Dare you to reply!
Started by RadOncMegatron
Get help with your application
Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.
Anecdotally, Latinx seem to be well represented in oncology?
Latinos are under-represented in radiation oncology, at least from the last bit of data I saw. Definitely notable Latinos in the history of our specialty, though, including Carlos Perez.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
These days? Abso-******-lutely
Only on this thread can I even mention what I’m going to say but goes back to the Whoopi Jewish argument. If you can pass as “white,” totally different experience.
Alvaro Martinez, And that guy from the hospital in Colorado springs who helped found specialty- juan del regato?
Edit - del regato also started astro
Last edited:
Dispelling myths: The case for women in radiology and radiation oncology - PubMed
Common misconceptions about radiology and radiation oncology exist and may dissuade women from pursuing these specialties. The American Association for Women in Radiology (AAWR) Medical Student Outreach Subcommittee began a multi-year social media campaign aimed at addressing these myths. Here...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
So many myths out there. Necessary!
D
deleted1111261
What are these myths ??Dispelling myths: The case for women in radiology and radiation oncology - PubMed
Common misconceptions about radiology and radiation oncology exist and may dissuade women from pursuing these specialties. The American Association for Women in Radiology (AAWR) Medical Student Outreach Subcommittee began a multi-year social media campaign aimed at addressing these myths. Here...
So many myths out there. Necessary!
It's basically an editorial about a bunch of tweets they did.
"Myth: radiology and radiation oncology are not family friendly
Myth: radiologists and radiation oncologists don't see patients
Myth: radiologists and radiation oncologists are unsociable and function in solitude
Myth: global health is not an option in radiology and radiation oncology
Myth: radiologists and radiation oncologists are exposed to harmful levels of radiation
Myth: you have to be a computer scientist or hold a PhD in physics to be a good radiologist or radiation oncologist
Myth: radiologists and radiation oncologists will be replaced by artificial intelligence (AI)
Myth: radiology and radiation oncology do not provide much in the way of work-life integration"
A glaring omission (and maybe a #RADFACT) is a commentary about the job market.
D
deleted1111261
We have turned into a nation of *****s. And that’s just considering these … uh … doctors.
(Can you believe that “more-on” is bleeped ??)
(Can you believe that “more-on” is bleeped ??)
Everybody is laughing at us right now. Myth of no family time in Rad Onc and Radiology?!?! Who said that? All of us and our colleagues no these are one of the perks. Surgeons are probably dying laughing at us…
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
D
deleted941485
I'm not understanding. did they have shills plant these "myths".
I'm not understanding why they think women need help dispelling these myths in this way. It's kind of insulting.
This comes down to the debate about equity vs equality.
The biggest problem (in my approximation, at least) with striving for equity > equality is that not every group has the same goals. Maybe there are less women in rad onc because it is less appealing to them.
These patronizing folks are responding by saying 'more women would want to go into to Rad Onc... if they only KNEW THE TRUTH'
The biggest problem (in my approximation, at least) with striving for equity > equality is that not every group has the same goals. Maybe there are less women in rad onc because it is less appealing to them.
These patronizing folks are responding by saying 'more women would want to go into to Rad Onc... if they only KNEW THE TRUTH'
The myths themselves are completely contrived and inappropriate. “Radiologist’s are Anti-social”? They’re medical people representing a medical society. “Anti-social” is an actual medical diagnosis that probably shouldn’t be flippantly tossed around in this manner.
Here’s the deal though. We all know these fields are overloaded with (many times highly privileged, as in daddy is the chairman) whites and ORM. As more and more academic jobs require Commitment to DEI statements, I think you’re going to see more and more people pad their CV with something they hope will check the box. Academic medicine is a game, and people select out to be good at it or not. The authors of this know full well that women aren’t avoiding radiology because they heard “all radiologists are anti social.”
D
deleted1111261
I just can’t get over how condescending and stupid this is.
I agree here (although this argument is often used to dismiss disparities with real bad underlying causes). I strongly believe in equity at the med-student level, because medicine is just such a social and performative thing. We are at a point where we should be finding ways to encourage men to pursue medicine and even college in general.
Last I checked OB/GYN pretty brutal. Tough call, tough work hours after residency, OR intensive for many docs. I couldn't do it. Everyone knows its a bear but rewarding for the highly committed.
82% women in residency.
I absolutely agree. I think equity is an important goal in situations when it can be reasonably assumed that all parties are equally interested in the outcome. This assumption is certainly reasonable vis a vis leading a healthy, safe, and prosperous life... and it probably even reasonable in terms of attending college/medical school.
However, in my limited experience, the representative differences in medical specialties cannot be explained merely by inequality of opportunity. e.g., anecdotally, in numerous health systems across numerous states, it is my experience that Russians are overrepresented in neurology, Greeks in vascular surgery, Indians in cardiology/GI, not to mention women in OB/Gyn (and Peds, I would imagine).
As long as Pareto distribution exists, which it always has, equity is not going to be an achievable outcome and should not be an organizing goal of a civilization or professional society.
Haha! I think this is more about networking/role models in communities with fair numbers of docs. I can't imagine Greeks having a particular proclivity for vascular surgery! (Although per my own experience, both vascular surgeons and Greek people are exceptionally well dressed on average!)
D
deleted1111261
Indians are over represented in all of medicine. I’m not sure more so in Cards or GI? RO seems very Indian.
Not sure about GI, but lots of Indians in cards
In a free society, it is likely that observable trends of job specialization (not just in medicine) by gender will only increase rather than decrease.
Tell me about it. In the Bay Area, as far as Oncologists go, it seems that white people are the under-represented minority. Almost everyone is from the Indian subcontinent or Southeast Asia.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Here on my twice-a-year check on this thread:
Maybe you guys have talked about this at some point - why is it OK to try to recruit women/minorities into the workforce, but any other more general questions about the workforce (as in, how many RadOncs do we have vs how many do we need) has been considered "antitrust"? Eichler made his blog post/comments only in 2021, and the workforce study announcement was last week or so, which means this stance must be changing.
To be clear, this is a rhetorical question, obviously. Hopefully, if the DOJ ever comes after anyone at ASTRO with these mythical lawsuits, anyone who has ever published or said anything about the workforce - including diversity - for the last 10 years are all named as defendants.
In a nutshell, essentially why ASTRO has zero credibility on this issue.... Harari brought up that bogus **** 3 years ago after the first bad match in over a decade, while giving a free pass to Hallahan and the DEI crowd for years prior
Last edited:
These guys are wannabe human academic traffickers. In a previous era, they would have been…
They aren’t selling people for money but academic recognition to advance their careers.
I long for the days when the red journal was packed with retrospective reviews that occasionally could suggest how to practice.
Back in the day before any halfway decent rad onc research ended up in the JCO and you could still find radiation pubs in nejm and JAMA
Evidently (based on my cursory search) those days were prior to the year 2012 or so when the first fully fleshed "diversity piece" appeared in the Red Journal. This period roughly correlates with the beginning of Rad Onc's decline... yes or no?!?
Also correlates with zeitman's start as editor. Sounds about right.
Last edited:
and the DIE stuff will just continue. Nice emphasis for those 36 unmatched slots today.
From social media, it seems that disproportionately few white males are matching into #radonc. Is this progress?
Canary in the coal mine. When whitey exits, it’s time for all hands to abandon ship
D
deleted1111261
Well, if the “white men of Radonc” (I.e. the Indian men) leave that’s when you things are real bad
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
White flight?
At least you guys are posting this "off color" humor in the appropriate thread
Rad Onc academics got rid of that stigma real quick when the time came
I did a quick survey of the posts on twitter. Around 12-15% of matched are white males. As a field should would celebrate this DEI? #BLM
