Dare you to reply!

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Members don't see this ad.
radoncdoc16 said:
No, I don't think so. You are missing out and taking the $1000 too literally.

First of all, $1000 was just a random number. Choose whatever number you want.

Second, are you kidding me? $1000 is always better than 0. No it is not a joke. That is literally worth 1/2 of 1 amazon stock today. If you are worth more than $1000, then great! I would be very HAPPY FOR YOU or anyone else to MAKE AS MUCH consultancy money as possible

Third, I don't give AF about which "tier" program I travel to, I care about $$$

I would much rather go to literally the worst program in the country that pays me well, then go to MSKCC or MDACC and get close to nothing (idk how much they offer, just random example).

I will not give a discount to a "better" program.
Click to expand...

You need to CHILL OUT.

If all you "care about is $$$" then you need to understand that getting paid $1k for 3 days of your time and a free meal at the Bonefish grill or whatever local chain is one step above the Red Lobster is a TIP. It is NOT proper compensation. Otherwise you have no idea how much your time is worth. Oh, that was just a random number? How about 2k? 3k? Also a joke. Why pick a random number? Why not a correct number. Lets talk in specifics. How much do these programs pay VPs? Being precise is typically a good thing.

It's absurd that people are getting all butthurt because some VPs might be getting expenses only instead of a check for 1k. You might as well give a starbucks gift card.

I lost way more than that last week on expired stock options. Not ideal, but whatever. 1k? Get out of here dude. If anybody was EVER only doing VPs to make 1k I feel very, very sorry for them. There's other primary reasons academics do this I PROMISE you.
 
Last edited:
KHE88 said:
You need to CHILL OUT.

If all you "care about is $$$" then you need to understand that getting paid $1k for 3 days of your time and a free meal at the Bonefish grill or whatever local chain is one step above the Red Lobster is a TIP. It is NOT proper compensation. Otherwise you have no idea how much your time is worth. Oh, that was just a random number? How about 2k? 3k? Also a joke. Why pick a random number? Why not a correct number. Lets talk in specifics. How much do these programs pay VPs? Being precise is typically a good thing.

It's absurd that people are getting all butthurt because some VPs might be getting expenses only instead of a check for 1k. You might as well give a starbucks gift card.

I lost way more than that last week on expired stock options. Not ideal, but whatever. 1k? Get out of here dude. If anybody was EVER only doing VPs to make 1k I feel very, very sorry for them. There's other primary reasons academics do this I PROMISE you.
Click to expand...

you’re right I do need to chill but it is def frustrating when doctors allow themselves to do BS “for the love of the game”

I gave $1000 based on what we gave a high ranking VP last year but certainly would hope it’s higher

But they flew in and out over 1 day not 3

You may be wealthier than me or grew up wealthier bc I’m unwilling to give away $1000

That’s a 2 night paid stay at the ritz and can use your CME time rather than vacation time off to earn it as a VP
 
To be honest, this VP thing is overrated. As a resident, I enjoyed it because it gave me time out of the clinic and a free dinner. Was it interesting to meet someone from another institute who wrote a paper I had to memorize, sure but in the end, it was just another person telling their story I could have read about if I truly cared.

I always assumed it was part of their prestige to go to other places but if we have to pay someone to come out on top of their hotels, meals, etc, to me it’s not worth it and only adds more to their self inflated ego.

I rather have the chair or PD spend that money taking the residents to IHOP.
 
Last edited:
i suspect the idea of VPs in person is dead forever or for the time-being. Institutions have lost millions to billions. Many hiring freezes already here or coming. Bans on travel and future department expenses. People are going to have to tighten belts. You’re gonna be lucky if you even get a free soda from your department in coming days. Meanwhile everything will be quite peachy for the admins.
 
RadOncDoc21 said:
To be honest, this VP thing is overrated. As a resident, I enjoyed it because it gave me time out of the clinic and a free dinner. Was it interesting to meet someone from another institute who wrote a paper I had to memorize, sure but in the end, it was just another person telling their story I could have read about if I truly cared.

I always assumed it was part of their prestige to go to other places but if we have to pay someone to come out on top of their hotels, meals, etc, to me it’s not worth it and only adds more to their self inflated ego.

I rather have the chair or PD spend that money taking the residents to IHOP.
Click to expand...

LMAO that’s not how it works

Chair isn’t going to repurpose that money for resident benefit

Whatever I’m done with this convo on my end

I think there are some who view this as a possibility to make money (more the better IMO)

And others who either don’t like the idea or are willing to do things for charity

I’m not one of those. I did my charity work trying to get into med school (volunteering etc).

Now it’s all about the $$$$
 
The point being made is, if it’s all about the money, there’s no way you’re doing a visiting professorship. Because.... two days in clinic almost assuredly pays you more than what you’d get as a honoraria from a VP.
 
Mandelin Rain said:
The point being made is, if it’s all about the money, there’s no way you’re doing a visiting professorship. Because.... two days in clinic almost assuredly pays you more than what you’d get as a honoraria from a VP.
Click to expand...

Do you not get CME time off separate from clinic or vacation days?

During CME days you are not making money. Take that day off, get an essentially PAID vacation day for a few hours of talking to someone...
 
radoncdoc16 said:
Do you not get CME time off separate from clinic or vacation days?

During CME days you are not making money. Take that day off, get an essentially PAID vacation day for a few hours of talking to someone...
Click to expand...

My dude/dudette, if you're doing VPs solely for the money I better hope you're doing it for wayyyyyyyy more than $1k. Agree with like $3-5k.

If you're looking to do stuff for the money with your CME time, I recommend you look elsewhere besides VPs. Consulting gigs (like being the RadOnc on some Pharma company) will pay a ton more for you to give lectures at dinners for people who can prescribe their drugs. Go to retreats on your CME to give lectures and make that sweet consulting money.

$1k may feel like a lot to you right now as a resident (as it would to me) but will ti feel the same when you are making 4-6x your current salary?

For those who have an RVU component to their salary (most academic ROs I'd wager) being out of clinic one day means you're losing RVUs.

I imagine most VPs fly in the night before or leave the following morning, thus eliminating 2 days from clinic (assuming you're not losing a weekend day, which would be horrible IMO in terms of time lost with family).
 
Lots of things we do in academia don't pay clinical rates and never will. The alternative is just not to do those other things.

You're not going to bargain yourself into a $5,000 VP honorarium or whatever you're asking. Unless you're a really big name, they'll just cancel you.

These are choices you have to make as a physician--does it interest you enough to go do it?

Of course when doing VP you can push your agenda (i.e. trials and other studies), and it also looks good for promotion on your CV (evidence that you are recognized) which does lead to more money from your employer down the road. Also a lot of VP spots are used as interview or recruitment opportunities.
 


Forgetting all the controversial stuff this thread is known for, I wanted to know, especially those who agree with Dr. Pinnix, how diversification, will be implemented practically?

Ref #11 Diversity Based on Race, Ethnicity, and Sex, of the US Radiation Oncology Physician Workforce Christina H. Chapman, MD Wei-Ting Hwang, PhD Curtiland Deville, MD Published:November 02, 2012DOI:Redirecting

Notes the following disparities

US population females 50.8% ; Underrepresented Minorities (URM) 30%

Med School female graduates 48.3%; URM 15.6%

RO female residents 33.3%; URM 6.9%

Med onc female fellows 45.0%; URM 10.8%;

I'm being serious, how do you even it out? Doesn't it just mean quotas? I'm not saying it as a derogatory point, but if you only have 20% female class one year, don't you need to purposely get 80% the next year to try to even it out? Again, being serious, saying that you want to fight systemic racism and all that's fine, but when you have 10 applicants - 7 male , 3 female ; 9 non-URM , 1 URM (these are based on the RO resident numbers they quote)- how do you choose? Honestly, puzzled. It was really easy before with med school rank + step 1 + research + away rotations + LORs. Again, not trying to start a fight (that may come later), but right now would love to hear the thought process.
 
RadOncMegatron said:


Forgetting all the controversial stuff this thread is known for, I wanted to know, especially those who agree with Dr. Pinnix, how diversification, will be implemented practically?

Ref #11 Diversity Based on Race, Ethnicity, and Sex, of the US Radiation Oncology Physician Workforce Christina H. Chapman, MD Wei-Ting Hwang, PhD Curtiland Deville, MD Published:November 02, 2012DOI:Redirecting

Notes the following disparities

US population females 50.8% ; Underrepresented Minorities (URM) 30%

Med School female graduates 48.3%; URM 15.6%

RO female residents 33.3%; URM 6.9%

Med onc female fellows 45.0%; URM 10.8%;

I'm being serious, how do you even it out? Doesn't it just mean quotas? I'm not saying it as a derogatory point, but if you only have 20% female class one year, don't you need to purposely get 80% the next year to try to even it out? Again, being serious, saying that you want to fight systemic racism and all that's fine, but when you have 10 applicants - 7 male , 3 female ; 9 non-URM , 1 URM (these are based on the RO resident numbers they quote)- how do you choose? Honestly, puzzled. It was really easy before with med school rank + step 1 + research + away rotations + LORs. Again, not trying to start a fight (that may come later), but right now would love to hear the thought process.
Click to expand...

My first inclination was that PW in her tweet stood for Paul wallner. Haha.
 
RadOncMegatron said:


Forgetting all the controversial stuff this thread is known for, I wanted to know, especially those who agree with Dr. Pinnix, how diversification, will be implemented practically?

Ref #11 Diversity Based on Race, Ethnicity, and Sex, of the US Radiation Oncology Physician Workforce Christina H. Chapman, MD Wei-Ting Hwang, PhD Curtiland Deville, MD Published:November 02, 2012DOI:Redirecting

Notes the following disparities

US population females 50.8% ; Underrepresented Minorities (URM) 30%

Med School female graduates 48.3%; URM 15.6%

RO female residents 33.3%; URM 6.9%

Med onc female fellows 45.0%; URM 10.8%;

I'm being serious, how do you even it out? Doesn't it just mean quotas? I'm not saying it as a derogatory point, but if you only have 20% female class one year, don't you need to purposely get 80% the next year to try to even it out? Again, being serious, saying that you want to fight systemic racism and all that's fine, but when you have 10 applicants - 7 male , 3 female ; 9 non-URM , 1 URM (these are based on the RO resident numbers they quote)- how do you choose? Honestly, puzzled. It was really easy before with med school rank + step 1 + research + away rotations + LORs. Again, not trying to start a fight (that may come later), but right now would love to hear the thought process.
Click to expand...


Standard disclaimer: we should not be encouraging anyone to go into RadOnc until we get our own house in order. That being said...

It absolutely starts with quotas, and it just needs to be acknowledged. The entire higher education system is geared towards people who have "means", financial and/or social. If you come from a family where your parents went to college, maybe even graduate education or a professional degree, you're going to have a leg up against the kids who don't have that - regardless of gender or skin color. You're going to make the "right moves" earlier, which gives a stronger set of experiences and knowledge to build on - a "force multiplier" which by the time residency applications roll around will be very evident.

Compare this to a peer who may be equally "smart" or "talented" but comes from a family where no one went to college, where maybe finances aren't as strong, and the expectations are different. Are you going to be doing heavy volunteer work in high school? Have access to premium SAT prep to help you get into a prestigious undergrad? Even know that that's something you should be doing? No, you likely won't. This is without even considering the overt discrimination thrown at certain populations and what that does.

However, these are problems well outside the control of Radiation Oncology. Again, we should be cutting spots but...I guess we're not on that path right now. Programs should be making rank list with the intention of increasing diversity. This will be (marginally) easier with Step 1 going pass/fail. Really - once you're in practice, is there much of a difference (in patient outcomes) between someone who scored a 225 vs a 265? I doubt it - but I also don't think that study has ever been performed.

If someone has been able to get accepted into an accredited medical school and graduate, they should be qualified to be a Radiation Oncology resident/attending, and there's nothing wrong with ranking a "majority" applicant with better scores lower than a "minority" applicant with a weaker application with the explicit goal to increase diversity. Just own what you're doing.

That being said, this presents unique problems for RadOnc. The Harvards of the world are very likely to hit their diversity target. The top tier programs will become even more difficult for "majority" medical students to match into, which incurs the downstream effects we talk about so often on this board. I will ALWAYS maintain that RadOnc might only be worth it if you can guarantee getting into an old, big, Brand Name program (preferably in the geographic region you want a job in afterwards). But can you guarantee that? No.

Really, I think (non-SDN) people are asking the wrong question. We shouldn't be asking "how" to increase diversity, we need to be asking "should" we increase diversity. The only thing we know for certain is the number of radiation oncology residents has MASSIVELY increased in a short amount of time, whereas the number of cancer patients or indications for radiation therapy have definitely not seen the same growth. Whether or not the market can actually absorb this is a study which should be done by actual economists and not residents doing database analysis - but logic dictates the market cannot absorb an arbitrary doubling of RadOncs over the long term.

Therefore, quotas, increasing diversity, etc are really only making the people in charge feel good, patting themselves on the back about how woke and progressive they are. They don't really care about the actual applicants. When the foundation of RadOnc is rotten, we shouldn't be trying to bring more folks to the house party. Unless you want to watch a building collapse.
 
elementaryschooleconomics said:
Standard disclaimer: we should not be encouraging anyone to go into RadOnc until we get our own house in order. That being said...

It absolutely starts with quotas, and it just needs to be acknowledged. The entire higher education system is geared towards people who have "means", financial and/or social. If you come from a family where your parents went to college, maybe even graduate education or a professional degree, you're going to have a leg up against the kids who don't have that - regardless of gender or skin color. You're going to make the "right moves" earlier, which gives a stronger set of experiences and knowledge to build on - a "force multiplier" which by the time residency applications roll around will be very evident.

Compare this to a peer who may be equally "smart" or "talented" but comes from a family where no one went to college, where maybe finances aren't as strong, and the expectations are different. Are you going to be doing heavy volunteer work in high school? Have access to premium SAT prep to help you get into a prestigious undergrad? Even know that that's something you should be doing? No, you likely won't. This is without even considering the overt discrimination thrown at certain populations and what that does.

However, these are problems well outside the control of Radiation Oncology. Again, we should be cutting spots but...I guess we're not on that path right now. Programs should be making rank list with the intention of increasing diversity. This will be (marginally) easier with Step 1 going pass/fail. Really - once you're in practice, is there much of a difference (in patient outcomes) between someone who scored a 225 vs a 265? I doubt it - but I also don't think that study has ever been performed.

If someone has been able to get accepted into an accredited medical school and graduate, they should be qualified to be a Radiation Oncology resident/attending, and there's nothing wrong with ranking a "majority" applicant with better scores lower than a "minority" applicant with a weaker application with the explicit goal to increase diversity. Just own what you're doing.

That being said, this presents unique problems for RadOnc. The Harvards of the world are very likely to hit their diversity target. The top tier programs will become even more difficult for "majority" medical students to match into, which incurs the downstream effects we talk about so often on this board. I will ALWAYS maintain that RadOnc might only be worth it if you can guarantee getting into an old, big, Brand Name program (preferably in the geographic region you want a job in afterwards). But can you guarantee that? No.

Really, I think (non-SDN) people are asking the wrong question. We shouldn't be asking "how" to increase diversity, we need to be asking "should" we increase diversity. The only thing we know for certain is the number of radiation oncology residents has MASSIVELY increased in a short amount of time, whereas the number of cancer patients or indications for radiation therapy have definitely not seen the same growth. Whether or not the market can actually absorb this is a study which should be done by actual economists and not residents doing database analysis - but logic dictates the market cannot absorb an arbitrary doubling of RadOncs over the long term.

Therefore, quotas, increasing diversity, etc are really only making the people in charge feel good, patting themselves on the back about how woke and progressive they are. They don't really care about the actual applicants. When the foundation of RadOnc is rotten, we shouldn't be trying to bring more folks to the house party. Unless you want to watch a building collapse.
Click to expand...

Postscript:

I say this as someone who would have probably been "harmed" by these policies. I fall into the unfortunate category of not being considered a minority/underrepresented by traditional metrics, yet my family is not well-off, either financially or socially. My high school experience was...meh...I only figured out "the game" because of my fervent consumption of SDN. I can hold these views because I'm past the choke-point, yet my views would be detrimental to my past self.

And that's what needs to also be explicitly acknowledged. Policies which have a global benefit at the systems level are invariably going to "harm" people at the individual level. It is what it is - you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs and all that.
 
elementaryschooleconomics said:
Standard disclaimer: we should not be encouraging anyone to go into RadOnc until we get our own house in order. That being said...

It absolutely starts with quotas, and it just needs to be acknowledged. The entire higher education system is geared towards people who have "means", financial and/or social. If you come from a family where your parents went to college, maybe even graduate education or a professional degree, you're going to have a leg up against the kids who don't have that - regardless of gender or skin color. You're going to make the "right moves" earlier, which gives a stronger set of experiences and knowledge to build on - a "force multiplier" which by the time residency applications roll around will be very evident.

Compare this to a peer who may be equally "smart" or "talented" but comes from a family where no one went to college, where maybe finances aren't as strong, and the expectations are different. Are you going to be doing heavy volunteer work in high school? Have access to premium SAT prep to help you get into a prestigious undergrad? Even know that that's something you should be doing? No, you likely won't. This is without even considering the overt discrimination thrown at certain populations and what that does.

However, these are problems well outside the control of Radiation Oncology. Again, we should be cutting spots but...I guess we're not on that path right now. Programs should be making rank list with the intention of increasing diversity. This will be (marginally) easier with Step 1 going pass/fail. Really - once you're in practice, is there much of a difference (in patient outcomes) between someone who scored a 225 vs a 265? I doubt it - but I also don't think that study has ever been performed.

If someone has been able to get accepted into an accredited medical school and graduate, they should be qualified to be a Radiation Oncology resident/attending, and there's nothing wrong with ranking a "majority" applicant with better scores lower than a "minority" applicant with a weaker application with the explicit goal to increase diversity. Just own what you're doing.

That being said, this presents unique problems for RadOnc. The Harvards of the world are very likely to hit their diversity target. The top tier programs will become even more difficult for "majority" medical students to match into, which incurs the downstream effects we talk about so often on this board. I will ALWAYS maintain that RadOnc might only be worth it if you can guarantee getting into an old, big, Brand Name program (preferably in the geographic region you want a job in afterwards). But can you guarantee that? No.

Really, I think (non-SDN) people are asking the wrong question. We shouldn't be asking "how" to increase diversity, we need to be asking "should" we increase diversity. The only thing we know for certain is the number of radiation oncology residents has MASSIVELY increased in a short amount of time, whereas the number of cancer patients or indications for radiation therapy have definitely not seen the same growth. Whether or not the market can actually absorb this is a study which should be done by actual economists and not residents doing database analysis - but logic dictates the market cannot absorb an arbitrary doubling of RadOncs over the long term.

Therefore, quotas, increasing diversity, etc are really only making the people in charge feel good, patting themselves on the back about how woke and progressive they are. They don't really care about the actual applicants. When the foundation of RadOnc is rotten, we shouldn't be trying to bring more folks to the house party. Unless you want to watch a building collapse.
Click to expand...
But if you all aren’t actually racially discriminating against urm applicants, what is there to change? Why would you improve a situation by intentionally mandating racial discrimination?
 
sb247 said:
But if you all aren’t actually racially discriminating against urm applicants, what is there to change? Why would you improve a situation by intentionally mandating racial discrimination?
Click to expand...

You mean "discrimination" by intentionally ranking majority applicants lower as a consequence of giving preference to minority applicants?

"Discrimination" implies intent, as does "promoting diversity".

The end result is the same, I acknowledge that. It's a semantic argument.

I guess my point is, in the question of "how do you increase minority representation", my answer is "intentionally and methodically". My answer also is, "don't do it, because RadOnc has other problems right now".
 
elementaryschooleconomics said:
You mean "discrimination" by intentionally ranking majority applicants lower as a consequence of giving preference to minority applicants?

"Discrimination" implies intent, as does "promoting diversity".

The end result is the same, I acknowledge that. It's a semantic argument.

I guess my point is, in the question of "how do you increase minority representation", my answer is "intentionally and methodically". My answer also is, "don't do it, because RadOnc has other problems right now".
Click to expand...
I’m trying to say that the goal of arbitrarily increasing representation is unnecessary if the field isn’t discriminating and is being clear that everyone is welcome. You seem to be advocating that if there weren’t other issues at play that it would time to start racially discriminating, I may have read it wrong and you might just be assesing the way to reach the goal without actually endorsing it. If I got you wrong, I apologize
 
I know this is obvious, but there are many great specialties in medicine, and a urm who is not in radiation will almost certainly be in a more vibrant promising specialty. End goal Universal representation/diversity is not a truism. For example, there is not good representation of urm amongst serial killers.
 
It's not discrimination. It's an acknowledgement that some people have it tougher than others in America. And that a 5 point difference in Step 1 score may be attributable to that tougher time. It's not easy to synthesize the whole experience of an individual's life. You have to makes some assumptions. One (valid) assumption is the URM are not underrepresented because they are dumb or lazy or whatever, but because they have faced more hurdles in the game and navigating those hurdles successfully is worth something. Giving an intentional leg up when reviewing apps isn't the worst thing you can do. As said, at the individual level it may benefit those who don't necessarily "deserve" it (like if Lebron James's kid applied for Rad Onc) and may "harm" those who don't necessarily deserve it (like a poor white kid who bootstrapped him/herself though life). Overall though, it stands to level the field at a system level.
 
Last edited:
RickyScott said:
For example, there is not good representation of urm amongst serial killers.
Click to expand...

Ah, is that an objective truth or a bias of classification and measurement? Is defining "serial killer" like how we define 30% radiographic tumor shrinkage as a valid endpoint?

(just being facetious here, I actually don't know the serial killer literature, but I like your example)
 
In practical terms, end result of affirmative action comes down to replacing Asians and Indians with urm. The percentage of caucasians does not really change (university of California experience when ended aa, number of Caucasian students did not increase) In many of these elite institutions/ Asians and Indians are over represented. Basically swapping one darker skin tone for another. For medschool, someone with a Native American grandparent, or a wealthy South American jew gets much greater preference than a Vietnamese boat refuge who had to endure camps and poverty.
 
elementaryschooleconomics said:
Ah, is that an objective truth or a bias of classification and measurement? Is defining "serial killer" like how we define 30% radiographic tumor shrinkage as a valid endpoint?

(just being facetious here, I actually don't know the serial killer literature, but I like your example)
Click to expand...
I don’t either but anecdotally they seem to be exclusively Caucasian.
 
RickyScott said:
In practical terms, end result of affirmative action comes down to replacing Asians and Indians with urm. The percentage of caucasians does not really change (university of California experience when ended aa, number of Caucasian students did not increase) In many of these elite institutions/ Asians and Indians are over represented. Basically swapping one darker skin tone for another. For medschool, someone with a Native American grandparent, or a wealthy South American jew gets much greater preference than a Vietnamese boat refuge who had to endure camps and poverty.
Click to expand...
Those situations are generally not common though, and it's disingenuous to suggest otherwise
 
sb247 said:
it is racial discrimination, and it’s pretty close to the worst one can do
Click to expand...

Correct. Systemic racism, while obviously present in the past in situations such as the Jim Crow south, does presently still exist in America, and affirmative action laws on the books are perhaps the best example of such.

Numerous black civil rights leaders and scholars, including Malcom X, have and continue to oppose affirmative action policies and view them as harmful to the progress of black Americans. They suggest that given equal footing, that blacks are still dependent on whites to give them an extra leg up to acheive the same. It is quite paternalistic. It creates a society where minorities who go into professions such as medicine will have to live with people wondering if they truly acheived based on merit on a level playing field or if the bar was simply lowered for them. How is that fair? In fact, the University of California system have done away with using the SAT and ACT as they are viewed as racist because blacks did not do as well. The entire point of these tests was to eliminate racial bias from the application process and give minorities a chance to prove their academic merit without their race being factored in. These tests actually helped minorities gain entrance into university and they were ironically eliminated as racist!

The problem is that Americans have been gaslit to believe that if a proportional balance in a certain field or organization does not exist in relation to population numbers that it automatically must be due to a ghost in the machine perpetuating endemic racism. There can literally be no other explanation and the only thing that matters is making sure that if there are exactly 2.3% black transsexuals in the population that 2.3% of radiation oncologists must be black transsexuals. If there are less, then they are being systematically oppressed. No other alternative explanation is allowed to be investigated. If you even attempt to investigate an alternative hypothesis, then you will be called a racist and fired from your academic position (you know, the discipline of pursuing truth and enlightenment). The process is completely anti-scientific. Did anybody notice the "Cancel STEM" movement recently? STEM is racist because there aren't a lot of minorities in it. Clearly STEM must be systematically discriminating against minorities. Nevermind the fact that STEM programs go to great lengths to try and recruit women and racial minorities and hire female and minority deans. The soft "science" disciplines that end in the word "studies" that do not adhere to the scientific method in their discipline and openly permit bias in their "studies" have hijacked the hard science disciplines that do and are actively trying to destroy, or cancel, them. They couldn't hack in real science, so they have to destroy real science. It's amazing.

It's shocking how few intelligent individuals can see the logical flaw in this line of thinking. Unfortunately this is a result of decades of indoctrination by radical leftists in higher education.
 
sb247 said:
I’m arguing racial discrimination is morally wrong
Click to expand...

Absolutely. That's what people aren't seeing.

Racism is morally wrong and one of the most abhorrent philosophies of man because it strips away individuality and assigns a person to a collective group based on attributes beyond an individual's control. Any philosophy that limits the individual and creates a collective is wrong. Any philosophy that views individuals as anything other than inherently equal is wrong. An inconvenient truth to many.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OTN

Attachments

  • D8oG95n.jpg
    D8oG95n.jpg
    34.2 KB · Views: 90
medgator said:
Those situations are generally not common though, and it's disingenuous to suggest otherwise
Click to expand...

It's actually quite common.
Most of the blacks and URMs in my medical school class came from wealthy families and grew up with immense privilege, went to private schools, etc. There was at least one native African from a billionaire family.
That's what happens when you enact policies that focus on diversity based on skin color and not on socioeconomic factors. Very few students of any color came from poor backgrounds. In fact, perhaps the most diverse student in the class was a white girl who grew up in poverty with a single mother. Truly the outlier in the group.
 
elementaryschooleconomics said:
Standard disclaimer: we should not be encouraging anyone to go into RadOnc until we get our own house in order. That being said...

It absolutely starts with quotas, and it just needs to be acknowledged. The entire higher education system is geared towards people who have "means", financial and/or social. If you come from a family where your parents went to college, maybe even graduate education or a professional degree, you're going to have a leg up against the kids who don't have that - regardless of gender or skin color. You're going to make the "right moves" earlier, which gives a stronger set of experiences and knowledge to build on - a "force multiplier" which by the time residency applications roll around will be very evident.

Compare this to a peer who may be equally "smart" or "talented" but comes from a family where no one went to college, where maybe finances aren't as strong, and the expectations are different. Are you going to be doing heavy volunteer work in high school? Have access to premium SAT prep to help you get into a prestigious undergrad? Even know that that's something you should be doing? No, you likely won't. This is without even considering the overt discrimination thrown at certain populations and what that does.

However, these are problems well outside the control of Radiation Oncology. Again, we should be cutting spots but...I guess we're not on that path right now. Programs should be making rank list with the intention of increasing diversity. This will be (marginally) easier with Step 1 going pass/fail. Really - once you're in practice, is there much of a difference (in patient outcomes) between someone who scored a 225 vs a 265? I doubt it - but I also don't think that study has ever been performed.

If someone has been able to get accepted into an accredited medical school and graduate, they should be qualified to be a Radiation Oncology resident/attending, and there's nothing wrong with ranking a "majority" applicant with better scores lower than a "minority" applicant with a weaker application with the explicit goal to increase diversity. Just own what you're doing.

That being said, this presents unique problems for RadOnc. The Harvards of the world are very likely to hit their diversity target. The top tier programs will become even more difficult for "majority" medical students to match into, which incurs the downstream effects we talk about so often on this board. I will ALWAYS maintain that RadOnc might only be worth it if you can guarantee getting into an old, big, Brand Name program (preferably in the geographic region you want a job in afterwards). But can you guarantee that? No.

Really, I think (non-SDN) people are asking the wrong question. We shouldn't be asking "how" to increase diversity, we need to be asking "should" we increase diversity. The only thing we know for certain is the number of radiation oncology residents has MASSIVELY increased in a short amount of time, whereas the number of cancer patients or indications for radiation therapy have definitely not seen the same growth. Whether or not the market can actually absorb this is a study which should be done by actual economists and not residents doing database analysis - but logic dictates the market cannot absorb an arbitrary doubling of RadOncs over the long term.

Therefore, quotas, increasing diversity, etc are really only making the people in charge feel good, patting themselves on the back about how woke and progressive they are. They don't really care about the actual applicants. When the foundation of RadOnc is rotten, we shouldn't be trying to bring more folks to the house party. Unless you want to watch a building collapse.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply. Like many things in life, it is easy to point out a problem (lack of diversity) , but solutions are so much harder to come by.

The thing I am curious about is if there are PDs are truly committed to this, they should just do it (not that its the right thing to do). They have all, but said it, but I think they should just come out and say "we will not take more than 50% men and will ensure to take X% of URM." This way, it's fair and gives everyone a heads up. Not sure what's stopping them as all the moment is on there side. If you believe it so much, just do it and then let the cards fall where they may...
 
RadOncMegatron said:
Thanks for the reply. Like many things in life, it is easy to point out a problem (lack of diversity) , but solutions are so much harder to come by.

The thing I am curious about is if there are PDs are truly committed to this, they should just do it (not that its the right thing to do). They have all, but said it, but I think they should just come out and say "we will not take more than 50% men and will ensure to take X% of URM." This way, it's fair and gives everyone a heads up. Not sure what's stopping them as all the moment is on there side. If you believe it so much, just do it and then let the cards fall where they may...
Click to expand...

Exactly! This issue can and will be debated till the end of time (reference: we're still in this thread, so many years later). I only wish departments/PDs would be explicit with the rules of the game, whatever those rules are.
 
medgator said:
Those situations are generally not common though, and it's disingenuous to suggest otherwise
Click to expand...

But you agree that since white population is about equally represented, I have brought this up before, that what will happen is that URMs will replace the ethnicities that are overrepresented namely Asians, Indians, and Jews.
 
RadOncMegatron said:
But you agree that since white population is about equally represented, I have brought this up before, that what will happen is that URMs will replace the ethnicities that are overrepresented namely Asians, Indians, and Jews.
Click to expand...
Not a bad thing for society imo, and i say that as an "ORM", just like I'm ready for marginal rates to go up and the deficit to go down in the next administration. I don't let what affects me personally dictate what i think is best for a stable and productive society
 
RadOncMegatron said:
Notes the following disparities

US population females 50.8% ; Underrepresented Minorities (URM) 30%

Med School female graduates 48.3%; URM 15.6%

RO female residents 33.3%; URM 6.9%

Med onc female fellows 45.0%; URM 10.8%;
Click to expand...

It is scientifically disingenuous to conclude from the above data that there is systemic racism and sexism in radiation oncology and further to suggest that something must be done to correct it. It is likewise disingenous to suggest that if the numbers are exactly proportional then systemic racism and sexism cannot exist. Inherent racial and sexual bias may very well exist and be a cause of that dispairty. But you cannot draw that conclusion from the data presented. Any honest person will admit this. Alternative explanations may, and likely do also exist, as to why fewer women and minorities gravitate towards this field, and they are worthy of study as well. Because if they exist, then perhaps we are trying to fix a problem that is really not a problem and in doing so will cause harm.

To be clear, if systemic racism and sexism exist in rad onc that are putting up barriers to entry for women and racial minorities, then I am all for knocking down those barriers. But you have to show me those barriers. Pointing to the numbers alone is a very, very weak argument. Pointing to sexist emails from a jerk like Paul Wallner, is a much stronger argument. Perhaps lets start by getting rid of a very identifiable barrier like Paul Wallner? Anybody disagree with that?
 
KHE88 said:
Correct. Systemic racism, while obviously present in the past in situations such as the Jim Crow south, does presently still exist in America, and affirmative action laws on the books are perhaps the best example of such.

Numerous black civil rights leaders and scholars, including Malcom X, have and continue to oppose affirmative action policies and view them as harmful to the progress of black Americans. They suggest that given equal footing, that blacks are still dependent on whites to give them an extra leg up to acheive the same. It is quite paternalistic. It creates a society where minorities who go into professions such as medicine will have to live with people wondering if they truly acheived based on merit on a level playing field or if the bar was simply lowered for them. How is that fair? In fact, the University of California system have done away with using the SAT and ACT as they are viewed as racist because blacks did not do as well. The entire point of these tests was to eliminate racial bias from the application process and give minorities a chance to prove their academic merit without their race being factored in. These tests actually helped minorities gain entrance into university and they were ironically eliminated as racist!
Click to expand...

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.
 
KHE88 said:
Correct. Systemic racism, while obviously present in the past in situations such as the Jim Crow south, does presently still exist in America, and affirmative action laws on the books are perhaps the best example of such.

Numerous black civil rights leaders and scholars, including Malcom X, have and continue to oppose affirmative action policies and view them as harmful to the progress of black Americans. They suggest that given equal footing, that blacks are still dependent on whites to give them an extra leg up to acheive the same. It is quite paternalistic. It creates a society where minorities who go into professions such as medicine will have to live with people wondering if they truly acheived based on merit on a level playing field or if the bar was simply lowered for them. How is that fair? In fact, the University of California system have done away with using the SAT and ACT as they are viewed as racist because blacks did not do as well. The entire point of these tests was to eliminate racial bias from the application process and give minorities a chance to prove their academic merit without their race being factored in. These tests actually helped minorities gain entrance into university and they were ironically eliminated as racist!

The problem is that Americans have been gaslit to believe that if a proportional balance in a certain field or organization does not exist in relation to population numbers that it automatically must be due to a ghost in the machine perpetuating endemic racism. There can literally be no other explanation and the only thing that matters is making sure that if there are exactly 2.3% black transsexuals in the population that 2.3% of radiation oncologists must be black transsexuals. If there are less, then they are being systematically oppressed. No other alternative explanation is allowed to be investigated. If you even attempt to investigate an alternative hypothesis, then you will be called a racist and fired from your academic position (you know, the discipline of pursuing truth and enlightenment). The process is completely anti-scientific. Did anybody notice the "Cancel STEM" movement recently? STEM is racist because there aren't a lot of minorities in it. Clearly STEM must be systematically discriminating against minorities. Nevermind the fact that STEM programs go to great lengths to try and recruit women and racial minorities and hire female and minority deans. The soft "science" disciplines that end in the word "studies" that do not adhere to the scientific method in their discipline and openly permit bias in their "studies" have hijacked the hard science disciplines that do and are actively trying to destroy, or cancel, them. They couldn't hack in real science, so they have to destroy real science. It's amazing.

It's shocking how few intelligent individuals can see the logical flaw in this line of thinking. Unfortunately this is a result of decades of indoctrination by radical leftists in higher education.
Click to expand...

I've heard Bret Weinstein refer to this as the "Racism of the Gaps" hypothesis (of which he would disagree with).

It's adapted from the (ridiculous) saying that what cannot be explained in science can be attributed to God. IE the "God of the Gap" where God is involved in phenomena we can't explain.

Thus, any gap like you mentioned above (let's say Black Women in engineering....Black Women make up like 7% of US population but let's say < 2% of all engineers). So this gap is obviously explained by racism (systemic or otherwise). Racism is placed as the highest variable of cause for this gap, above things like differences in gender issues in the field (or just inherent lack of interest in engineering by females in general...which can be cross cultural), culture, parental influence, poverty, etc.

Weinstein himself is a progressive...if that matters to anyone.
 
Last edited:
elementaryschooleconomics said:
Exactly! This issue can and will be debated till the end of time (reference: we're still in this thread, so many years later). I only wish departments/PDs would be explicit with the rules of the game, whatever those rules are.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I grow tired of the virtue signalling. This battle has been seemingly "lost." Just be upfront, honest, and let us know.
 
medgator said:
It's been going on for centuries.
Click to expand...
and has always been wrong, I am suggesting we shouldn’t do something we literally know is morally wrong
Mandelin Rain said:
"I only acknowledge racial discrimination that I can see and doesn't stand to benefit me. In many ways, I'm the victim."
Click to expand...
I dislike all the racial discrimination. It’s dishonest and manipulative to imply I don’t, you can be better than that
 
medgator said:
Not a bad thing for society imo, and i say that as an "ORM", just like I'm ready for marginal rates to go up and the deficit to go down in the next administration. I don't let what affects me personally dictate what i think is best for a stable and productive society
Click to expand...

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).
 
KHE88 said:
It is scientifically disingenuous to conclude from the above data that there is systemic racism and sexism in radiation oncology and further to suggest that something must be done to correct it. It is likewise disingenous to suggest that if the numbers are exactly proportional then systemic racism and sexism cannot exist. Inherent racial and sexual bias may very well exist and be a cause of that dispairty. But you cannot draw that conclusion from the data presented. Any honest person will admit this. Alternative explanations may, and likely do also exist, as to why fewer women and minorities gravitate towards this field, and they are worthy of study as well. Because if they exist, then perhaps we are trying to fix a problem that is really not a problem and in doing so will cause harm.

To be clear, if systemic racism and sexism exist in rad onc that are putting up barriers to entry for women and racial minorities, then I am all for knocking down those barriers. But you have to show me those barriers. Pointing to the numbers alone is a very, very weak argument. Pointing to sexist emails from a jerk like Paul Wallner, is a much stronger argument. Perhaps lets start by getting rid of a very identifiable barrier like Paul Wallner? Anybody disagree with that?
Click to expand...

You and I know it is not the science that is backing up the data, but ideology.
 
RadOncMegatron said:
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).
Click to expand...
Whoever said life was fair? Why shouldn't we have doctors from all walks of life? Should all physicians/ROs be Asian and white males? Asian/Indians here are model minorities with higher income levels and more resources to provide their 2nd gen offspring
 
medgator said:
Whoever said life was fair? Why shouldn't we have doctors from all walks of life? Should all physicians/ROs be Asian and white males?
Click to expand...

Isn't fairness the issue? Otherwise why try to have diversity? I think that is the honorable gut instinct behind the movement. There is injustice and unfairness that needs to be corrected for URMs and women. Did I get that wrong?
 
RadOncMegatron said:
Isn't fairness the issue? Otherwise why try to have diversity? I think that is the honorable gut instinct behind the movement. There is injustice and unfairness that needs to be corrected for URMs and women. Did I get that wrong?
Click to expand...
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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

CurbYourExpectations
  • Poll Poll
Would you apply today?
2 3
Replies
103
Views
11K
TheWallnerus
TheWallnerus
CurbYourExpectations
  • Locked
Thank you all
Replies
8
Views
2K
evilbooyaa
evilbooyaa
CurbYourExpectations
  • Poll Poll
Do you support encroachment into the field?
Replies
46
Views
3K
medgator
M
DoctwoB
Which of you is irradiating Joel Embiid?
Replies
8
Views
2K
SneakyBooger
SneakyBooger
Anthodite
To rad oncs who acknowledge rt students, I love you
Replies
0
Views
867
Anthodite
Anthodite
Top