This is anecdotal but at my medical school which is discussed here often, the URMs were very often from families in the top 1%, and there were many students from Nigerian/Caribbean backgrounds.
The K-12 education system is failing our inner city students, that’s the key. Medical school admissions and neurosurgery matches can’t make up for the 1000s of students not given a chance early on.
Affirmative action based on socioeconomic status would be more effective in righting wrongs.
(06-26-2022, 05:04 PM)Guest Wrote: This is anecdotal but at my medical school which is discussed here often, the URMs were very often from families in the top 1%, and there were many students from Nigerian/Caribbean backgrounds.
The K-12 education system is failing our inner city students, that’s the key. Medical school admissions and neurosurgery matches can’t make up for the 1000s of students not given a chance early on.
Affirmative action based on socioeconomic status would be more effective in righting wrongs.
This is true, but affirmative action is currently the only policy that addresses the systemic racism and historical inequality that exists in the US. If you get rid of it, there is nothing. It’s extremely rare that people asking to remove affirmative action propose anything in its place.
I think as members of a majority and non-discriminated group, we should have to prove that we make good on those advantages. If someone who faced real hardship looks the same as you on paper, my personal belief is that you either fucked up, are less talented, or didn’t work as hard. Make good on the opportunity given. Our field is still majority white men, so it’s not like anyone is shutting you out
(06-26-2022, 05:10 PM)Guest Wrote: (06-26-2022, 05:04 PM)Guest Wrote: This is anecdotal but at my medical school which is discussed here often, the URMs were very often from families in the top 1%, and there were many students from Nigerian/Caribbean backgrounds.
The K-12 education system is failing our inner city students, that’s the key. Medical school admissions and neurosurgery matches can’t make up for the 1000s of students not given a chance early on.
Affirmative action based on socioeconomic status would be more effective in righting wrongs.
This is true, but affirmative action is currently the only policy that addresses the systemic racism and historical inequality that exists in the US. If you get rid of it, there is nothing. It’s extremely rare that people asking to remove affirmative action propose anything in its place.
I think as members of a majority and non-discriminated group, we should have to prove that we make good on those advantages. If someone who faced real hardship looks the same as you on paper, my personal belief is that you either fucked up, are less talented, or didn’t work as hard. Make good on the opportunity given. Our field is still majority white men, so it’s not like anyone is shutting you out
Affirmative action based on socioeconomic status would capture poor whites/ORMs. It’s not a bad alternative.
(06-26-2022, 03:14 PM)Guest Wrote: (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.
Those are terrible sources, which throws into question the idea you are actually engaging anyone. The Washington Times in particular has had difficulty verifying its sources and pushing conspiracy theories. The last two articles you bring up are opinion pieces, even.
Republicans have been shifting further and further right, so even if there is a shift to Democrat from Republican in higher education as those opinion pieces say, college professors could easily have shifted party loyalty with zero shift in opinion so those numbers would be irrelevant. Just like how Mitt Romney was a conservative Republican in 2012, but 2016 on, he was a RINO.
(06-27-2022, 02:07 PM)Guest Wrote: (06-26-2022, 03:14 PM)Guest Wrote: (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.
Those are terrible sources, which throws into question the idea you are actually engaging anyone. The Washington Times in particular has had difficulty verifying its sources and pushing conspiracy theories. The last two articles you bring up are opinion pieces, even.
Republicans have been shifting further and further right, so even if there is a shift to Democrat from Republican in higher education as those opinion pieces say, college professors could easily have shifted party loyalty with zero shift in opinion so those numbers would be irrelevant. Just like how Mitt Romney was a conservative Republican in 2012, but 2016 on, he was a RINO.
Ok, is Pew (a consistently left leaning institution) a poor source?
The shift in the American public’s political values | Pew Research Center
Don't like the Washington Times, here is WaPo (Essentially democrat propaganda) article:
The United States has shifted left politically over the past decades. Here’s how. - The Washington Post
There is little evidence of significant rightward polarization of any significant portion of the population. Meanwhile the evidence for leftward radicalization is hard to deny even for allied media sources.
Recently read this article describing sharp leftward shift among younger physicians
Ideological Sorting of Physicians in Both Geography and the Workplace | Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law | Duke University Press (dukeupress.edu)
colleges and universities are moving to the far left. so that is why they are all going in decline, with decline in research, and decline in quality and an increase after increase in tuition cost. and of course the people who run them all blame white men for everything
(06-28-2022, 03:48 PM)Guest Wrote: colleges and universities are moving to the far left. so that is why they are all going in decline, with decline in research, and decline in quality and an increase after increase in tuition cost. and of course the people who run them all blame white men for everything
Poor white men 
(06-28-2022, 03:48 PM)Guest Wrote: colleges and universities are moving to the far left. so that is why they are all going in decline, with decline in research, and decline in quality and an increase after increase in tuition cost. and of course the people who run them all blame white men for everything
Agree. At this point, the only hope is that they will reorient as the money dries up. For now they have been able to sustain themselves with international tuition, but that trend is rapidly reversing as evidence keeps being uncovered that they actively discriminate against the very students they are fleecing.
(06-29-2022, 08:08 PM)Guest Wrote: (06-28-2022, 03:48 PM)Guest Wrote: colleges and universities are moving to the far left. so that is why they are all going in decline, with decline in research, and decline in quality and an increase after increase in tuition cost. and of course the people who run them all blame white men for everything
Agree. At this point, the only hope is that they will reorient as the money dries up. For now they have been able to sustain themselves with international tuition, but that trend is rapidly reversing as evidence keeps being uncovered that they actively discriminate against the very students they are fleecing.
Each college has like 10 diversity officers all of whom get paid 6 figure salaries min, with some getting 7 figures. not to mention all the title IX officers whose job it is to terrorize and expel and ruin the lives of men.
Universities were once magnificent places of discovery and inquiry. But then we had feminists take over and then came the woke and it is all going down the drain.
No wonder so many talented neurosurgeons are leaving academia for private practice or leaving the field all together, such as the UTSW guy. In the old days you'd stay in academia for the freedom and ability to do something meaningful. No longer.
It is so sad to see this. People talk about the slowing pace of scientific advancement, maybe that is because the university is driving its best and brightest out.
(06-29-2022, 09:16 PM)Guest Wrote: (06-29-2022, 08:08 PM)Guest Wrote: (06-28-2022, 03:48 PM)Guest Wrote: colleges and universities are moving to the far left. so that is why they are all going in decline, with decline in research, and decline in quality and an increase after increase in tuition cost. and of course the people who run them all blame white men for everything
Agree. At this point, the only hope is that they will reorient as the money dries up. For now they have been able to sustain themselves with international tuition, but that trend is rapidly reversing as evidence keeps being uncovered that they actively discriminate against the very students they are fleecing.
Each college has like 10 diversity officers all of whom get paid 6 figure salaries min, with some getting 7 figures. not to mention all the title IX officers whose job it is to terrorize and expel and ruin the lives of men.
Universities were once magnificent places of discovery and inquiry. But then we had feminists take over and then came the woke and it is all going down the drain.
No wonder so many talented neurosurgeons are leaving academia for private practice or leaving the field all together, such as the UTSW guy. In the old days you'd stay in academia for the freedom and ability to do something meaningful. No longer.
It is so sad to see this. People talk about the slowing pace of scientific advancement, maybe that is because the university is driving its best and brightest out.
Holy shit, it’s like hearing a senile grandpa rant while trying to find his pointy white hat. Universities weren’t ever that, and professors only mattered if they brought in funding, not if they impacted their field. Academia has productivity goals, you just get paid worse.
|
