(06-25-2022, 04:12 AM)Guest Wrote: (06-23-2022, 07:49 PM)Guest Wrote: (06-23-2022, 07:33 PM)Guest Wrote: (06-23-2022, 04:01 PM)Guest Wrote: (06-23-2022, 01:00 PM)Guest Wrote: Honestly the neurosurgery match isn't that hard. There are so many people who match every year with 220-230s. I would argue that publishing 20-30 papers paired with a 220 on step can make you match.
race and gender play a big role.
At my institution, race and gender play a big role in getting you higher on the rank list. Think its like adding 10-15 points on Step, etc. There’s a lot of affirmative action going on. It just is. In 2010 programs weren't trying to suppress these demographics. Now its all we talk about.
Race and gender plays no role in matching. Those women and minorities who match tend to be absolute rockstars and I would argue that if they were a white male, they would match at even more desirable places. I have been in assisting in the interview/rank process at my institution and I can tell you this for a fact.
what institution bc I'm getting forced out for race and religion
You are getting forced out for being a bigot nothing else
https://thejns.org/view/journals/j-neuro...212096.xml
https://thejns.org/focus/view/journals/n...le-pE6.xml
What does this kind of research accomplish? It’s divisive and the conclusions are never supported by the results, ie a bibliometric study where the conclusion is that implicit bias leads to this “disparity”.
It’s sophomoric and uninspired to simply tally an “outcome” and compare it to current demographics and claim there’s a disparity due to racism, sexism, etc. CNS and AANS are increasing their awards and categories for this type of research. When will this crowd be happy? When neurosurgeons and their accomplishments match the exact race, religion, gender, etc of the U.S. population?
I’ve also noticed those vocal about social issues never want to match in cities where there is a high level of “social disparity”. They’d rather be in Palo Alto and bemoan the neurosurgery world of its shortcomings from the Ivory Tower than be in Detroit or similar places where a majority of their patients will be the minorities they claim to care so deeply about. Walk the walk folks.
Our predecessors focused on pushing the barriers of neurosurgery, to help patients. New techniques, new devices, new therapies. Will the new generation be able to accomplish as much, or is the focus off the mark.
(06-25-2022, 09:28 AM)Guest Wrote: https://thejns.org/view/journals/j-neuro...212096.xml
https://thejns.org/focus/view/journals/n...le-pE6.xml
What does this kind of research accomplish? It’s divisive and the conclusions are never supported by the results, ie a bibliometric study where the conclusion is that implicit bias leads to this “disparity”.
It’s sophomoric and uninspired to simply tally an “outcome” and compare it to current demographics and claim there’s a disparity due to racism, sexism, etc. CNS and AANS are increasing their awards and categories for this type of research. When will this crowd be happy? When neurosurgeons and their accomplishments match the exact race, religion, gender, etc of the U.S. population?
I’ve also noticed those vocal about social issues never want to match in cities where there is a high level of “social disparity”. They’d rather be in Palo Alto and bemoan the neurosurgery world of its shortcomings from the Ivory Tower than be in Detroit or similar places where a majority of their patients will be the minorities they claim to care so deeply about. Walk the walk folks.
Our predecessors focused on pushing the barriers of neurosurgery, to help patients. New techniques, new devices, new therapies. Will the new generation be able to accomplish as much, or is the focus off the mark.
Things may change, as they have for abortion:
https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-com...ive-action
(06-25-2022, 04:12 AM)Guest Wrote: (06-23-2022, 07:49 PM)Guest Wrote: (06-23-2022, 07:33 PM)Guest Wrote: (06-23-2022, 04:01 PM)Guest Wrote: (06-23-2022, 01:00 PM)Guest Wrote: Honestly the neurosurgery match isn't that hard. There are so many people who match every year with 220-230s. I would argue that publishing 20-30 papers paired with a 220 on step can make you match.
race and gender play a big role.
At my institution, race and gender play a big role in getting you higher on the rank list. Think its like adding 10-15 points on Step, etc. There’s a lot of affirmative action going on. It just is. In 2010 programs weren't trying to suppress these demographics. Now its all we talk about.
Race and gender plays no role in matching. Those women and minorities who match tend to be absolute rockstars and I would argue that if they were a white male, they would match at even more desirable places. I have been in assisting in the interview/rank process at my institution and I can tell you this for a fact.
what institution bc I'm getting forced out for race and religion
Lol, I call bullshit, unless we are going to hear about a lawsuit shortly.
(06-26-2022, 10:11 AM)Guest Wrote: https://www.statnews.com/2022/06/21/what...residents/
Fascinating to observe the the slow collapse of the most multicultural society in history. The disease has progressed so far that it has even managed to infiltrate our field. Sometime over the last fifteen years American society congealed into fragmented interest groups and now we are reaping the consequences of this grievance culture. Instead of focusing on making ourselves better Neurosurgeons, we're on here bickering about social issues.
As many have correctly pointed out earlier in the thread, equality of opportunity /= equality of outcome and no amount of shaking and crying and accusations of racism will change that. No number of "research articles" from gender/race/equity studies departments is going to unseat meritocracy as the best system for career progression. This has been historically tested and is inscribed in the epitaph of every failed system that came before. It will be interesting to see if we can pull ourselves from the brink or if some other power starts to dictate the world order. Most of the contenders challenging the American model are among the most xenophobic/homophobic/whatever-phobic cultures on the planet, and it will be morbidly fascinating to see what happens to the grievance-mongers should one of them take the helm.
(06-26-2022, 01:14 PM)Guest Wrote: (06-26-2022, 10:11 AM)Guest Wrote: https://www.statnews.com/2022/06/21/what...residents/
Fascinating to observe the the slow collapse of the most multicultural society in history. The disease has progressed so far that it has even managed to infiltrate our field. Sometime over the last fifteen years American society congealed into fragmented interest groups and now we are reaping the consequences of this grievance culture. Instead of focusing on making ourselves better Neurosurgeons, we're on here bickering about social issues.
As many have correctly pointed out earlier in the thread, equality of opportunity /= equality of outcome and no amount of shaking and crying and accusations of racism will change that. No number of "research articles" from gender/race/equity studies departments is going to unseat meritocracy as the best system for career progression. This has been historically tested and is inscribed in the epitaph of every failed system that came before. It will be interesting to see if we can pull ourselves from the brink or if some other power starts to dictate the world order. Most of the contenders challenging the American model are among the most xenophobic/homophobic/whatever-phobic cultures on the planet, and it will be morbidly fascinating to see what happens to the grievance-mongers should one of them take the helm.
There is no meritocracy here. How can there be? Does anyone you think of as a “great surgeon” have some benchmark to show they are better than others? You still know the names of people writing letters for applicants, so letter writers’ networks matter. You know applicants’ names, skin color, sex, age before you match them, but why do you need that information? You have applicants write a personal statement, something wholly irrelevant if you’re trying to say medical skill is the only thing that should matter. If their mom and dad are major donors, you better believe the applicant gets a leg up. There are only a set of factors that change the probability of matching and succeeding as a resident, and we have only a vague idea of what actually matters. There is no good, consistent way to assign an objective score, so there can be no meritocracy with the information we use today.
You might counter and say “There are definitely better residents and worse residents, even if I can’t quantify it.” I’d respond that that statement is only partially true, but it’s hard to say if everyone you call “bad” or “good” is actually so. Otherwise first impressions wouldn’t matter and confirmation bias wouldn’t exist.
I’m not saying the current system isn’t the best available to us, I’m just trying to say it is in no way a meritocracy.
I think we can all agree if there are shortcomings to affirmative action that nepotism is also an evil.
(06-26-2022, 02:29 PM)Guest Wrote: (06-26-2022, 01:14 PM)Guest Wrote: (06-26-2022, 10:11 AM)Guest Wrote: https://www.statnews.com/2022/06/21/what...residents/
Fascinating to observe the slow collapse of the most multicultural society in history. The disease has progressed so far that it has even managed to infiltrate our field. Sometime over the last fifteen years American society congealed into fragmented interest groups and now we are reaping the consequences of this grievance culture. Instead of focusing on making ourselves better Neurosurgeons, we're on here bickering about social issues.
As many have correctly pointed out earlier in the thread, equality of opportunity /= equality of outcome and no amount of shaking and crying and accusations of racism will change that. No number of "research articles" from gender/race/equity studies departments is going to unseat meritocracy as the best system for career progression. This has been historically tested and is inscribed in the epitaph of every failed system that came before. It will be interesting to see if we can pull ourselves from the brink or if some other power starts to dictate the world order. Most of the contenders challenging the American model are among the most xenophobic/homophobic/whatever-phobic cultures on the planet, and it will be morbidly fascinating to see what happens to the grievance-mongers should one of them take the helm.
There is no meritocracy here. How can there be? Does anyone you think of as a “great surgeon” have some benchmark to show they are better than others? You still know the names of people writing letters for applicants, so letter writers’ networks matter. You know applicants’ names, skin color, sex, age before you match them, but why do you need that information? You have applicants write a personal statement, something wholly irrelevant if you’re trying to say medical skill is the only thing that should matter. If their mom and dad are major donors, you better believe the applicant gets a leg up. There are only a set of factors that change the probability of matching and succeeding as a resident, and we have only a vague idea of what actually matters. There is no good, consistent way to assign an objective score, so there can be no meritocracy with the information we use today.
You might counter and say “There are definitely better residents and worse residents, even if I can’t quantify it.” I’d respond that that statement is only partially true, but it’s hard to say if everyone you call “bad” or “good” is actually so. Otherwise first impressions wouldn’t matter and confirmation bias wouldn’t exist.
I’m not saying the current system isn’t the best available to us, I’m just trying to say it is in no way a meritocracy.
Thank you for engaging in good faith.
I may be mistaken, but nobody on here or elsewhere in Neurosurgery seems to believes that the current system is anywhere near perfect meritocracy. Connections matter more than they should, and it is likely that there is a smattering of people out there who genuinely disadvantage applicants based on protected characteristics. However, to pretend that this is the trend when the exact opposite seems to be true is disingenuous. The expose of admissions data from all the most prestigious institutions of higher learning in this country clearly demonstrates that the system is biased in the other direction. Skin color, sex, and age are requested to favor "disadvantaged" individuals even if they personally come from highly advantageous backgrounds. This is my anecdotal experience on both sides of the admissions process, and I'm willing to bet that it is the experience of many others on both sides as well.
For years, evidence has mounted that favoritism is directed against groups who are classically considered to be favored. Here are just a couple related articles:
https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2015/04...-positions
https://dailyfreepress.com/2011/03/24/wo...udy-shows/
These studies exist despite a media and academic establishment that has become ideologically homogeneous to historically unprecedented levels:
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201...ives-12-1/
https://www.kpcnews.com/opinions/article...24e27.html
Imagine what the reality must be if even a system that is entirely ideologically aligned with one side of this debate is forced to admit the other side has a point. The answer to an imperfect but functional system is not to tear it down and adopt an alternative that has failed spectacularly time and time again.
|
