Yale Psych drama and current state of the program

[annoyedpsychiatrist]

Reading between the lines it sounds like he may have just been a pain of an attending and they were far more excited about other candidates being considered. My bet is that yes, diversity is a part of their concerns, but that they are hanging their argument on that because they just can't outright say we don't like the guy, his vibes are off and we think he'll make us miserable

It seems like a relatively low probability that a fresh PGY1 had much interaction with the PD to determine if he was a pain to work with or not. Im skeptical about how often there was interaction at that point.

If they didnt like the guy then maybe they would at least have examples why, lol.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Mad Jack]

It seems like a relatively low probability that a fresh PGY1 had much interaction with the PD to determine if he was a pain to work with or not. Im skeptical about how often there was interaction at that point.

If they didnt like the guy then maybe they would at least have examples why, lol.

Most likely they had heard horror stories from seniors. There's almost always someone with that kind of reputation in a program, where it's like "look out for Dr. X, one time he [insert horror story]" followed by 3 other residents sharing theirs

 

[G Sheb]

Minority representation in leadership being most important, extremely important, moderately Important, not really that important, not relevant. I think that valid arguments can be made for any perspective along this continuum. The problem I have with many of these types of arguments is when one takes a stance along this spectrum of belief and then attacks those who have a different stance as being in the extreme.

When I have been involved in DEI exercises at institutions, I learned pretty quickly to not ask any questions and just go along with the more extreme views even though I had more moderate views. One example is the whole pronoun thing. I think that it is kind of stupid for everyone to have to state their pronouns to avoid misgendering some people because I dont think it really helps anyone regardless of their gender identity, but I wouldn’t dare say that publicly for fear of retribution as being a transphobic privileged white male. I personally don’t care what someone’s genitals are unless I am personally having sex with them. Maybe our language will change and maybe that will be good and maybe people will stop trying to identify what biological sex someone is but I actually doubt it as it is a salient attribute for some purposes. I am actually much more confused how trying to act as though biological sex isn’t a real thing is even rational.

I agree, I think these things should be more open to dialogue. Even if people are not "wokist" enough, they should be able to safely share their prejudices to move forward as long as things are done in good faith. To many, this is a cultural shock.
I feel pronouns in general are a good touch. I've just seen so many trans patients in residency being called by various pronouns by staff which is not a good experience. Consistency and appreciations for the desires of the patient are really important. And you can generalize this culture to the workplace as well. I don't know why some perceive it as so threatening?
I am not sure anyone thinks biological sex "isn't a real thing"; it just that it isn't really equivalent to gender identity, which is more of a social construct.

It seems like a relatively low probability that a fresh PGY1 had much interaction with the PD to determine if he was a pain to work with or not. Im skeptical about how often there was interaction at that point.

If they didnt like the guy then maybe they would at least have examples why, lol.

It really shouldn't take you 4 months to figure out if you like someone or not. Though reputation does precede you.

 

[ObsequiousAplomb]

Reading between the lines it sounds like he may have just been a pain of an attending and they were far more excited about other candidates being considered. My bet is that yes, diversity is a part of their concerns, but that they are hanging their argument on that because they just can't outright say we don't like the guy, his vibes are off and we think he'll make us miserable

I agree.

At the risk of further speculation, isn't it possible that the concerns are related to his role as associate program director? Frequently the APD has to have an annoying role. The PD is busy being in the meetings and making the decisions, and the APD has to be the "bad guy." The APD doesn't get to decide what to enforce or really how to enforce it, they just have to do it.

 

[Stagg737]

The MEDIA being here a freakin yale undergraduate newspaper. Given the level of opposition of residents I imagine this reverberated on campus and a bunch of undergrad students felt they need to write a report about that. I don’t think the comments were particularly egregious to the point that these residents needed to be hung in public.

Agree with this. Like I said earlier, this isn't NYT or WaPo. The fact that anyone outside of Yale actually gives a crap about what is written there outside of a select few in a position like OP seems inane.

As someone who is actually familiar with the program, I do not think for a second that the resident almost unanimous opposition is merely because of race. There’s more to this.
The question is then why are people holding residents to standards they don’t wanna hold (like you know running their mouths without knowing more).

And if you have more info, it may be worth sending a DM to the OP as the thread has clearly taken a turn from topics relevant to them to politically analyzing a poorly written article. I get the arguments of people criticizing the residents (Texas' last one was particularly relevant and realistic), but I do think the authors of the article probably deserve as much flack as the residents, if not more.

Lets just be blunt for a second. Regardless of anything.

Imagine how priveleged your life is that you have the opportunity to whine about being a psychiatry resident at yale and not feeling "heard" by leadership after only being a part of the program for 3-4 months. I worked a few different jobs before becoming a doctor, and no one asked me "Hey, who do you want to be your manager?". Im sorry but to me, it just gives me a bad overall impression of this person. You just started at the program, you probably know nothing, so why are you one of the loudest ones in the room?

maybe im just grumpy this morning but I find petty complaints annoying. You don't like your boss? Sorry to hear that. Now do what everyone else in America does, focus on the actual job itself.

This was also something interesting I noticed. All the residents quoted in the article are interns/PGY-2s and one incoming intern. Makes me wonder why the article didn't/couldn't get quotes from senior residents. Was it because they were worried about the new PD affecting their careers after residency? Do they just not care? I'd imagine at least the PGY-3's would. Or are they maybe just mature enough to realize that it sucks that they didn't get what they want but administration and life don't always go how they want and that the complaints were in regards to personal preferences and not professionally concerning factors? Who knows?

The article certainly doesn't provide any insight there and there can be huge differences in opinions between classes, and as I said earlier it doesn't really make admins or residents look good. Seems like just another article trying to appeal to emotions to make a story engaging to everyone when it's not really relevant to the general audience.

 

[whopper]

Affirmative Action is a debate that has been tackled in academic settings. Published articles often times label is as radical vs moderate affirmative action.

Radical: You take someone of a minority demographic even if they don't have the qualifications.
Moderate: You have 2 candidates, both of about equal qualifications, there's only 1 spot, so you use take the minority candidate.

The majority usually is fine with the latter. The laypeople looking into this debate automatically thinks this type of thing only helps women, LGTBQ or ethnic minorities. No so. Especially since the same argument has been used to defend demographics that favor the demographics in power. No it's not just race and sex. It's also been used to defend taking in wealthy applicants whose parents can donate more money to an institution, a legacy candidate, etc.

Reality, however, is often times in between these two polarities. You could have candidate with slightly lower GPAs or MCAT scores. Turns out GPAs don't correlate well with medical school performance until the GPA is above a 3.3. Below this you see a noticeably drop off with successful medical students, but above 3.3 you don't see much. It really shows how taking in a 4.0 student vs a 3.8 student statistically really means almost nothing and yet these standards are used.

Which gets into something I brought up before. As much as medical people like to brag they are evidenced-based, medical academia hardly utilizes the established science of industrial psychology that for decades has studied the phenomenon of predicting who will be a successful worker or student based on what the application process provides. Interviews, for example, show pretty much no correlation with success. Neither do letters of recommendation.

And yet despite that I brought this up several times during the admissions process no MD or DO I worked with ever bothered to spend any time at all, even minutes, looking into the evidence-based field suggested. A few times a colleague psychologist of mine rolled their eyes, even mentioned MDs ought to listen to me and what the science says, was ignored, and then a few minutes later the MD mentioned how important evidence-based science is for medicine.

Getting to minority representation, I'm fine with it, but within a reasonable context. Someone wanting a person just because of their ethnic status without regards to their actual objective color-blind credentials is falling into the trap of taking, for example an unqualified 2.5 GPA minority applicant over a qualified 3.8 non-minority applicant. While almost everyone is okay with moderate Affirmative Action, several students don't fall neatly into this categorization. Someone could, for example be a minority student with a 3.5 GPA vs a non-minority 4.0 student. The science shows these GPAs don't make for good differential prediction at these levels, and yet there is an objective number here where one is higher than the other. Two applicants of different races with exact GPAs is one thing but this is not that thing.

A problem with the original article is we don't see the CVs of all the applicants. We don't know how fair the process is, and the article (perhaps incorrectly) suggests the original pick, race-and picking a minority person, was an important theme which then (possibly unfairly) begs the question of if this person was qualified.

As I mentioned before I find the original article poorly written because it pushes people into begging questions that the writer could've answered but did not, and some of these questions are on very racy and anger provoking issues.

 

[doctalaughs]

Affirmative Action is a debate that has been tackled in academic settings. Published articles often times label is as radical vs moderate affirmative action.

Radical: You take someone of a minority demographic even if they don't have the qualifications.
Moderate: You have 2 candidates, both of about equal qualifications, there's only 1 spot, so you use take the minority candidate.

As you basically state later in your post, the “moderate” approach is not being used, essentially ever.

Obviously for the “radical” category people can argue about what “doesn’t have the qualifications” means — but given the scenarios we can actual quantify show AA is being used for literally differentiating 2 candidates that are 1-2 standard deviations different on objective measures (like test scores). — it is reasonable to say that it’s being used in the “radical” sense in most cases.

Which is why SCOTUS should definitely strike it down. And they likely will. I hope this then leads to investigating DEI practices in workplace as well.

 

[michaelrack]

When I have been involved in DEI exercises at institutions, I learned pretty quickly to not ask any questions and just go along with the more extreme views even though I had more moderate views. One example is the whole pronoun thing. I think that it is kind of stupid for everyone to have to state their pronouns to avoid misgendering some people because I dont think it really helps anyone regardless of their gender identity, but I wouldn’t dare say that publicly for fear of retribution as being a transphobic privileged white male.

I don't do the pronoun thing. If an adolescent patient who used be called "Paul" wants to be called "Paula" I will respect that and do that. I will do the same if an adult patient of mine wants to be called "Mr. Jones" instead of "Ms. Jones". I don't ask for or care what anybody's pronouns are. If a patient has a name they would like me to use, I will use it (within reason for adolescents who suddenly make up a strange name).

 

[doctalaughs]

I don't do the pronoun thing. If an adolescent patient who used be called "Paul" wants to be called "Paula" I will respect that and do that. I will do the same if an adult patient of mine wants to be called "Mr. Jones" instead of "Ms. Jones". I don't ask for or care what anybody's pronouns are. If a patient has a name they would like me to use, I will use it (within reason for adolescents who suddenly make up a strange name).

We are literally programmed to see other humans as male or female, by millions of years of evolution.

I will call people whatever they want after they ask - within reason. But it’s just weird to request that everyone else identify their “chosen pronouns” when 99% of us aren’t “gender fluid” or whatever. If you are that 0.5%- you deserve respect as well- but there are some norms in society still that don’t revolve around you.

And I don’t think that assuming at first someone is a man who looks like a man, or a woman who looks like a woman is wrong either. It’s called normal human interaction.

 

[smalltownpsych]

I agree, I think these things should be more open to dialogue. Even if people are not "wokist" enough, they should be able to safely share their prejudices to move forward as long as things are done in good faith. To many, this is a cultural shock.
I feel pronouns in general are a good touch. I've just seen so many trans patients in residency being called by various pronouns by staff which is not a good experience. Consistency and appreciations for the desires of the patient are really important. And you can generalize this culture to the workplace as well. I don't know why some perceive it as so threatening?
I am not sure anyone thinks biological sex "isn't a real thing"; it just that it isn't really equivalent to gender identity, which is more of a social construct.




It really shouldn't take you 4 months to figure out if you like someone or not. Though reputation does precede you.

Gender identity is not a social construct, it is a personal construct, gender roles and expectations based on that are social constructs. I identify as a male and that is my personal identity. In my case that is consistent with my biological sex and I have never been misgendered. For many of my patients that is not the case. Unfortunately, the virulent advocates that I have encountered are not typically among this group where there is a discrepancy between their identity or their biological sex or where there is a certain amount of ambiguity to their presentation such that they are misgendered. What I have actually seen is that they seem to be mostly heterosexuals that sometimes call themselves bi because they fooled around once or twice with the opposite gender and then puff themselves up as some kind of oppressed LGBTX person. A lot of it is a load of crap and it doesn’t help my patients that have legitimate concerns with gender identity and how to navigate the world in any way shape or form and often makes it worse when they stoke their already real fear of persecution for being different. I really wish these people would stop using my patients struggle to feel better about themselves.

By the way, I always try to validate peoples identity with name or pronouns. The part I think is stupid is when the majority who are not misgendered start giving our pronouns because it just seems kind of silly.

edit - apologize for the runon sentences. Friday night rant. lol

 

[G Sheb]

Gender identity is not a social construct, it is a personal construct, gender roles and expectations based on that are social constructs. I identify as a male and that is my personal identity. In my case that is consistent with my biological sex and I have never been misgendered. For many of my patients that is not the case. Unfortunately, the virulent advocates that I have encountered are not typically among this group where there is a discrepancy between their identity or their biological sex or where there is a certain amount of ambiguity to their presentation such that they are misgendered. What I have actually seen is that they seem to be mostly heterosexuals that sometimes call themselves bi because they fooled around once or twice with the opposite gender and then puff themselves up as some kind of oppressed LGBTX person. A lot of it is a load of crap and it doesn’t help my patients that have legitimate concerns with gender identity and how to navigate the world in any way shape or form and often makes it worse when they stoke their already real fear of persecution for being different. I really wish these people would stop using my patients struggle to feel better about themselves.

By the way, I always try to validate peoples identity with name or pronouns. The part I think is stupid is when the majority who are not misgendered start giving our pronouns because it just seems kind of silly.

edit - apologize for the runon sentences. Friday night rant. lol

The pronoun thing is to help create a more inclusive environment, where people feel that if they don't identify with other people's preconceptions, they can feel included and don't have to go by the burden of assumptions.
I do think that's a real problem. When people feel free to go by their preconceptions, they will call the trans female patient a "he". I've seen it countless times.
And yes these individuals are a small minority, but isn't that the whole point of inclusion? To make the small minority feel like they are respected and like they belong?
I can see why some turn their faces but overall I find it pretty benign. I do think part of why there's a lot of opposition is that people aren't comfortable with the idea that gender can be fluid, or don't want it to be. So yes, back to the culture wars.

 

[sloh]

Which gets into something I brought up before. As much as medical people like to brag they are evidenced-based, medical academia hardly utilizes the established science of industrial psychology that for decades has studied the phenomenon of predicting who will be a successful worker or student based on what the application process provides. Interviews, for example, show pretty much no correlation with success. Neither do letters of recommendation.

And yet despite that I brought this up several times during the admissions process no MD or DO I worked with ever bothered to spend any time at all, even minutes, looking into the evidence-based field suggested. A few times a colleague psychologist of mine rolled their eyes, even mentioned MDs ought to listen to me and what the science says, was ignored, and then a few minutes later the MD mentioned how important evidence-based science is for medicine.

Best predictor is cognitive ability.

 

[whopper]

Obviously for the “radical” category people can argue about what “doesn’t have the qualifications” means — but given the scenarios we can actual quantify show AA is being used for literally differentiating 2 candidates that are 1-2 standard deviations different on objective measures (like test scores). — it is reasonable to say that it’s being used in the “radical” sense in most cases.

Which is why SCOTUS should definitely strike it down. And they likely will. I hope this then leads to investigating DEI practices in workplace as well.

Which then begs the question, can an institution take in lesser qualified people because their family graduated from it? Or their family are large donors? Or in our medical profession take in spouses because their other spouse matched into the program?

So if the criteria is only hard qualifications fine. Then legacy can't be used. Soft criteria can't be used. Lots of programs will argue for soft criteria considerations that have nothing to do with controversial issues such as race.

 

[WisNeuro]

Which then begs the question, can an institution take in lesser qualified people because their family graduated from it? Or their family are large donors? Or in our medical profession take in spouses because their other spouse matched into the program?

So if the criteria is only hard qualifications fine. Then legacy can't be used. Soft criteria can't be used. Lots of programs will argue for soft criteria considerations that have nothing to do with controversial issues such as race.

Personally, I always found legacy preference in admissions stupid, I'll gladly vote for removing that from consideration. From a utilitarian perspective, while I disagree with large donor admissions from a moral point of view, the end result can benefit a much greater group. Oh, your family is willing to donate a large sum to help build a student rec center, or a new dorm? Sure. I'm willing to let one rich kid in if it benefits countless students down the line.

 

[whopper]

An odd but not surprising thing is, when it comes to moderate vs radical affirmative action, most of the people against affirmative action when asked if they're (edit for spelling error) for legacy candidates or candidates whose parents can donate large amounts of being being given favoritism most of them are for it cause...
1) It adds a candidate that is more invested in institution because the institution was willing to pick them because of a quality that "just can't be measured in grades."
2) Institutions should have a type of student that can add to the richness and diversity of the institution because they can offer something other than higher exam scores.
3) Attracting someone simply based on scores is a very one-dimensional measure to add someone in.

In other words all of the benefits that affirmative action offers although affirmative action does it based on race, and these other measures are non-merit based.

Personally, I always found legacy preference in admissions stupid, I'll gladly vote for removing that from consideration.

Which is why none of what I wrote above is directed at you, but seriously when you have the people who want affirmative action, almost none of them are for legacy, almost none of the pro-legacy people are for affirmative action.

If affirmative action is taken, the naysayer to it (and I'm not saying it's right or wrong either way) can then go after legacy and large-donation admissions.

 

[Psych Person]

Medicine, medical education, academia, and all major societal institutions are captured and corrupt—and Yale has been one of the primary entities charging forward with the agenda the entire time. Yale represents everything wrong with the institutions today and in the past few decades. It’s all so ****ed.

 

[whopper]

Sloh, thanks for the information. Where is it from?

 

[OMG_OMG]

Wow.....These residents suck. Not that I endorse such a way but back in South Korea chair will slap PD, PD will kick senior resident and senior resident will beat some senses into interns and residents....I am a powerless individual but will be avoiding all Yale graduates in the future...

 

[G Sheb]

As you basically state later in your post, the “moderate” approach is not being used, essentially ever.

Obviously for the “radical” category people can argue about what “doesn’t have the qualifications” means — but given the scenarios we can actual quantify show AA is being used for literally differentiating 2 candidates that are 1-2 standard deviations different on objective measures (like test scores). — it is reasonable to say that it’s being used in the “radical” sense in most cases.

Which is why SCOTUS should definitely strike it down. And they likely will. I hope this then leads to investigating DEI practices in workplace as well.

Where do you get that piece of information, that AA is used for people who "don't have the qualifications"?
Did you just make that up, or do you have anything to back it up.

In any case, I find this discussion about affirmative action pretty cursory, though a rudimentary search about the person who was considered for the top choice will reveal she is extremely qualified.
The reality is that psychiatry has a terrible history with ethnic minorities, and I'm talking about patients here. You can't deliver better care if the leadership itself doesn't reflect the makeup of your patients, culturally and ethnically - especially when we're talking about centuries of ingrained racism and discrimination.

 

[G Sheb]

Medicine, medical education, academia, and all major societal institutions are captured and corrupt—and Yale has been one of the primary entities charging forward with the agenda the entire time. Yale represents everything wrong with the institutions today and in the past few decades. It’s all so ****ed.

I'm curious if you can explain a bit more what you mean about corruption.

 

[bGMx]

Where do you get that piece of information, that AA is used for people who "don't have the qualifications"?
Did you just make that up, or do you have anything to back it up.

In any case, I find this discussion about affirmative action pretty cursory, though a rudimentary search about the person who was considered for the top choice will reveal she is extremely qualified.
The reality is that psychiatry has a terrible history with ethnic minorities, and I'm talking about patients here. You can't deliver better care if the leadership itself doesn't reflect the makeup of your patients, culturally and ethnically - especially when we're talking about centuries of ingrained racism and discrimination.

As someone who is considered a representative of a minority group, I disagree. I think it is entirely possible to deliver care that is patient centered while being part of the "other" group. It requires a certain level of humility and open-mindedness on behalf of the caregiver. I don't agree that people's capacity for empathy and understanding is limited by their phenotypical group identity. I think these traits are limited by their life experiences.

 

[G Sheb]

As someone who is considered a representative of a minority group, I disagree. I think it is entirely possible to deliver care that is patient centered while being part of the "other" group. It requires a certain level of humility and open-mindedness on behalf of the caregiver. I don't agree that people's capacity for empathy and understanding is limited by their phenotypical group identity. I think these traits are limited by their life experiences.

This is not the point.
Of course you don't have to be from the same ethnic/social/minority...group etc to deliver excellent personal care.
But when there are decades or even centuries of ingrained systemic discrimination against certain groups, it's pretty asinine (for lack of a better term) to argue that minority representation in leadership won't make a critical difference.

 

[reca]

Which then begs the question, can an institution take in lesser qualified people because their family graduated from it? Or their family are large donors? Or in our medical profession take in spouses because their other spouse matched into the program?

So if the criteria is only hard qualifications fine. Then legacy can't be used. Soft criteria can't be used. Lots of programs will argue for soft criteria considerations that have nothing to do with controversial issues such as race.

Legacy admissions began in order to keep Jews out of Ivy League colleges.

 

[doctalaughs]

Where do you get that piece of information, that AA is used for people who "don't have the qualifications"?
Did you just make that up, or do you have anything to back it up.

In any case, I find this discussion about affirmative action pretty cursory, though a rudimentary search about the person who was considered for the top choice will reveal she is extremely qualified.
The reality is that psychiatry has a terrible history with ethnic minorities, and I'm talking about patients here. You can't deliver better care if the leadership itself doesn't reflect the makeup of your patients, culturally and ethnically - especially when we're talking about centuries of ingrained racism and discrimination.

Look up MCAT scores of admitted black/Hispanic medical students vs Asian/white. Look up sat scores for admitted elite colleges by race. They aren’t even in the same statistical ballpark. I think you know this — as it’s very widely available and large datasets.

Of course, it’s always countered that the difference is due to poverty, lack of test prep and “systemic racism” which certainly has elements of truth — but still doesn’t make the qualifications thing simultaneously untrue. Color isn’t a qualification - but it’s being heavily used as one in schools and the workplace.

And I’m 100% for ending legacy and donor-based admissions. We should be as merit-based and color-blind as possible.

 

[Psych Person]

This is not the point.
Of course you don't have to be from the same ethnic/social/minority...group etc to deliver excellent personal care.
But when there are decades or even centuries of ingrained systemic discrimination against certain groups, it's pretty asinine (for lack of a better term) to argue that minority representation in leadership won't make a critical difference.

You are saying that whatever “ingrained systemic discrimination against certain groups” that there may be can ONLY be overcome by hiring people of the same color. This is completely false and breeds victimhood leading to entitlement and social instability.

Nobody deserves to be put in positions of power just because of their superficial phenotypical characteristics. While it can be beneficial to have members of the same group in positions of power, they should never be catapulted into those positions in such a way that circumvents genuine meritocratic values. It is competence and integrity alone that should be rewarded with promotions and increasing levels of responsibility and influence—color of skin should be a small consideration if there is any at all for it.

I would also argue that if there is to be consideration for positions of power based on the background differences of an individual, looking intensely at the CULTURE (more heavily determined by country of origin and community grown up in, socioeconomic status, and the types of schools they went to as children than superficial color of your skin) should be more importantly considered.

 

[hamstergang]

You are saying that whatever “ingrained systemic discrimination against certain groups” that there may be can ONLY be overcome by hiring people of the same color.

I don't think he said that was the absolute only option but that it would be a quite effective and good option.

Nobody deserves to be put in positions of power just because of their superficial phenotypical characteristics.

Do you think this has happened? That people were promoted based solely on skin color without any consideration for their competence? I imagine that in nearly all situations, the people considered meet some minimal level of competence that makes the qualified for the position.

 

[bGMx]

I think the basis of the conversation above is that skin colour is not a proxy for life experience.

I for one would like to see more Daoist representation in medicine, but that is me.

 

[G Sheb]

LOL!
This place keeps shocking me though it absolutely should not at this point.
So a simple point that minority representation in leadership will make a critical difference in how minority patients are treated in the healthcare system (particularly in psychiatry) given that we actually do know the history of systemic racism and how minorities have been treated in the past, gets turned into "oh but you can't pick someone JUST because they're a minority" or "it's about life experience?!1?" (as if being a minority and your life experience somehow bare no relation) - by someone who is a *representative* of a minority , no less (LOL).
That this is not getting through is quite telling.
I think my Fox remark earlier on was an understatement.
What a joke.

 

[SmallBird]

LOL!
This place keeps shocking me though it absolutely should not at this point.
So a simple point that minority representation in leadership will make a critical difference in how minority patients are treated in the healthcare system (particularly in psychiatry) given that we actually do know the history of systemic racism and how minorities have been treated in the past, gets turned into "oh but you can't pick someone JUST because they're a minority" or "it's about life experience?!1?" (as if being a minority and your life experience somehow bare no relation) - by someone who is a *representative* of a minority , no less (LOL).
That this is not getting through is quite telling.
I think my Fox remark earlier on was an understatement.
What a joke.

I'm sorry we aren't providing the echo chamber you were hoping for.

 

[WisNeuro]

I'm sorry we aren't providing the echo chamber you were hoping for.

It'd be hard to hear an echo anyway with the sheer number of strawmen they've been setting up. Deadens the sound too much.

 

[TexasPhysician]

LOL!
This place keeps shocking me though it absolutely should not at this point.
So a simple point that minority representation in leadership will make a critical difference in how minority patients are treated in the healthcare system (particularly in psychiatry) given that we actually do know the history of systemic racism and how minorities have been treated in the past, gets turned into "oh but you can't pick someone JUST because they're a minority" or "it's about life experience?!1?" (as if being a minority and your life experience somehow bare no relation) - by someone who is a *representative* of a minority , no less (LOL).
That this is not getting through is quite telling.
I think my Fox remark earlier on was an understatement.
What a joke.

This is a common far-left response to anything disapproved of. It’s also a really good way to alienate others and prevent those from seeing your side of the agenda.

More psychiatrists vote Democrat than Republican. Those that do vote Republican are often more libertarian on social issues but vote Republican for financial reasons. Objectively the number of people on this forum that watch Fox News is likely incredibly small. Trying to insult peers by relating them to the far right is not going to change their minds or see your side of the situation.

There are effective ways to use your voice to enact change. Like the Yale residents, this way isn’t effective.

 

[Merovinge]

This is a common far-left response to anything disapproved of. It’s also a really good way to alienate others and prevent those from seeing your side of the agenda.

More psychiatrists vote Democrat than Republican. Those that do vote Republican are often more libertarian on social issues but vote Republican for financial reasons. Objectively the number of people on this forum that watch Fox News is likely incredibly small. Trying to insult peers by relating them to the far right is not going to change their minds or see your side of the situation.

There are effective ways to use your voice to enact change. Like the Yale residents, this way isn’t effective.

You are completely correct that alienating others is a terrible way to go about a discussion/debate as well as your summary of psychiatrists as a whole.

I will say in G Shrubs defense that a few of the posts are from right wing folks who either watch Fox News or consume other conservative media. Most are not, but some are. This is getting mixed in with moderate posts. He/she is holding their ground against a broad swatch of comments and some are bad faith arguments that are twisting what is being said, using straw men, or other disingenuous arguments. I wouldn't be barking up the tree they are barking up, but I do understand the frustration over seeing 8 responses, 6 being reasonable, 2 much less so and then deciding what to write back on a message board.

 

[whopper]

I would also argue that if there is to be consideration for positions of power based on the background differences of an individual, looking intensely at the CULTURE (more heavily determined by country of origin and community grown up in, socioeconomic status, and the types of schools they went to as children than superficial color of your skin) should be more importantly considered.

Agree. Totally agree. The problem being that taking a candidate it becomes way way way easier when you make it a quick factor instead of the factor where you have to sit there for hours per candidate, and you have hundreds to thousands of candidates.

The human and best-that-can-be expected response is you use the cutting corners methods such as grades, MCAT scores, etc to filter the pool to a level that the limited human mind can then investigate in-depth. This cutting-corners process itself will be unfair, too simplistic, but human minds can only do so much.

You are completely correct that alienating others is a terrible way to go about a discussion/debate as well as your summary of psychiatrists as a whole.

Agree. Not that this even matters but because my own political leanings are passionate but don't nicely fit into either party or L or R I'm going to piss everyone off unless I keep my mouth shut or actually articulate why I'm for what I'm for instead of spouting against those that disagree as if they're the enemy.

 

[Psych Person]

I for one would like to see more Daoist representation in medicine, but that is me.

You just said what we’ve all been thinking but have been too afraid to say. Thank you

 

[G Sheb]

This is a common far-left response to anything disapproved of. It’s also a really good way to alienate others and prevent those from seeing your side of the agenda.

More psychiatrists vote Democrat than Republican. Those that do vote Republican are often more libertarian on social issues but vote Republican for financial reasons. Objectively the number of people on this forum that watch Fox News is likely incredibly small. Trying to insult peers by relating them to the far right is not going to change their minds or see your side of the situation.

There are effective ways to use your voice to enact change. Like the Yale residents, this way isn’t effective.

Meh. Can spare me this disingenuous lecture, as I already disagreed with someone above about pronouns and we left it at that.
Also, lol @ "far left" for making a fairly simple argument why minority representation in leadership in important.
Let's do a survey of program leaders across the country, including Yale, and ask the leadership if inclusion of minorities in leadership is important or not.
We will see who is the extremist here.

This thread speaks for itself.
Took no time for this to turn out what it really was all about. A discussion about affirmative action (and I see some unlinked stuff about g and IQ that you'd probably find on Stormfront), and how having a "phenotypic charactersitic" (!!) should have no role in psychiatry.
Thanks for doing the job.

 

[Psych Person]

I don't think he said that was the absolute only option but that it would be a quite effective and good option.

Incorrect. In their post just prior to the one that I replied to, on the same thread page, they concluded this post with:

The reality is that psychiatry has a terrible history with ethnic minorities, and I'm talking about patients here. You can't deliver better care if the leadership itself doesn't reflect the makeup of your patients, culturally and ethnically - especially when we're talking about centuries of ingrained racism and discrimination.

They weren’t just advocating for ethnic representation because “…it would make a quite effective and good option.” as you stated in your reply to me. Their statements were pretty clearly saying that it is an absolute necessity. I am glad they mentioned “culture” at the end of their post there, though they don’t value culture as much as color. Their focus and advocacy is on skin color, which is clearly viewed by them as the most valuable proxy for being able to provide quality patient care to ethnic minorities and for being least likely to abuse or provide poor quality care to ethnic minorities.

Do you think this has happened? That people were promoted based solely on skin color without any consideration for their competence? I imagine that in nearly all situations, the people considered meet some minimal level of competence that makes the qualified for the position.

This question is absurd. Of course nobody gets promoted to the highest positions if they can’t even do the bare minimum of the role they have. This just does not exist. Is the bare minimum what you want in those with the most power to do good or do harm? Is that what you want in leaders, those who are most powerful and influential in society, those who rear the next generation, create policies, act as gatekeepers—for them to meet “some minimal level of competence”?

The MOST competent and MOST qualified need to be those who are at the top of the hierarchies of the major institutions of society. When I work in an administration with a clear hierarchy, those who are above me in the hierarchy better be more competent than I am, or at the very least equally as competent—and they better be of strong character. When people hold positions of power but are not more competent than, or at least equally as competent as, those they oversee, this breeds major instability for everyone involved and those who depend on these institutions—workers will be viewed as threats and competition by the higher-ups, the workers will have contempt for the higher-ups and won’t naturally respect or admire them, and the quality of work coming out of these toxic dynamics will be poorer as a result.

Color alone, disconnected from every other aspect of the person’s life, even when they meet the “minimal level of competence” has no value in a meritocracy and the natural world as far as I am concerned. And just to be clear, a meritocracy values and rewards those with the greatest competence and the highest integrity, and those individuals who embody both should be those who occupy the highest positions. If this is not held to, then corruption blossoms and bleeds throughout the institutions and ultimately into society and culture and the family units.

If true meritocracy is not protected and upheld, and things like nepotism and identity politics are allowed to flourish from within society’s major institutions, especially from the top down as it is nowadays, then these systems will become socially unstable, the overall competence and function of the institutions will decline, and the service to society that these institutions provide will be low quality and will also cause harm to the people, especially those in society who are the most vulnerable and underserved. When society and its major institutions becomes so influenced by artificially selective pressures such as those I mentioned above, ones that deviate far from common sense, rationality, and the natural order of things, then instability and chaos are guaranteed. Fortunately, nature always self-corrects. Though, these vile human beings who are currently running the major institutions into the ground are putting up one hell of a fight, and they are willing to destroy the whole system and everyone within it, including themselves, before they could ever be brought to justice to face punishment for the cruelty and injustice they have perpetrated and the insane ideology they have promoted and indoctrinated into their true-believing lackeys and the fools of society.

 

[hamstergang]

This question is absurd. Of course nobody gets promoted to the highest positions if they can’t even do the bare minimum of the role they have. This just does not exist. Is the bare minimum what you want in those with the most power to do good or do harm? Is that what you want in leaders, those who are most powerful and influential in society, those who rear the next generation, create policies, act as gatekeepers—for them to meet “some minimal level of competence”?

This is a misinterpretation of what I was saying. I'm not saying "a minimal level" meaning "the lowest possible" but instead "being over some floor" (and you can set this floor somewhat high). There are often multiple qualified people for a position who have different strengths than each other, so you can't necessarily easily rank them with one being the most qualified.

 

[hallowmann]

Reading between the lines it sounds like he may have just been a pain of an attending and they were far more excited about other candidates being considered. My bet is that yes, diversity is a part of their concerns, but that they are hanging their argument on that because they just can't outright say we don't like the guy, his vibes are off and we think he'll make us miserable

Thank you for actually pointing this out. These are residents that have worked under this guy for years. He was the aPD, and they absolutely had experiences with him that they are likely basing their decisions on. Was it written about in the article, no probably not because it would likely only be things that are recognizable by people in the program. Instead it was written vaguely as lack of empathy or support, but we all know what that means, this guy made their lives harder in some way, but literally no one outside of the program would understand/care about the specifics of that if it was written.

To be completely honest we had a situation similar to this unfold during our training. We had repeated problems with this one resident who was a darling of the chair. He constantly sucked up to staff and leadership alike, but was a complete tool to literally any residents he worked with. It didn't stop him from getting accolades from the department, and when he put himself up to be chief and was chosen despite numerous complaints by residents, they were pissed and started actually sharing the crap he was doing. Stuff like telling us we didn't need to call him when he was senior at home call for a situation that our residency policy requires us to call the senior for, or telling us we were lazy and doing a crap job because he is double dipping working far from the hospital on moonlighting while on call and didn't want to come in when we told him he needed to. He was then pressured to "step down for my family" from the position (later found out he was cheating on his pregnant wife with a therapist in the institution). Even those complaints didn't stop him from being offered an academic faculty track fellowship and becoming faculty (again loved by the chair).

Fortunately that same guy showed his colors by literally 3 mos into his faculty position, walking off the unit at 10am leaving a brand new intern alone to cover the unit, shutting off his phone, and telling no one that he quit to go get paid more at a for-profit hospital down the street.

Similar resident outrage happened in the same program when the aPD was appointed as PD after it was clear she was very dismissive of resident concerns often minimizing them or infantilizing residents (and this was also after the program had 3-4 different PDs in a 5 yr span). Then they planned to appoint an aPD that was similar to the aforementioned faculty member (albeit a less egregious one, despite them being best friends). The department kept the PD they appointed, but fortunately proceeded to appoint people the residents actually liked as co-aPDs to appease them, which seemed to work.

I agree.

At the risk of further speculation, isn't it possible that the concerns are related to his role as associate program director? Frequently the APD has to have an annoying role. The PD is busy being in the meetings and making the decisions, and the APD has to be the "bad guy." The APD doesn't get to decide what to enforce or really how to enforce it, they just have to do it.

I mean, he could also just have been a dismissive academic that left the residents feeling unsupported. You might accept someone like that as an aPD, but without a supportive PD, it could feel untenable. Happens all the time in Ivory towers.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

Thank you for actually pointing this out. These are residents that have worked under this guy for years. He was the aPD, and they absolutely had experiences with him that they are likely basing their decisions on. Was it written about in the article, no probably not because it would likely only be things that are recognizable by people in the program. Instead it was written vaguely as lack of empathy or support, but we all know what that means, this guy made their lives harder in some way, but literally no one outside of the program would understand/care about the specifics of that if it was written.

To be completely honest we had a situation similar to this unfold during our training. We had repeated problems with this one resident who was a darling of the chair. He constantly sucked up to staff and leadership alike, but was a complete tool to literally any residents he worked with. It didn't stop him from getting accolades from the department, and when he put himself up to be chief and was chosen despite numerous complaints by residents, they were pissed and started actually sharing the crap he was doing. Stuff like telling us we didn't need to call him when he was senior at home call for a situation that our residency policy requires us to call the senior for, or telling us we were lazy and doing a crap job because he is double dipping working far from the hospital on moonlighting while on call and didn't want to come in when we told him he needed to. He was then pressured to "step down for my family" from the position (later found out he was cheating on his pregnant wife with a therapist in the institution). Even those complaints didn't stop him from being offered an academic faculty track fellowship and becoming faculty (again loved by the chair).

Fortunately that same guy showed his colors by literally 3 mos into his faculty position, walking off the unit at 10am leaving a brand new intern alone to cover the unit, shutting off his phone, and telling no one that he quit to go get paid more at a for-profit hospital down the street.

Similar resident outrage happened in the same program when the aPD was appointed as PD after it was clear she was very dismissive of resident concerns often minimizing them or infantilizing residents (and this was also after the program had 3-4 different PDs in a 5 yr span). Then they planned to appoint an aPD that was similar to the aforementioned faculty member (albeit a less egregious one, despite them being best friends). The department kept the PD they appointed, but fortunately proceeded to appoint people the residents actually liked as co-aPDs to appease them, which seemed to work.


I mean, he could also just have been a dismissive academic that left the residents feeling unsupported. You might accept someone like that as an aPD, but without a supportive PD, it could feel untenable. Happens all the time in Ivory towers.

5th post in this thread:

Yeah, I hope there is something about his performance during his time at Yale so far that has provoked such a strong reaction. The article seems to have only one line mentioning actual dislike of his leadership style. If this reaction is based only on his race and sex, that is a pretty sad reflection on the state of affairs at a top program.

 

[hallowmann]

5th post in this thread:

They dislike his leadership style. That's my point. It's written vaguely, because it likely only means something to them. Even that post you mentioned speculates on this possibility while implying its really about his gender and race (which is purported as a "sad state of affairs"). My point was it shouldn't really be a speculation. Residents (as a collective) don't stick their necks out like that unless his treatment of them was truly problematic.

This is likely the case possibly in the complete absence of documented performance problems (usually you don't get documented against until someone in higher power is trying to get rid of you). That resident turned attending I mentioned had "stellar" performance on paper prior to his faculty appointment.

 

[annoyedpsychiatrist]

They dislike his leadership style. That's my point. It's written vaguely, because it likely only means something to them. Even that post you mentioned speculates on this possibility while implying its really about his gender and race (which is purported as a "sad state of affairs"). My point was it shouldn't really be a speculation. Residents (as a collective) don't stick their necks out like that unless his treatment of them was truly problematic.

This is likely the case possibly in the complete absence of documented performance problems (usually you don't get documented against until someone in higher power is trying to get rid of you). That resident turned attending I mentioned had "stellar" performance on paper prior to his faculty appointment.

its educated guessing on both sides. Truth is probably in the middle. You can have bad residents, and you can have bad attendings. Maybe people just didnt like the PD that much based off what other residents said and the vibe they got and wrote it down as a result. No one will ever know, but everything about it is based on assumption. Based on my assumptions I would not have wanted to go to yale because either leadership is pretentious or the residents they attract, or both.

 

[the5thelement]

Sadly in this hyper-connected world, people are quick to jump to conclusions and have no qualms in ruining someones professional life at the drop of a hat. They have a mob mentality and do not want to engage in any discussion or debate unless everyone agrees with their anemic and poorly thought out viewpoints 100%.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

They dislike his leadership style. That's my point. It's written vaguely, because it likely only means something to them. Even that post you mentioned speculates on this possibility while implying its really about his gender and race (which is purported as a "sad state of affairs"). My point was it shouldn't really be a speculation. Residents (as a collective) don't stick their necks out like that unless his treatment of them was truly problematic.

This is likely the case possibly in the complete absence of documented performance problems (usually you don't get documented against until someone in higher power is trying to get rid of you). That resident turned attending I mentioned had "stellar" performance on paper prior to his faculty appointment.

I think the main issue as far as this thread goes (and this was commented on several times early on in the thread) is that the article makes it really seem like its a diversity issue.

 

[G Sheb]

They dislike his leadership style. That's my point. It's written vaguely, because it likely only means something to them. Even that post you mentioned speculates on this possibility while implying its really about his gender and race (which is purported as a "sad state of affairs"). My point was it shouldn't really be a speculation. Residents (as a collective) don't stick their necks out like that unless his treatment of them was truly problematic.

This is likely the case possibly in the complete absence of documented performance problems (usually you don't get documented against until someone in higher power is trying to get rid of you). That resident turned attending I mentioned had "stellar" performance on paper prior to his faculty appointment.

Absolutely. That post was actually making the opposite point.
It's also funny that everyone is agreeing now that it could be an interpersonal problem with this aPD as I mentioned this in my first post, yet almost everyone disagreed and chose to harp on on the "sex and race" part, despite having no evidence that residents took this position purely because of "race and sex".
We all know why.
It's all very transparent.

 

[G Sheb]

I think the main issue as far as this thread goes (and this was commented on several times early on in the thread) is that the article makes it really seem like its a diversity issue.

Where did you see that the guy was ruled out because he's white?
The article makes the opposite point. It mentions that residents had concerns about his experience with DEI. He was interviewed, was asked about his experience and his plans regarding DEI. The article also explicitly mentioned that the residents circulated a letter mentioning issues with interpersonal communication and empathy.
This was dismissed here by many as "subjective" (!). Because, you know, apparently empathy and interpersonal communication are subjective criteria, not important in determining one's competence for a leadership position.
Many (most?) actually dismissed these concerns because they WANTED to make this a Fox caricature on Woke culture being "racist" towards an aPD because he's white. Isn't it?

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

Where did you see that the guy was ruled out because he's white?
The article makes the opposite point. It mentions that residents had concerns about his experience with DEI. He was interviewed, was asked about his experience and his plans regarding DEI. The article also explicitly mentioned that the residents circulated a letter mentioning issues with interpersonal communication and empathy.
This was dismissed here by many as "subjective" (!). Because, you know, apparently empathy and interpersonal communication are subjective criteria, not important in determining one's competence for a leadership position.
Many (most?) actually dismissed these concerns because they WANTED to make this a Fox caricature on Woke culture being "racist" towards an aPD because he's white. Isn't it?

Not purely because he was white, but if we look at some good quotes from the article:

"Residents, Godley noted, were particularly keen on encouraging diverse faculty recruitment"

"In Wasser’s interview with residents, according to Godley, Wasser fielded questions about how he planned to support residents of color in the program, especially because, unlike the other two candidates — both Black women — Wasser was a white man with limited DEI experience. "

"Residents were excited by the prospect of having a minority candidate as program director."

"A current first-year resident in the department who was granted anonymity due to fear of professional retaliation explained that it was explicitly communicated to members of their cohort that the two finalists for program director were Black women — and that this information had an influence on resident decisions to join the program."

"For some residents, Wasser’s appointment reflects a continuation of the department’s double standard on issues of diversity."

FWIW, I would be somewhat surprised if the fact that he's white played a significant role in why so many residents are upset about his appointment but the article sure makes it sound like it was an important part.

 

[G Sheb]

Not purely because he was white, but if we look at some good quotes from the article:

"Residents, Godley noted, were particularly keen on encouraging diverse faculty recruitment"

"In Wasser’s interview with residents, according to Godley, Wasser fielded questions about how he planned to support residents of color in the program, especially because, unlike the other two candidates — both Black women — Wasser was a white man with limited DEI experience. "

"Residents were excited by the prospect of having a minority candidate as program director."

"A current first-year resident in the department who was granted anonymity due to fear of professional retaliation explained that it was explicitly communicated to members of their cohort that the two finalists for program director were Black women — and that this information had an influence on resident decisions to join the program."

"For some residents, Wasser’s appointment reflects a continuation of the department’s double standard on issues of diversity."

FWIW, I would be somewhat surprised if the fact that he's white played a significant role in why so many residents are upset about his appointment but the article sure makes it sound like it was an important part.

None of these comments imply that the residents disagreed with the appointment because he's white. There's a lot of "stretching" and cherry picking going on here, to say the least. For example, one of the quotes specifically mentions his experience and his perspective/plans on DEI.
Almost all of them mean they care about diversity in general (and did not believe he would deliver). WHich is consistent with Yale policy, and the APA as well.
"purely because of his race" is actually the critical difference here, that "many" implied in this thread, when there's no evidence.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

None of these comments imply that the residents disagreed with the appointment because he's white. There's a lot of "stretching" and cherry picking going on here, to say the least. For example, one of the quotes specifically mentions his experience and his perspective/plans on DEI.
Almost all of them mean they care about diversity in general (and did not believe he would deliver). WHich is consistent with Yale policy, and the APA as well.
"purely because of his race" is actually the critical difference here, that "many" implied in this thread, when there's no evidence.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with "many" here, I'm just pointing out what was literally said in the article to show why someone might think that race played a role.

 

[Psych Person]

FWIW, I would be somewhat surprised if the fact that he's white played a significant role in why so many residents are upset about his appointment but the article sure makes it sound like it was an important part.

Why would you be surprised? During my time in training, we had a transition of PD, and only women of color were allowed to be seriously considered by my co-residents. The way the PD selection process was done was that those highest up faculty in the administration presented a list of candidates to the residents, and the residents would ultimately vote for and elect from this list who the new PD would be after interviewing each individual candidate on this administration-approved list. Because the prevailing obsession in my program was to hire a woman of color, I had to resign myself to make the most of my vote by giving it to which woman of color had the most merit, as my vote for anyone else would have been pointless. They dismissed any males as serious contenders but humored those of color at least. White males were grilled more intensely during the group interview sessions with the residents and candidates for new PD. The males never had a chance, and white males were gatekept with any excuse about their character or performance before they were even seriously evaluated.

Academia does not like white men and actively tries to recruit any other demographic if it has the choice. The less male, the less white, the less heterosexual, the better. Have you spoken to the average psychiatry resident lately? They speak incessantly about white supremacy, racism, transphobia and all other flavors of the most mainstream social justice rhetoric. They complain about how there aren’t enough minorities in the residency programs, despite the fact that demand far outweighs supply of minorities. This heavily influences program directors and selection committees to rank candidates highly based on these superficial diversity characteristics. My residency program was sponsored by one of the elite institutions, and this preoccupation with diversity, mostly skin color, sexual orientation, and transgenderism, was built into the foundation of the institution and reinforced from the top down.

As a straight white male myself, my voice was so small and held little value in the community, and I walked on eggshells the entire time I was in training, never once daring to bring up opposing points of views or to even question anything remotely woke (e.g., I could suffer social and even professional damage for daring to speak about the incredible importance of intact families or the potential value of a male father figure in the home for the children—because this would be seen as misogynist towards single mothers and transphobic respectively). Those who rarely dared to were often ridiculed, documented thoroughly on, watched under a microscope, were less likely to be given mercy for natural learning mistakes, shamed, gossiped about, and treated as an outsider. I was surrounded by self-righteous activists, not humble physicians. It was 4 years of pretending that I was a true believer as much as I could without entirely betraying my true self and hating who I was, hoping the others couldn’t smell on me that I was different, trying to blend in and not be noticed. I considered any attention on me to be negative attention, even if I had done something good. I did not want eyes on me or minds thinking about me. I just focused on my work 1 day at a time, taking great satisfaction in being able to care for my patients and become a better physician daily, until it was finally over. I am now a very good clinician, but I still resent the environment I was forced to endure as a resident. Psychiatry, as a professional community, has lost its collective mind.

 

[SmallBird]

None of these comments imply that the residents disagreed with the appointment because he's white. There's a lot of "stretching" and cherry picking going on here, to say the least. For example, one of the quotes specifically mentions his experience and his perspective/plans on DEI.
Almost all of them mean they care about diversity in general (and did not believe he would deliver). WHich is consistent with Yale policy, and the APA as well.
"purely because of his race" is actually the critical difference here, that "many" implied in this thread, when there's no evidence.

Are you serious? They literally say the quiet part out loud. The residents were for obvious reasons excited to have a super talented black PD. This would have been fantastic for the program, both for the obvious merit of the candidate, and the inspirational aspects of having someone from an underrepresented minority in this position. But she did not accept the position and the reason they are mad that Dr Wasser (a very solid, approachable, savvy and decorated, interpersonally totally fine, DEI informed leader) got it is because he can't do that for them. That is why they are upset.