the system needs to be corrected by reducing the number of trainees. This needs to be intentionally and methodically done. The argument being that we all benefit from a more balanced system.

It is painful in the short run.

Am I discriminating against department chairs with my opinion?

I would posit no. I think the system, as it stands, is flawed, favoring one group over another. "Fixing" this means some win, some lose. It is what it is.

There really is nothing wrong with your argument here (except I would disagree Ben Shapiro uses strawmen...). For instance, if we all started going to the inner cities, tutoring, donating and then increase the pool of diversity in that manner no one would say anything about doing it that way.

The very very difficult issue is taking what is true in abstract / theory and applying the practice.

It's ok to point out the problems, it's also ok to say we have no idea how to fix it and all solutions suck b/c the problem is so deep & pervasive. Otherwise, as you said before, let's just be upfront about it. Why can't MDACC just come out and say what you just said? They are so close to doing it anyway. We can at least observe the process and see how it goes. It also sounds like 1/2 the people in the country wouldn't mind the quota system. So be upfront and just implement!

 

[w00tz]

You're talking about socioeconomic factors, not racial factors. Most honest people will admit that the family and resources you grow up with have more of an effect on your future academic success than your skin color.

One of the biggest issues in this country is the level of incarceration of black men. This creates a large number (I think 40% was the number I heard) of blacks being raised by single moms, which greatly predisposes for a life of poverty and crime resulting in further incarceration and perpetuating the cycle.

If I can acknowledge that a large number of black children are raised by only mom, can you acknowledge these kids aren't going to have the same socioeconomic previleges as white children?

I think we do some things to adjust for that now, so that they have more opportunities, less likely to get incarcerated, be able to get more involved in the care of their kids. Otherwise, they are just going to be stuck in that ****ty cycle.

 

[medgator]

If I can acknowledge that a large number of black children are raised by only mom, can you acknowledge these kids aren't going to have the same socioeconomic previleges as white children?

I think we do some things to adjust for that now, so that they have more opportunities, less likely to get incarcerated, be able to get more involved in the care of their kids. Otherwise, they are just going to be stuck in that ****ty cycle.

A lot of this gets back to incarceration for low level drug crime, look at how things and societal perspective has changed on things like recreational/medical marijuana. We were unnecessarily imprisoning people and helping fund drug cartels down south by keeping MJ schedule I.

I think that is why this was a big push to restore voting rights to nonviolent felons over the years to help right the wrong. Meanwhile you still have the right wing going full on anti marijuana while alcohol has been legal for nearly a century

 

[KHE88]

And this time, the system seems to be responding appropriately

This is why you don't hear a lot about the Walter Scott case anymore, perhaps the most egregious police shooting in recent memory. A horrible person did a horrible thing and the system responded appropriately and that guy went to jail for murder. It's the more controversial cases that get the attention, such as Michael Brown and Rayshard Brooks (both cases with evidence that they attacked police officers). The George Floyd case is interesting because evidence clearly suggests that a horrible person did a horrible thing, again, and this guy likely will go to jail for murder. The system appears to be working, yet there are demands for justice. What else do you want? To strip the accused of due process? To live in a country with mob justice? We didn't even give it time for the system to work yet. There are 700,000 cops in America. We can strive to make it so that there are exactly zero psycho racists who slip through the cracks. Is this reality? I do think we can do better, probably a lot better, with our police forces, but it's disingenuous to pretend that there is a widespread problem of cops murdering unarmed innocent black people in the streets every day. That is just not factually correct. There is a lot of crime that happens despite crime rates being up until now at historic lows, that police still have to deal with sometimes necessitating the use of deadly force or potentially deadly force. It's a messy business and not an exact science and it's easy to play armchair quaterback watching CNN.

I suppose we can just stop sending the cops for petty crime like theft, forgery, DUI, etc because there's a chance the perpetrator could resist and the situation could escalate? Or disarm police completely. I'm sure there will not be a mass exodus of police officers from the force and dramatic increases in crime. Will that create strong healthy communities?

It's like we're all living in make-believe land.
The sad reality is that these cases are being used mainly to perpetuate a political ideology, not because anyone really wants to change anything. If we wanted to change things for the better, we would invest in communities, support local governments and municipal serivces, and protect small businesses, not dramatically increase the scope and power of the federal government and influence of large tech billionaires and their monopolies.

 

[KHE88]

If I can acknowledge that a large number of black children are raised by only mom, can you acknowledge these kids aren't going to have the same socioeconomic previleges as white children?

I think we do some things to adjust for that now, so that they have more opportunities, less likely to get incarcerated, be able to get more involved in the care of their kids. Otherwise, they are just going to be stuck in that ****ty cycle.

Absolutely I acknowledge that assuming you insert "raised by only mom" after white children to make it equivalent. I don't know why you would think I wouldn't. The question is how to address it. Is it right to just look at skin color? Are we doing anyone any favors by lowering the bar for them and allowing them to enter a field of study that they have little chance of succeeding in due to their poor schooling growing up? Straddling them with debt to enter a program they have a good chance of not being able to complete? Encouraging them to go into an over-saturated specialty where they will be unable to find jobs in the communities they came from? Something to think about.

 

[KHE88]

A lot of this gets back to incarceration for low level drug crime, look at how things and societal perspective has changed on things like recreational/medical marijuana. We were unnecessarily imprisoning people and helping fund drug cartels down south by keeping MJ schedule I.

I think that is why this was a big push to restore voting rights to nonviolent felons over the years to help right the wrong. Meanwhile you still have the right wing going full on anti marijuana while alcohol has been legal for nearly a century

Sigh.

I'm sorry you fall hook line and sinker for this stuff so much. Don't worry. You are not alone.

It's a myth that there is a vast problem of incarceration in America simply due to low level cannabis possession alone.
The vast, vast majority of people locked up for drug offenses have a history of previous violent felonies or have engaged in more serious drug crimes such as trafficking, distribution, or have weapon related offenses.

It is a lie to say that we are rounding up people for having a joint in the car and throwing them in jail for a year. As you note, due to societal acceptance of cannabis use as less of a degenrate activity, the system would not be able to handle that.

Elizabeth Warren’s Criminal-Justice Illiteracy | National Review

No, we don’t lock up more marijuana offenders than violent criminals.

www.nationalreview.com

 

[w00tz]

Absolutely I acknowledge that assuming you insert "raised by only mom" after white children to make it equivalent. I don't know why you would think I wouldn't. The question is how to address it. Is it right to just look at skin color? Are we doing anyone any favors by lowering the bar for them and allowing them to enter a field of study that they have little chance of succeeding in due to their poor schooling growing up? Straddling them with debt to enter a program they have a good chance of not being able to complete? Encouraging them to go into an over-saturated specialty where they will be unable to find jobs in the communities they came from? Something to think about.

I think it's one of many factors we should look at.
If I am looking at two applicant for rad onc residency, who went to the exact same school, same GPA, Step scores, amount of research, extracurriculars, both had college-educated, middle-class parents, but one was white and one was black, I would choose the black applicant. Undoubtedly, the black applicant faced more obstacles to get to the same place due to racism, be it systemic, overt or even just microaggressions. Racism definitely exists and it could have been a particular teacher/professor/teaching assistant they encountered along the way that made it more difficult to obtain the same grades. Middle-class white parents will have more connections than middle-class black parents, which could amount to less shadowing opportunities, less research opportunities or not getting a stellar letter of recommendation from your white family friend who is the dean of some school. These many little things matter.

 

[OTN]

I think it's one of many factors we should look at.
If I am looking at two applicant for rad onc residency, who went to the exact same school, same GPA, Step scores, amount of research, extracurriculars, both had college-educated, middle-class parents, but one was white and one was black, I would choose the black applicant. Undoubtedly, the black applicant faced more obstacles to get to the same place due to racism, be it systemic, overt or even just microaggressions. Racism definitely exists and it could have been a particular teacher/professor/teaching assistant they encountered along the way that made it more difficult to obtain the same grades. Middle-class white parents will have more connections than middle-class black parents, which could amount to less shadowing opportunities, less research opportunities or not getting a stellar letter of recommendation from your white family friend who is the dean of some school. These many little things matter.

Racist. By definition.

So, I guess I now get to say "I have a dream that my two little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

Fantastic.

 

[medgator]

Racist. By definition.

So, I guess I now get to say "I have a dream that my two little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

Fantastic.

That's not how society treated them (and in many places, continues to do do) since the founding of this country however.

 

[w00tz]

Racist. By definition.

So, I guess I now get to say "I have a dream that my two little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

Fantastic.

Okay, so in this situation, do just you flip a coin?
Why can't I acknowledge that, in general, black people have to work harder to get the same position as white/over-represented minorities? If they can overcome obstacles that white/over-represented minorities do not have to face, yet get to the same position, in my mind, they are the better candidate.

 

[deleted480308]

Okay, so in this situation, do just you flip a coin?
Why can't I acknowledge that, in general, black people have to work harder to get the same position as white/over-represented minorities? If they can overcome obstacles that white/over-represented minorities do not have to face, yet get to the same position, in my mind, they are the better candidate.

Mainly because that’s generalization and racial discrimination. So yeah, you flip the coin

 

[Ray D. Ayshun]

Is it okay to discriminate between two candidates based on their experiences? Yes. Is being a given race for all of one's existence an experience? Hell yes. What's hard about this?

 

[RadOncMegatron]

Okay, so in this situation, do just you flip a coin?
Why can't I acknowledge that, in general, black people have to work harder to get the same position as white/over-represented minorities? If they can overcome obstacles that white/over-represented minorities do not have to face, yet get to the same position, in my mind, they are the better candidate.

Is it okay to discriminate between two candidates based on their experiences? Yes. Is being a given race for all of one's existence an experience? Hell yes. What's hard about this?

The ORM experience is not equivalent to the white experience, esp. in this "systemic racism" paradigm. ORMs are also under same systemic racist institutions set up by white people, so that's why it's hard to imagine why ORMs are paying double: 1) for white people's failure and 2) for their success. If you play this game, only white people who are equally represented (not over not under) should pay the penalty. Again, why should ORMs be punished? You need to tier the system better. Maybe give URMs +1, ORMs +0, -1 white.

If you grow up in a 2 parent rich black family do you get 0? +1? If you are poor and white go up to 0? +1 if Jewish? See in theory this is very nice, but if you really implement it gets ugly FAST. So one of these PDs should show us the metric. Do what you plan to do, just show us the metric.

 

[w00tz]

Mainly because that’s generalization and racial discrimination. So yeah, you flip the coin

It's definitely a generalization, and I'll admit, it's not going to be the right thing 100% of the time. But at this point in time in America, I think think it will be the better decision more often than not. When I stop hearing stories about innocent black people getting the cops called on them, I will change my stance.

 

[thecarbonionangle]

I think the idea of tricking a URM into a field with declining pay, opportunity, mobility, prospects is absolutely immoral. I think we can all agree on that.

 

[OTN]

It's definitely a generalization, and I'll admit, it's not going to be the right thing 100% of the time. But at this point in time in America, I think think it will be the better decision more often than not. When I stop hearing stories about innocent black people getting the cops called on them, I will change my stance.

So you will stop being racist only when no one in a country of 350 million people is racist? I'm not going to hold my breath.

 

[deleted480308]

It's definitely a generalization, and I'll admit, it's not going to be the right thing 100% of the time. But at this point in time in America, I think think it will be the better decision more often than not. When I stop hearing stories about innocent black people getting the cops called on them, I will change my stance.

The answer to bad policing is to address policing, not insert more racial discrimination into residency applications

 

[w00tz]

The ORM experience is not equivalent to the white experience, esp. in this "systemic racism" paradigm. ORMs are also under same systemic racist institutions set up by white people, so that's why it's hard to imagine why ORMs are paying double: 1) for white people's failure and 2) for their success. If you play this game, only white people who are equally represented (not over not under) should pay the penalty. Again, why should ORMs be punished? You need to tier the system better. Maybe give URMs +1, ORMs +0, -1 white.

If you grow up in a 2 parent rich black family do you get 0? +1? If you are poor and white go up to 0? +1 if Jewish? See in theory this is very nice, but if you really implement it gets ugly FAST. So one of these PDs should show us the metric. Do what you plan to do, just show us the metric.

On my score care
Race 0.5
Middle class 0, Rich -2, ramen every day noodle poor +2
Both parents 0, one parent +1, no parents +3
All limbs 0, amputee +1, double amputee +2
Cancer history +2
Male 0, female +0.25
Tall -.2
Big boobs -1, big boobs showing of a lot of cleavage, hmmm is that a plus or minus.

Disclaimer: I am not a PD or in any position to hire anyone.

 

[RadOncMegatron]

On my score care
Race 0.5
Middle class 0, Rich -2, ramen every day noodle poor +2
Both parents 0, one parent +1, no parents +3
All limbs 0, amputee +1, double amputee +2
Cancer history +2
Male 0, female +0.25
Tall -.2
Big boobs -1, big boobs showing of a lot of cleavage, hmmm is that a plus or minus.

Disclaimer: I am not a PD or in any position to hire anyone.

Funny, but at least you are delivering your score card. It's really not too bad given the scores are very close. I do agree cancer history, poor, no parents, are worth more than race. Actually your score card shows your pretty moderate in my opinion. I would love to see MDACC's score card. They give us TTB weighting for protons in esophageal cancer, might as give their weights for this!

 

[w00tz]

So you will stop being racist only when no one in a country of 350 million people is racist? I'm not going to hold my breath.

Because that's when I'll know black people are on truly equal footing as white people. Otherwise, white people will still have some unfair advantage over black people.

 

[RadOncMegatron]

Because that's when I'll know black people are on truly equal footing as white people. Otherwise, white people will still have some unfair advantage over black people.

What about our Jewish friends? They are ORMs. What to do about their advantage... I'm sure you are aware this is a very ugly question and a perennial one that will always come up. It's all fun to trash on white people and Asians, but you must reckon with the ugly history of anti-semitism. Why should Jewish people pay a price for being Jewish? My goodness, if Pinnix or KO were to show their cards and give minus points for being Jewish... Told ya, this gets UGLY fast... Otherwise you'd have to adopt my proposal and take away slots only from non-Jewish white people.

 

[w00tz]

I don't man. Haven't thought that far yet. And don't you dare ask start asking about what do to do with our transgender Jewish black friends!

 

[RadOncMegatron]

I don't man. Haven't thought that far yet. And don't you dare ask start asking about what do to do with our transgender Jewish black friends!

The evil in society is ugly and I respect my liberal friends for pointing them out. You are right and I respect your answer. We don't know. It's tough and it's hard, but who out there says admits such things? If only both sides of the isle could work together, but I fear those days may be gone. One hope we have in medicine, is our shared experience of pre-med, med school, residency, and patient care. Unlike in traditional political discussions, where it appears Republicans and Democrats have no common base, as physicians, we all have that mutual respect for having gone through that crazy stage in life. We also know that we do our best to treat all people regardless of whatever affiliation. Anyways, probably naive of me...

 

[Reaganite]

In spite of my moniker lol I think a physician population that mirrors the racial distribution of the population is a noble goal that I'd be happy to support; however, having worked on admissions committees and being familiar with the data, there are significant barriers. URMs are already over-represented in medical schools compared to their White and Asian peers if you just consider academic performance. We are already "reaching" to increase representation. Once in med school, URM board failure rates are significantly higher than Asians and Whites. Granted, I haven't seen the recent data, but many years ago I saw a study that 50% of all step1 failures were by URMs. Similarly, I have seen data that step1 failure rate was as high as 25% among AAs. (Most of the studies I saw lumped all non-white/Asians into "URM," so not as confident about this figure). I'd be interested in seeing more recent data. Finally, like many standardized tests, there is a gigantic discrepancy in scores at the higher ends of the scale, and these are the people who tend to apply to the most competitive specialties. It isn't a matter of choosing between candidates who are "equal on paper" or anywhere close to it.

 

[Mandelin Rain]

I truly appreciate the heroic efforts of those purporting to crusade against racial discrimination in this world and have decided that targeting diversity initiatives in radiation oncology residencies is the best way to do so.

Keep up the good work.

 

[RadOncMegatron]

I think the idea of tricking a URM into a field with declining pay, opportunity, mobility, prospects is absolutely immoral. I think we can all agree on that.

I truly appreciate the heroic efforts of those purporting to crusade against racial discrimination in this world and have decided that targeting diversity initiatives in radiation oncology residencies is the best way to do so.

Keep up the good work.

The times we are living in are crazy. Thinking about this push for diversity, but at the same time everyone saying NOBODY COME TO RAD ONC. At least we all agree, URMs will be hurt if they come in right now. My head hurts...

 

[medgator]

I truly appreciate the heroic efforts of those purporting to crusade against racial discrimination in this world and have decided that targeting diversity initiatives in radiation oncology residencies is the best way to do so.

Keep up the good work.

I think we all agree that rad onc is currently a dumpster fire, specialty-wise, and that most should think twice about considering it currently, URM, ORM or otherwise