To be PC or not to be PC. That is the question.

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Status
Not open for further replies.
ChymeChancellor said:
MinnyGophers said:
The OP already posted the statistics genius!!! :oops:

Which include only about 10% of the medical field (Peds) :idea:
Hopefully, when you do research, you include more than 10% of the data present and do not selectively choose what data you want to show...

Members don't see this ad.
 
is that really a question adcoms ask? how the hell are we expected to know the answer to that in any meaningful way, besides parroting whatever we read on healthcare sites and newspapers?
 
lurker884 said:
Hello everyone. I did not mean for this to turn into a big argument like it has. I honestly feel that many of the problems the medical profession has stem from women in medicine. If medicine was all men then the AVERAGE doctor would work more AVERAGE hours and thus more patients on AVERAGE would be seen per doctor in america.

The problem is, whenever I talk like this I am automatically labelled as a sexist/racist bigot. I think I am bringing up legitimate points. The fact of the matter is training a woman instead of a man causes thousands of patients to not have a doctor. Women are very seflish pursuing careers in medicine because they CAUSE all these problems so that they can live comfortable lives for themselves.

I dont know whether I should be honest or not in my interviews about how I feel

Dude, just don't talk about it. This topic is like saying that minorities should not be able to practice medicine. It's okay if you feel that way but it is in your best interest not to express it in any possible way. It can only hurt you and there are plenty of other topics that will make you look like you care about problems in medicine you can actually do something about. If you are ever an adcom you can belittle the women who you interview.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
lurker884 said:
Hello everyone. I did not mean for this to turn into a big argument like it has. I honestly feel that many of the problems the medical profession has stem from women in medicine. If medicine was all men then the AVERAGE doctor would work more AVERAGE hours and thus more patients on AVERAGE would be seen per doctor in america.

The problem is, whenever I talk like this I am automatically labelled as a sexist/racist bigot. I think I am bringing up legitimate points. The fact of the matter is training a woman instead of a man causes thousands of patients to not have a doctor. Women are very seflish pursuing careers in medicine because they CAUSE all these problems so that they can live comfortable lives for themselves.

I dont know whether I should be honest or not in my interviews about how I feel

They "selfishly" CAUSE??? Oh wow, with reasoning like that, you won't go very far in this debate... I don't doubt that there are issues out there in terms of women in health care, but if that's the best reasoning you can give, you're in trouble.


What is solution to the problem then? Eliminate women from healthcare? Good luck with that.
 
MinnyGophers said:
They "selfishly" CAUSE??? Oh wow, with reasoning like that, you won't go very far in this debate... I don't doubt that there are issues out there in terms of women in health care, but if that's the best reasoning you can give, you're in trouble.


What is solution to the problem then? Eliminate women from healthcare? Good luck with that.

OK enough of this game. Every woman doctor that I know works just as hard or harder than the male doctors I know. Women doctors also seem much more compassionate and caring than their male counterparts. Women doctors are not the problem.

If you want to talk about lack of access to medicine, you might want to talk about increasing the seats in a medical school class or something. Just don't talk about you you think females don't make good doctors.
 
legobikes said:
is that really a question adcoms ask? how the hell are we expected to know the answer to that in any meaningful way, besides parroting whatever we read on healthcare sites and newspapers?
In many interviews you will be asked about the biggest problem with health care, and how you would fix it. I've had interviews where they even asked the same question assuming you were different people (the Surgeon General, the Dean of the University, the governor, etc). I personally didn't go with the "get rid of all the women" answer, and they seemed satisfied with my responses. But I didn't get into all those schools, so maybe the OP is onto something. :laugh:
 
Law2Doc said:
In many interviews you will be asked about the biggest problem with health care, and how you would fix it. I've had interviews where they even asked the same question assuming you were different people (the Surgeon General, the Dean of the University, the governor, etc). I personally didn't go with the "get rid of all the women" answer, and they seemed satisfied with my responses. But I didn't get into all those schools, so maybe the OP is onto something. :laugh:

Better watch out if the adcom is a woman though ;)
 
I agree that the OP is ridiculous. However, I do believe gender in medicine is something worth talking about. No, I don't think "only men should be allowed in med school" because they work more... that's stupid.

But take, say, pediatrics, which is quickly becoming some 75% female...Any thoughts on whether that's a good or bad thing, or doesn't matter?

I don't know that it's a huge deal for peds, maybe, maybe not...But such shortages can have effects. It's a different situation and career I suppose, but I honestly do feel, for example, that there is a major shortage of good male teachers in the education system. I think there are advantages to boys, particularly middle/high school age, having daily contact with positive male role models, in addition to female ones.

Education no longer favors males as it did for our parents and grandparents and beyond. Clearly, this is a good thing. But it's also important to remember that schools are there for everyone. Colleges in the US now enroll well over 50% females, and for people of color, the male/female discrepancy is really quite large. I don't know about your schools, but my med school class does not include a single black male. I am from Chicago, and recently a study came out finding that if you are a black or Latino male starting freshman year at a Chicago public high school, you have a THREE PERCENT CHANCE of earning a bachelors degree within 6 years. Similar stats are probably true around the country, this is just the study I read recently. There are a lot of reasons for this, but I believe a lack of male role models is a big one.

I attended Chicago Public Schools, and I had 1 male teacher of any race all through middle and high school. I don't consider myself a sexist. But I don't know, is it sexist to think that maybe there should have been a couple more?

Again, I know it's not exactly the same thing as medicine, and is a little different topic than the question, but my point is that discussions about gender are not always totally out of place, not are they always the product of sexism.
 
lurker884 said:
Hello everyone. I did not mean for this to turn into a big argument like it has. I honestly feel that many of the problems the medical profession has stem from women in medicine. If medicine was all men then the AVERAGE doctor would work more AVERAGE hours and thus more patients on AVERAGE would be seen per doctor in america.

The problem is, whenever I talk like this I am automatically labelled as a sexist/racist bigot. I think I am bringing up legitimate points. The fact of the matter is training a woman instead of a man causes thousands of patients to not have a doctor. Women are very seflish pursuing careers in medicine because they CAUSE all these problems so that they can live comfortable lives for themselves.

I dont know whether I should be honest or not in my interviews about how I feel

you know what else would solve the problem? men contributing to household duties more. the average number of hours worked would then be about the same. why not think about what men are doing wrong rather than blaming women who have much more responsibility? and by saying what you are, you are saying that women should not be allowed to pursue their dreams and goals--and yes that is sexist... demeaning one group's ambitions is discriminatory.
 
ChymeChancellor said:
OK enough of this game. Every woman doctor that I know works just as hard or harder than the male doctors I know. Women doctors also seem much more compassionate and caring than their male counterparts. Women doctors are not the problem.

If you want to talk about lack of access to medicine, you might want to talk about increasing the seats in a medical school class or something. Just don't talk about you you think females don't make good doctors.

oh so you were being a troll in your previous posts? :smuggrin:

And I agree, hence the previous posts...
 
OP, i hope that you write that on your application and then a female adcom reads it. :)
 
MinnyGophers said:
oh so you were being a troll in your previous posts? :smuggrin:

And I agree, hence the previous posts...

:D
 
Members don't see this ad :)
MasterMD said:
you know what else would solve the problem? men contributing to household duties more. the average number of hours worked would then be about the same. why not think about what men are doing wrong rather than blaming women who have much more responsibility? and by saying what you are, you are saying that women should not be allowed to pursue their dreams and goals--and yes that is sexist... demeaning one group's ambitions is discriminatory.

And maybe women can stop carrying those men's children, so no need for maternity leave... There you go. That's the solution. :idea:
 
jocg27 said:
But take, say, pediatrics, which is quickly becoming some 75% female...Any thoughts on whether that's a good or bad thing, or doesn't matter?

More women genuinely like dealing with kids than men do (michael jackson excepted). Most guys consider them to be just small inattentive noisy people with nothing interesting to say. And most of the people who bring kids into the doctor are mothers, who may relate better to a woman doc. So I see nothing wrong with women gravitating to this specialty.
 
MinnyGophers said:
They "selfishly" CAUSE??? Oh wow, with reasoning like that, you won't go very far in this debate... I don't doubt that there are issues out there in terms of women in health care, but if that's the best reasoning you can give, you're in trouble.

What is solution to the problem then? Eliminate women from healthcare? Good luck with that.

I agree... And eliminating women from healthcare will cause a whole lot more problems, considering that about 50% of med schools now are women, though it varies slightly from school to school (I think AECOM has a majority of women for the past couple years). If all medicine was men, the AVERAGE doctor probably wouldn't be as qualified to be a doctor. Furthermore, if we're talking about all of heathcare, instead of just physicians, you'd have many problems eliminating women from medicine, not even thinking about the social repercussions of such, you would end up with a lot smaller of a support staff. Most nurses are women (and yes, I realize that men are nurses... my dad is one), and there's STILL a shortage of nurses in America. Banning women from that would only make the problem worse. The fact that many women are part time because they wish to actually take part in their children's lives may contribute to the problem, but the answer is not banning women from medicine.
 
lurker884 said:
Hello everyone. I did not mean for this to turn into a big argument like it has. I honestly feel that many of the problems the medical profession has stem from women in medicine. If medicine was all men then the AVERAGE doctor would work more AVERAGE hours and thus more patients on AVERAGE would be seen per doctor in america.

The problem is, whenever I talk like this I am automatically labelled as a sexist/racist bigot. I think I am bringing up legitimate points. The fact of the matter is training a woman instead of a man causes thousands of patients to not have a doctor. Women are very seflish pursuing careers in medicine because they CAUSE all these problems so that they can live comfortable lives for themselves.

I dont know whether I should be honest or not in my interviews about how I feel

Beucase you keep posting, I am going to reply out of fear that you are telling the truth and can't understand the flaws in your logic.

Have you thought about why women may work less hours? Do you think it could perhaps be because women are shouldering more responsibility of childcare and housework than men? Many years ago, women were expected to shoulder all of this responsibility. Now, women can attempt to have jobs like a career in medicine. Although many women have taken advantage of this right, many men have not stepped up to take on a full half of the childcare and housework responsibilities. This has been well documented (read "The Second Shift" by Hochschild).

Your proposition that doctors be all male assumes then that these males will work more hours because they won't have to devote less time to work (which would leave more time for the domestic sphere). Based on that logic, most male doctors will basically be married to women who are shouldering this domestic responsibility that is being neglected. Sounds kinda like a long time ago when most men worked the full-time jobs and women were taking care of the home, no?

Are the women today really "very selfish pursuing careers in medicine because they CAUSE all these problems so that they can live comfortable lives for themselves?" Or are many of the male doctors being "selfish" in their medical career by neglecting their responsibilities for childcare and housework?

Why is it that you think women work fewer hours than men? Do you really think it is because they are not as hard-working as men and want to work less hours just to relax and be "comfortable"?
 
jocg27 said:
I am from Chicago, and recently a study came out finding that if you are a black or Latino male starting freshman year at a Chicago public high school, you have a THREE PERCENT CHANCE of earning a bachelors degree within 6 years.

I'd say that's pretty damn good! Getting a bachelor's degree by age 20.


(You did really mean 8 instead of 6, right?)
 
jocg27 said:
I am from Chicago, and recently a study came out finding that if you are a black or Latino male starting freshman year at a Chicago public high school, you have a THREE PERCENT CHANCE of earning a bachelors degree within 6 years. Similar stats are probably true around the country, this is just the study I read recently.

Just out of curiosity, and I'm not sure if this was a typo or I'm just misreading it, so don't flame me, but how many people can get a bachelors degree in 6 years from the start of high school? Most people that I know take 8 years... 4 for high school and 4 for the bachelor's degree. Once and a while, I hear of someone like myself or a couple of my friends that manage it in 7 years, but I don't know many that finish in 6. Or is it that they take 6 years after high school to earn a bachelor's degree?
 
TCIrish03 said:
I'd say that's pretty damn good! Getting a bachelor's degree by age 20.


(You did really mean 8 instead of 6, right?)

lol sorry....6 years after when they graduated or would have graduated high school....ie ~age 24
 
really though this thread was about macs vs pcs. kinda dissapointed... anyways, apples kick ass. you should buy one. seriuosly.
 
jocg27 said:
lol sorry....6 years after when they graduated or would have graduated high school....ie ~age 24


national average for this stat = 64%
 
So in conclusion OP, yes, go ahead and tell that nice adcomm about the problem in healthcare, and your simple solution.

Otherwise, if you want to go to medical school, you should do a little more research on this problem ( less doctors). Always consider all possibilities, rather than jumping straight at conclusions from reading statistics and data that do not even comprise the entire problem at hand. You'll be a better doctor for it.

Good luck! :thumbup:
 
I feel as if people are not being fair in regards to my feelings. It is well known that women do not work as hard as men and therefore are not as productive doctors. They see less patients per week than men do. So its pretty reasonable to conclude that if we had less women in medicine then there would be more men and therefore more patietns would be seen. Women are being very selfish taking spots from men who will work harder then them
 
lurker884 said:
I feel as if people are not being fair in regards to my feelings. It is well known that women do not work as hard as men and therefore are not as productive doctors. They see less patients per week than men do. So its pretty reasonable to conclude that if we had less women in medicine then there would be more men and therefore more patietns would be seen. Women are being very selfish taking spots from men who will work harder then them

Give us tangible statistics that say that women do not work as hard as men and less productive doctors, and then we'll talk. Right now, you're the only one who sees that, and with "reasoning" like that, people will only laugh at your face and it makes me question whether or not you're fit to be a doctor, let alone a scientist. It's not even a matter of people saying that you are discriminative and bitter, because, you are.

What, did a girl beat you up and take your ice-cream when you were a kid?

What about men who are selfish in pursuing their medical careers, who let their wives take care of the children and household alone? Or are you one of those who still lives in the 1800s?
 
lurker884 said:
I feel as if people are not being fair in regards to my feelings. It is well known that women do not work as hard as men and therefore are not as productive doctors. They see less patients per week than men do. So its pretty reasonable to conclude that if we had less women in medicine then there would be more men and therefore more patietns would be seen. Women are being very selfish taking spots from men who will work harder then them

We disagree with you. That's not a crime, nor is it a crime to have your opinion in the first place. However, making general statements like 'It is well known that women do not work as hard as men...' is not going to win many people over. In fact, I'd venture to say that many women work much harder then men. My mother, for example, is a single mother, working in the army, and before she was deployed, she was working good 60 hour weeks, leaving me to take care of my two little sisters a good part of the time. Before she transfered jobs in 2003, she was the hardest working person in her position, and I believe the others were all men. While this may not apply to medicine, it still makes a point. If you have proof that 'it is well known', then show it, don't just make those generalizations.

And a lot of the shortage is because the medical school aren't graduating enough students to meet the needs of the growing populations. Thus, there's a push to increase the size of medical school classes by... 2015, I believe. And if you pushed women away from medical school, you'd be filling the spots they would've had with people who would be rejected otherwise, for whatever reason. That would lead to a lowering in standards, so you can't say that more patients would be seen, because if the doctors aren't competent, then it wouldn't matter how many patients that they see. And I do realize that this is a snowball type argument.

It's also reasonable to assume if you stopped women from becoming doctors, there wouldn't be enough interest in medicine to fulfill this growing need anyway, since most of the 125 med schools in the US are comprised of about 50% women. That's a lot of spaces to fill.
 
OP - this should work to your advantage, because if there are shortages as you say, AAMC would be forced to increase the number of students getting admitted to the schools. So go for it and let the schools know about your views, and they can communicate it to AAMC.
 
jackieMD2007 said:
No, but concluding that female physicians are the cause of the doctor shortage is.

Most everything I've read (sorry, I don't have citations to offer at this moment) also concludes that female physicians, on average, work fewer hours per week than male physicians do. If this is true, then the fact that female enrollment in medical school has vastly increased from 30 years or however long ago certainly would correlate to a decrease in total physician workload in the US--i.e. the doctor shortage. I'm not suggesting that female physicians are the cause of the doctor shortage, but rather that the failure to plan for these statistical truths by compensating with increased total enrollment in medical schools is the cause. But they're very closely related, nevertheless.

And yes, someone earlier mentioned the real reason behind all of this: the increase in male participation in home responsibilities is lagging behind the increase in female participation in the workplace (studies demonstrating this are also available). It's only logical that when a woman has to both manage the home as well as a professional career, less time will be devoted to the profession than a man who doesn't manage the home would be able to devote.
 
Looque said:
Most everything I've read (sorry, I don't have citations to offer at this moment) also concludes that female physicians, on average, work fewer hours per week than male physicians do. If this is true, then the fact that female enrollment in medical school has vastly increased from 30 years or however long ago certainly would correlate to a decrease in total physician workload in the US--i.e. the doctor shortage. I'm not suggesting that female physicians are the cause of the doctor shortage, but rather that the failure to plan for these statistical truths by compensating with increased total enrollment in medical schools is the cause. But they're very closely related, nevertheless.

And yes, someone earlier mentioned the real reason behind all of this: the increase in male participation in home responsibilities is lagging behind the increase in female participation in the workplace (studies demonstrating this are also available). It's only logical that when a woman has to both manage the home as well as a professional career, less time will be devoted to the profession than a man who doesn't manage the home would be able to devote.

Finally a post that has good reasoning.

It is impossible to eliminate women from healthcare. Let's be serious. But if we look at the amount of work that women do, it is larger than the amount of men do because they have to take care of the household. If the household chores were divided equally, it wouldn't be a women problem on its own.
Also, med schools reject a lot of qualified applicants, who could participate in the fight against doc shortage if they were given the chance.

But the fact that it is a shortage in rural areas will make it difficult unless they somehow find a way to entice docs there.
 
Right, because there aren't any lazy male doctors--all of them work crazy hours weekly. :rolleyes: Because all of the male run private practice places have M-Sat, 7am to 7pm schedules. Give me a break!

Besides, there are a lot of things that a doctor does in a day besides seeing patients--the reduced hours don't necessarily mean less patients being seen. Before you attack the people who decide to go into medicine, why don't you look into the fact that the reason a lot of people don't have medical care is because they cannot afford it/do not have insurance.
 
jackieMD2007 said:
Before you attack the people who decide to go into medicine, why don't you look into the fact that the reason a lot of people don't have medical care is because they cannot afford it/do not have insurance.

Right. I wouldn't have been making the physician shortage claim as being the biggest problem in medicine in the first place. But in terms of a physician shortage, to my knowledge, some projections of major shortages (especially as baby-boomers begin to age, and all the baby-boomer doctors also retire) even take into consideration those who utilize the services. If that's the case, then the fact that many people don't receive medical care because they can't afford it is only a statement to the shortage being worse than even numbers reveal. However, I could've wrongly interpreted a past article that I read on the subject; maybe none of the projections do take into consideration the insurance issue.

But yes, I would build an argument around the cost of care and insurance issues as being the biggest problem in medicine, rather than the relatively easy to remedy issue of a physician shortage. (Although, given the time it takes to train a doctor, we better start addressing that one soon before all these baby-boomers do retire from medicine, and require more medical services as they're aging.)
 
lurker884 said:
I feel as if people are not being fair in regards to my feelings. It is well known that women do not work as hard as men and therefore are not as productive doctors. They see less patients per week than men do. So its pretty reasonable to conclude that if we had less women in medicine then there would be more men and therefore more patietns would be seen. Women are being very selfish taking spots from men who will work harder then them

Since when does seeing more patients mean that you work more? Would you rather go to a doctor who sees lets say 500 patients a week (just a random number), spends 5 minutes with them before sending them out, or someone who sees half that and spends as much time as needed with each patient, explaining what's going on with them and answering questions.

If all doctors went by how many patients htey see, there would be many more disgruntled and confused patients out there.
 
MinnyGophers said:
But the fact that it is a shortage in rural areas will make it difficult unless they somehow find a way to entice docs there.

The rural issue is a tough one, no doubt. A lot of rural hospitals, maybe even more than I realize, cover a med student's loans if they agree to practice medicine there for x number of years. Even that quite large incentive hasn't brought nearly as many doctors as they'd hoped.
 
Looque said:
The rural issue is a tough one, no doubt. A lot of rural hospitals, maybe even more than I realize, cover a med student's loans if they agree to practice medicine there for x number of years. Even that quite large incentive hasn't brought nearly as many doctors as they'd hoped.

That's why a lot of schools are prioritizing primary care right now. However, the doc's salary wouldn't be nearly as high as if he/she treated patients in a large private hospital and probably believes he/she wouldn't see many interesting cases...
 
Looque said:
The rural issue is a tough one, no doubt. A lot of rural hospitals, maybe even more than I realize, cover a med student's loans if they agree to practice medicine there for x number of years. Even that quite large incentive hasn't brought nearly as many doctors as they'd hoped.

There's also a lot of programs that will grant full tuition (and maybe more... I can't remember) to students that will practice in underserved areas for a certain number of years. That apparently isn't enticing more people either. The military is also trying to get more doctors by giving even more incentives than they have in the past. Some people obviously choose to go this route, but there are those that don't see that as an option, either.
 
MinnyGophers said:
That's why a lot of schools are prioritizing primary care right now. However, the doc's salary wouldn't be nearly as high as if he/she treated patients in a large private hospital and probably believes he/she wouldn't see many interesting cases...

Yeah, it isn't easy to say. True, schools are prioritizing primary care with the hopes of making up for the rural deficits (and primary care deficits in general), with mixed results. Being from a very small town myself (heck, my high school graduating class was 7 students), I feel as if the biggest obstacle is pulling largely urban or suburban-raised individuals into the country. Salary plays a part also, but I think the pure geography of the matter is the biggest fear of med school graduates. Ehhh but that's all conjecture.
 
As to the original question, from the original poster, I think you should be honest in interviews. Yes. Then med schools will quickly see what a misogynist dingus you are and we won't have to count you within our numbers.

Regardless of what statistics say about time spent at work, years in career, etc., excluding an entire gender from a particular profession is ludicrous, not to mention discriminatory. You made your offense that much worse by stating that, "it is well known that women do not work as hard as men" and "women are being selfish taking spots from men who will work harder than them." If you have to have some life-saving surgery later in life, I hope you get the kind of doctor that your scenario would produce: an overworked, male (of course) doctor, who incidentally would never have made it into med school under the current system, but since we are excluding all females, schools are scraping at the bottom of the barrel of male applicants, allowing ill-prepared, less intelligent applicants into school, just to have bodies in lab coats and stethoscopes later on in life.

As much as I dislike making generalities (in the same way you did), I have to say that I really hate people like you.

Condensed and packaged for your convenience
 
drjewel said:
As to the original question, from the original poster, I think you should be honest in interviews. Yes. Then med schools will quickly see what a misogynist dingus you are and we won't have to count you within our numbers.

Regardless of what statistics say about time spent at work, years in career, etc., excluding an entire gender from a particular profession is ludicrous, not to mention discriminatory. You made your offense that much worse by stating that, "it is well known that women do not work as hard as men" and "women are being selfish taking spots from men who will work harder than them." If you have to have some life-saving surgery later in life, I hope you get the kind of doctor that your scenario would produce: an overworked, male (of course) doctor, who incidentally would never have made it into med school under the current system, but since we are excluding all females, schools are scraping at the bottom of the barrel of male applicants, allowing ill-prepared, less intelligent applicants into school, just to have bodies in lab coats and stethoscopes later on in life.

As much as I dislike making generalities (in the same way you did), I have to say that I really hate people like you.

Condensed and packaged for your convenience

People with reasonings like the OP are bound to show some ethical issues at one point or another, so hopefully, it won't be when treating patients or doing lifesaving research... :rolleyes:
 
Looque said:
Yeah, it isn't easy to say. True, schools are prioritizing primary care with the hopes of making up for the rural deficits (and primary care deficits in general), with mixed results. Being from a very small town myself (heck, my high school graduating class was 7 students), I feel as if the biggest obstacle is pulling largely urban or suburban-raised individuals into the country. Salary plays a part also, but I think the pure geography of the matter is the biggest fear of med school graduates. Ehhh but that's all conjecture.

OR another thing is that they could try to pull more docs out of the country, who have a higher chance to go back to rural areas than suburbanites/city dwellers...
 
MinnyGophers said:
OR another thing is that they could try to pull more docs out of the country, who have a higher chance to go back to rural areas than suburbanites/city dwellers...

Well, that's another big debate, I suppose. But yeah, I've always felt that if affirmative action is to exist, it should be based not on race/ethnicity, but on socioeconomic status. That would, in my judgment, resolve quite a bit--including helping the cause you just mentioned.
 
bbas said:
And the point of posting that is.....?

Tons of people post their mdapplicants.com profile, myself included.
 
Looque said:
Well, that's another big debate, I suppose. But yeah, I've always felt that if affirmative action is to exist, it should be based not on race/ethnicity, but on socioeconomic status. That would, in my judgment, resolve quite a bit--including helping the cause you just mentioned.

That's another thing we agree on. All those are very good topics for healthcare/med schools issues nowadays.
Also, because a high percentage of underrepresented minorities are of lower social economics status, it would also address the AA issues without making those who are as deserving but not mexican/african-american/native indians...etc... bitter.
 
MinnyGophers said:
That's another thing we agree on. All those are very good topics for healthcare/med schools issues nowadays.
Also, because a high percentage of underepresented minorities are of lower social economics status, it would also address the AA issues without making those who are as deserving but not mexican/african-american/native indians...etc... bitter.

Yeah, that's the whole idea. Someone growing up in a wealthy family in a wealthy suburb, irrespective of race, shouldn't qualify for any kind of perks like affirmative action offers (and, especially in graduate program admissions, or so I've heard, affirmative action disproportionately aids not America's disadvantaged, but foreign students fitting into America's ethnic minorities). Rearranging the program to look at socioeconomic status would only help those that really were disadvantaged, irrespective of race, and given the socioeconomic trends in the US, it would still aid more ethnic minorities.
 
Looque said:
Yeah, that's the whole idea. Someone growing up in a wealthy family in a wealthy suburb, irrespective of race, shouldn't qualify for any kind of perks like affirmative action offers (and, especially in graduate program admissions, or so I've heard, affirmative action disproportionately aids not America's disadvantaged, but foreign students fitting into America's ethnic minorities). Rearranging the program to look at socioeconomic status would only help those that really were disadvantaged, irrespective of race, and given the socioeconomic trends in the US, it would still aid more ethnic minorities.

We should present this case to AMCA and publish a case study on it :laugh:
 
Looque said:
Tons of people post their mdapplicants.com profile, myself included.

In their signature, yes. I don't think we needed any anecdotal evidence to show that women are just as qualified as men to be in med school.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top