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

[Looque]

We should present this case to AMCA and publish a case study on it

I think that would have to stretch beyond the AMCA, not that I don't think such a reform shouldn't be extended beyond the AMCA.

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.

Ah yes, duly noted.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[MinnyGophers]

I think that would have to stretch beyond the AMCA, not that I don't think such a reform shouldn't be extended beyond the AMCA.



Ah yes, duly noted.

You know, it seems to be so simple, just change the AA requirements to socio-economic status, and everyone will be happy... I mean surely, they must have thought about it. What I wonder is, why don't they do that?

 

[mvenus929]

You know, it seems to be so simple, just change the AA requirements to socio-economic status, and everyone will be happy... I mean surely, they must have thought about it. What I wonder is, why don't they do that?

Probably because they think skin color is more important than socioeconomic status:

http://www.aamc.org/newsroom/pressrel/2003/030319.htm

http://www.fairtest.org/facts/mcat.html

http://www.ucsf.edu/daybreak/1998/04/0415_aff.htm

Don't shoot the messenger. I agree with you, but I did a search out of curiosity. And, to be fair, there are a few who disagree with the plan as it is:

http://www.vdare.com/sailer/frist_health.htm

 

[MinnyGophers]

Probably because they think skin color is more important than socioeconomic status:

http://www.aamc.org/newsroom/pressrel/2003/030319.htm

http://www.fairtest.org/facts/mcat.html

http://www.ucsf.edu/daybreak/1998/04/0415_aff.htm

Don't shoot the messenger. I agree with you, but I did a search out of curiosity. And, to be fair, there are a few who disagree with the plan as it is:

http://www.vdare.com/sailer/frist_health.htm

I read Senator Bill Frist's heath plan.
And I can see he's trying to fight racial disparities in health care.
Now that I think of it, if we changed the current AA to lower socio-economic status, while it would still help minorities, it will probably help less minority applicants as then, their possible lower GPA/MCAT scores will be less overlooked and spots will still go to white applicants with better stats, but just lower status...
So that's the answer to my question, diversity trumps quality of care.

 

[Looque]

If affirmative action is to remain a 4th quarter hail-mary like it is now, where it only kicks in once a person reaches at least 18 years of age, or older in the case of graduate/professional programs, I still believe it should be based in socioeconomic status. However, the deeper problem is that it is nothing but a 4th quarter hail-mary. If improving diversity is the goal, and one wants to do it without sacrificing quality, then elementary and high schools in disadvantaged areas (inner city and rural alike) absolutely must be brought up to par. Raised on a level playing field, the need for affirmative action as we know it essentially disappears. To try to rectify the disadvantages retroactively by giving hand-outs is just a poor plan; eliminate the disadvantage.

 

[MinnyGophers]

If affirmative action is to remain a 4th quarter hail-mary like it is now, where it only kicks in once a person reaches at least 18 years of age, or older in the case of graduate/professional programs, I still believe it should be based in socioeconomic status. However, the deeper problem is that it is nothing but a 4th quarter hail-mary. If improving diversity is the goal, and one wants to do it without sacrificing quality, then elementary and high schools in disadvantaged areas (inner city and rural alike) absolutely must be brought up to par. Raised on a level playing field, the need for affirmative action as we know it essentially disappears. To try to rectify the disadvantages retroactively by giving hand-outs is just a poor plan; eliminate the disadvantage.

That's an idealistic point of a view I share, but unfortunately, it is too difficult and would take a lot more money from the government to do that, so it's just easier to hand out free passes to a selected few, and call that "improving education for minorities". But we all know education, especially for minorities, is the least of the government's concerns, especially right now... with all the money going to the military, education is usually the first one cut..

 

[ParvatiP]

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

Actually I just read in the New York Times this week about how women are more successful in college than men because THEY work harder. Check it out if you don't believe me. You are very ignorant if you really believe that men work harder than women. And is it selfish for women to want a career and raise children? Maybe if men took over childcare responsibilities, women wouldn't have to work less hours.
And by all means, share your feelings with adcoms. You don't want to keep these strong opinions bottled up.

 

[Chinorean]

Actually I just read in the New York Times this week about how women are more successful in college than men because THEY work harder. Check it out if you don't believe me.

There's also a great interview with a scientist who had a sex change and how differently he was viewed as a woman.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/18/science/18conv.html

Anyways, if women worked shorter hours, those hours would have to be made up by someone--it's not like a hospital is going to say, Oh well it's 5 pm and half our staff had to go home so we can only see half the number of patients now. So I don't really see how it would contribute to a physician shortage--if anything, there would be more physicians so that all shifts are covered.

 

[VPDcurt]

Anyways, if women worked shorter hours, those hours would have to be made up by someone--it's not like a hospital is going to say, Oh well it's 5 pm and half our staff had to go home so we can only see half the number of patients now. So I don't really see how it would contribute to a physician shortage--if anything, there would be more physicians so that all shifts are covered.

A doctor in private practice does not have someone come in when he/she takes time off. Also, shortages tend to be geographical in the sense that underserved communities exist - they don't have doctors within the area that are capable of helping that community.

 

[MasterMD]

i think we should have all just agreed with the OP and let it be... we were asked for advice and are now being told not to shoot the idea down... kinda strange.. we are giving advice that was asked for and are getting arguments in return.. anyway, just for the record... my mom, sister, and many of my aunts are the hardest working people i know.. not their husbands (all of whom are extremely successful career-wise). these women handle their jobs to the fullest extent of any man and come home and help with homework, cook dinner, clean the house, pay the bills, etc. etc. so no more sweeping generalites..

and lurker.. i bet i work harder than you.

 

[SitraAchra]

this thread is just bait. plus, i've seen this poster before and it's the same inflammatory-style argument about men being harder workers and women being inferior. we should encourage him to voice these views at an interview and that will solve the problem.

 

[MiesVanDerMom]

http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/robot_pages/MeetingAbstracts/102274322.html

If you seriously do at least 2 minutes of research on this topic you will see that women work much less than men do. If all med students were men we wouldn't have a doctor shortage in america

Did you not read my reply because I am a woman or what? The shortage is only in UNDERSERVED AREAS. it's not women not working enough hours. It's a geographic maldistribution. Kicking women out of medicine isn't going to magically make men want to move to rural/inner city areas. The way you do that is by letting in more URMs and disadvantaged students. From your post I call tell you're probably very much in favor of this idea

 

[MinnyGophers]

Did you not read my reply because I am a woman or what? The shortage is only in UNDERSERVED AREAS. it's not women not working enough hours. It's a geographic maldistribution. Kicking women out of medicine isn't going to magically make men want to move to rural/inner city areas. The way you do that is by letting in more URMs and disadvantaged students. From your post I call tell you're probably very much in favor of this idea

yeah, just as long as they're not women, he's fine with it

 

[Darth Asclepius]

I honestly feel that many of the problems the medical profession has stem from women in medicine....Women are very seflish pursuing careers in medicine because they CAUSE all these problems so that they can live comfortable lives for themselves.

You're being too narrow-minded. You think that women cause all the problems in medicine today. You need to think about the big picture here. Everyone knows that women have caused all the problems in the whole world since Eve at that apple. Duh.

 

[MasterMD]

Did you not read my reply because I am a woman or what? The shortage is only in UNDERSERVED AREAS. it's not women not working enough hours. It's a geographic maldistribution. Kicking women out of medicine isn't going to magically make men want to move to rural/inner city areas. The way you do that is by letting in more URMs and disadvantaged students. From your post I call tell you're probably very much in favor of this idea

btw.. your avatar is ADORABLE...!!!!!!!!!!!!