|
Most Impressive / Least Impressive
|
|
02-13-2021, 04:15 PM
being a minority helps in hiring decisions? really because the data (i.e. multiple papers) show women are less likely to match into neurosurgery even when you normalize for med school rank and board scores. blacks and hispanics make up <3% of residents combined. never met a native american nsu applicant. if you are openly LGBTQ+, we all know that you are less likely to match. can we stop spreading lies. favoritism isn't happening.
02-13-2021, 04:30 PM
(02-13-2021, 04:15 PM)Guest Wrote: being a minority helps in hiring decisions? really because the data (i.e. multiple papers) show women are less likely to match into neurosurgery even when you normalize for med school rank and board scores. blacks and hispanics make up <3% of residents combined. never met a native american nsu applicant. if you are openly LGBTQ+, we all know that you are less likely to match. can we stop spreading lies. favoritism isn't happening. Can you link some of those papers? Would be nice to back up some of this discussion with evidence so we're not all just making assumptions. (02-13-2021, 04:30 PM)Guest Wrote:(02-13-2021, 04:15 PM)Guest Wrote: being a minority helps in hiring decisions? really because the data (i.e. multiple papers) show women are less likely to match into neurosurgery even when you normalize for med school rank and board scores. blacks and hispanics make up <3% of residents combined. never met a native american nsu applicant. if you are openly LGBTQ+, we all know that you are less likely to match. can we stop spreading lies. favoritism isn't happening. FYI this is the only relevant paper I found: PMID 29882698. Sort of complicated findings in my opinion, I don't understand how they arrived at odds ratios for women matching in the 0.5-6 range when 73% of men matched and 62% of women matched. That seems like an error? On top of this, the data is from 1993-2007 - I would think we can all agree that things like affirmative action have gotten much more common in the 14 years since then. All that being said, the paper did try to adjust for females having lower step scores and found that it didn't account for the lower match rates, so bias isn't out of the question. Obviously something to be concerned about, but this paper certainly isn't a slam dunk for either side of the argument (at least as it relates to today). Maybe we can all agree that bias against any group isn't acceptable and that we should look at data rather than relying on anecdotes we've heard?
02-13-2021, 06:45 PM
yea "affirmative action" is truly changing the face of medicine. thats why less black men in 2014 applied to medical school than in 1978. AAMC data. but your last statement is true and i generally agree with your vibe. let's stop with the anecdotes.
02-13-2021, 07:00 PM
(02-13-2021, 06:45 PM)Guest Wrote: yea "affirmative action" is truly changing the face of medicine. thats why less black men in 2014 applied to medical school than in 1978. AAMC data. but your last statement is true and i generally agree with your vibe. let's stop with the anecdotes. Wow didn’t know that. Thanks for sharing.
02-13-2021, 07:05 PM
interviewing at some of the commonly quoted top tier programs, i am beyond impressed with the accomplishments of some of my co-applicants, but some of y'all...... can't help but wonder about
^ myself included lol
02-13-2021, 08:27 PM
02-13-2021, 09:59 PM
1. Just because someone posts their (lower than avg for nsgy) step score and says they experienced less regional bias and were female, does not mean the sole difference that opened them up to more interviews was their sex. Way more goes into an app that makes people want to interview you.
2. Just because a program makes a point to interview underrepresented groups does not mean they proportionally match those groups every year. The demographic of the interviewers are more likely to subconsciously “vibe” with those who they see similar traits to either themselves or their residents. A program can interview 50% women and still continually not match women. Same goes for minority groups, openly lgbtq, etc. Some programs are doing a continually better job at both hiring and matching a more diverse group, but many are not. There are changes that need to start at a departmental level before they can be reflected at a residency level. Every applicant faces struggles and is still deserving to get a position they’ve worked hard for, but there are significant barriers to minority groups that start during interviews and last throughout their career. Neurosurgery as a whole is extremely competitive and everyone is facing interview/match struggles. Be respectful of everyone’s struggles and don’t blame yours on other candidates’ perceived “URM attractiveness”.
02-13-2021, 11:32 PM
^ thanks rush resident
Definitely bias against women still in neurosurgery. It's getting better but I'm ashamed to say that in the last 12 years I have personally heard at least one attending and resident vote against an applicant explicitly because of her gender.
02-15-2021, 10:49 AM
Women ruined neurosurgery.
|
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
