(11-22-2021, 09:56 PM)Guest Wrote: (11-22-2021, 04:50 PM)Guest Wrote: (11-22-2021, 03:14 PM)Guest Wrote: (11-22-2021, 03:01 PM)Guest Wrote: (11-22-2021, 09:59 AM)Guest Wrote: That’s a stupid comment. Neurosurgeons especially should hold ethical standards in high regard. People that don’t think rules apply to them and also hold a lot of power are a dangerous combination, Christoper Duntsch.
What a ridiculous response. We're talking about whether or not we're allowed to ask about your family/heritage in an interview, not paralyzing people. Stop with the melodramatics.
I think a better point to be brought up about neurosurgery being a "game of who wants it more" is that it inherently biases it to those with more means to travel etc. Something I'm hoping, maybe naively, that programs take into consideration.
You know everyone used to have to travel for every single interview, right? If you don’t have the means to travel you literally couldn’t apply. Applicants doing second looks in a cycle where interviewing is now completely free doesn’t seem like a lot to ask for.. get those credit cards read and let the hunger games begin $$$
haha yeah that's the point: it was then and is still now biased to those with more means as you stated. The cost of travel for second looks or interviews may not be a lot to ask from you, which is great, but for other people it can make a significant difference in how and when rent, groceries, or other bills get paid for. I think we're roughly on the same page.
(11-22-2021, 10:50 PM)Guest Wrote: (11-22-2021, 04:50 PM)Guest Wrote: (11-22-2021, 03:14 PM)Guest Wrote: (11-22-2021, 03:01 PM)Guest Wrote: (11-22-2021, 09:59 AM)Guest Wrote: That’s a stupid comment. Neurosurgeons especially should hold ethical standards in high regard. People that don’t think rules apply to them and also hold a lot of power are a dangerous combination, Christoper Duntsch.
What a ridiculous response. We're talking about whether or not we're allowed to ask about your family/heritage in an interview, not paralyzing people. Stop with the melodramatics.
I think a better point to be brought up about neurosurgery being a "game of who wants it more" is that it inherently biases it to those with more means to travel etc. Something I'm hoping, maybe naively, that programs take into consideration.
You know everyone used to have to travel for every single interview, right? If you don’t have the means to travel you literally couldn’t apply. Applicants doing second looks in a cycle where interviewing is now completely free doesn’t seem like a lot to ask for.. get those credit cards read and let the hunger games begin $$$
I'm just an applicant, but here's my take. If you want to produce the best neurosurgeons/scientists/etc that we're capable of producing, it makes sense to level the playing field as much as is practical. If one applicant comes from a school with a shitty financial aid department, and isn't able to take out enough additional loans to cover as many flights/hotels as another applicant, then we lose the ability to objectively distinguish between them on the metrics that actually matter. If one applicant didn't work as hard during medical school, and has lower scores/grades and less pubs, but their daddy funds their applications to 100+ programs and their travels to 30+ programs for second looks so they can mingle with residents/PDs and get a great spot, then the harder-working applicant with no family money who can only bootstrap an application to 50 programs and 20 second look visits is at a disadvantage, which is bad for the field of neurosurgery, since the person with more potential to be impactful in this field will end up at a worse program, or no program at all.
This isn't some woke snowflake bullshit, regardless of the fact that that's the interpretation of countless dinosaurs in this field. The fact is that when we level the playing field, whether that entails program-funded second-looks, capping second looks, etc, it seems that the result will be a stronger pool of matched applicants than would otherwise be the case.
I spy, with my little eyes, a very woke applicant.
(11-22-2021, 10:50 PM)Guest Wrote: (11-22-2021, 04:50 PM)Guest Wrote: (11-22-2021, 03:14 PM)Guest Wrote: (11-22-2021, 03:01 PM)Guest Wrote: (11-22-2021, 09:59 AM)Guest Wrote: That’s a stupid comment. Neurosurgeons especially should hold ethical standards in high regard. People that don’t think rules apply to them and also hold a lot of power are a dangerous combination, Christoper Duntsch.
What a ridiculous response. We're talking about whether or not we're allowed to ask about your family/heritage in an interview, not paralyzing people. Stop with the melodramatics.
I think a better point to be brought up about neurosurgery being a "game of who wants it more" is that it inherently biases it to those with more means to travel etc. Something I'm hoping, maybe naively, that programs take into consideration.
You know everyone used to have to travel for every single interview, right? If you don’t have the means to travel you literally couldn’t apply. Applicants doing second looks in a cycle where interviewing is now completely free doesn’t seem like a lot to ask for.. get those credit cards read and let the hunger games begin $$$
I'm just an applicant, but here's my take. If you want to produce the best neurosurgeons/scientists/etc that we're capable of producing, it makes sense to level the playing field as much as is practical. If one applicant comes from a school with a shitty financial aid department, and isn't able to take out enough additional loans to cover as many flights/hotels as another applicant, then we lose the ability to objectively distinguish between them on the metrics that actually matter. If one applicant didn't work as hard during medical school, and has lower scores/grades and less pubs, but their daddy funds their applications to 100+ programs and their travels to 30+ programs for second looks so they can mingle with residents/PDs and get a great spot, then the harder-working applicant with no family money who can only bootstrap an application to 50 programs and 20 second look visits is at a disadvantage, which is bad for the field of neurosurgery, since the person with more potential to be impactful in this field will end up at a worse program, or no program at all.
This isn't some woke snowflake bullshit, regardless of the fact that that's the interpretation of countless dinosaurs in this field. The fact is that when we level the playing field, whether that entails program-funded second-looks, capping second looks, etc, it seems that the result will be a stronger pool of matched applicants than would otherwise be the case.
Life isn't fair.
(11-23-2021, 02:15 PM)Guest Wrote: I spy, with my little eyes, a very woke applicant.
Life isn't fair.
You idiots and your ignorant dinosaur ideas will be obsolete soon, there's nothing you can do about it, and the field will be better for it. Can't wait.
Posts: 3
Threads: 1
Joined: Nov 2021
Reputation:
0
(11-23-2021, 02:15 PM)Guest Wrote: (11-22-2021, 09:56 PM)Guest Wrote: (11-22-2021, 04:50 PM)Guest Wrote: (11-22-2021, 03:14 PM)Guest Wrote: (11-22-2021, 03:01 PM)Guest Wrote: What a ridiculous response. We're talking about whether or not we're allowed to ask about your family/heritage in an interview, not paralyzing people. Stop with the melodramatics.
I think a better point to be brought up about neurosurgery being a "game of who wants it more" is that it inherently biases it to those with more means to travel etc. Something I'm hoping, maybe naively, that programs take into consideration.
You know everyone used to have to travel for every single interview, right? If you don’t have the means to travel you literally couldn’t apply. Applicants doing second looks in a cycle where interviewing is now completely free doesn’t seem like a lot to ask for.. get those credit cards read and let the hunger games begin $$$
haha yeah that's the point: it was then and is still now biased to those with more means as you stated. The cost of travel for second looks or interviews may not be a lot to ask from you, which is great, but for other people it can make a significant difference in how and when rent, groceries, or other bills get paid for. I think we're roughly on the same page.
(11-22-2021, 10:50 PM)Guest Wrote: (11-22-2021, 04:50 PM)Guest Wrote: (11-22-2021, 03:14 PM)Guest Wrote: (11-22-2021, 03:01 PM)Guest Wrote: What a ridiculous response. We're talking about whether or not we're allowed to ask about your family/heritage in an interview, not paralyzing people. Stop with the melodramatics.
I think a better point to be brought up about neurosurgery being a "game of who wants it more" is that it inherently biases it to those with more means to travel etc. Something I'm hoping, maybe naively, that programs take into consideration.
You know everyone used to have to travel for every single interview, right? If you don’t have the means to travel you literally couldn’t apply. Applicants doing second looks in a cycle where interviewing is now completely free doesn’t seem like a lot to ask for.. get those credit cards read and let the hunger games begin $$$
I'm just an applicant, but here's my take. If you want to produce the best neurosurgeons/scientists/etc that we're capable of producing, it makes sense to level the playing field as much as is practical. If one applicant comes from a school with a shitty financial aid department, and isn't able to take out enough additional loans to cover as many flights/hotels as another applicant, then we lose the ability to objectively distinguish between them on the metrics that actually matter. If one applicant didn't work as hard during medical school, and has lower scores/grades and less pubs, but their daddy funds their applications to 100+ programs and their travels to 30+ programs for second looks so they can mingle with residents/PDs and get a great spot, then the harder-working applicant with no family money who can only bootstrap an application to 50 programs and 20 second look visits is at a disadvantage, which is bad for the field of neurosurgery, since the person with more potential to be impactful in this field will end up at a worse program, or no program at all.
This isn't some woke snowflake bullshit, regardless of the fact that that's the interpretation of countless dinosaurs in this field. The fact is that when we level the playing field, whether that entails program-funded second-looks, capping second looks, etc, it seems that the result will be a stronger pool of matched applicants than would otherwise be the case.
I spy, with my little eyes, a very woke applicant.
you might be the twitter guy.
Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk
(11-23-2021, 05:35 PM)Guest Wrote: (11-23-2021, 02:15 PM)Guest Wrote: I spy, with my little eyes, a very woke applicant.
Life isn't fair.
You idiots and your ignorant dinosaur ideas will be obsolete soon, there's nothing you can do about it, and the field will be better for it. Can't wait.
I spy, with my dinosaur eyes, an extremely woke applicant.
Seriously though, why not ask your family for help? Why not be humble and ask for help? Ask your parents to pay and you can pay them back in residency.
I can't understand your woke arrogance.
(11-23-2021, 07:41 PM)Guest Wrote: (11-23-2021, 05:35 PM)Guest Wrote: (11-23-2021, 02:15 PM)Guest Wrote: I spy, with my little eyes, a very woke applicant.
Life isn't fair.
You idiots and your ignorant dinosaur ideas will be obsolete soon, there's nothing you can do about it, and the field will be better for it. Can't wait.
I spy, with my dinosaur eyes, an extremely woke applicant.
Seriously though, why not ask your family for help? Why not be humble and ask for help? Ask your parents to pay and you can pay them back in residency.
I can't understand your woke arrogance.
The irony in this comment lol
(11-23-2021, 05:35 PM)Guest Wrote: (11-23-2021, 02:15 PM)Guest Wrote: I spy, with my little eyes, a very woke applicant.
Life isn't fair.
You idiots and your ignorant dinosaur ideas will be obsolete soon, there's nothing you can do about it, and the field will be better for it. Can't wait.
It's wild because the people you're calling dinosaurs and expecting to be obsolete soon are probably just upper level residents, so you'll be waiting a while.
in my school, its easy to tell the poor students from the rich students. the poor students only go into medicine for the money/status. you can tell my the way they talk, the way the walk, their behavior.
the rich students, in my opinion at least, go into medicine for the higher goal of helping others. they seem less interested in money. they also have better ways of behaving.
it makes sense that PDs would do their very best to screen out low-income people, which seems to be the case.
(11-23-2021, 09:08 PM)Guest Wrote: in my school, its easy to tell the poor students from the rich students. the poor students only go into medicine for the money/status. you can tell my the way they talk, the way the walk, their behavior.
the rich students, in my opinion at least, go into medicine for the higher goal of helping others. they seem less interested in money. they also have better ways of behaving.
it makes sense that PDs would do their very best to screen out low-income people, which seems to be the case.
what the fuck lol
(11-23-2021, 09:08 PM)Guest Wrote: in my school, its easy to tell the poor students from the rich students. the poor students only go into medicine for the money/status. you can tell my the way they talk, the way the walk, their behavior.
the rich students, in my opinion at least, go into medicine for the higher goal of helping others. they seem less interested in money. they also have better ways of behaving.
it makes sense that PDs would do their very best to screen out low-income people, which seems to be the case.
I agree partially and I know this is going to backfire but I noticed most of the new generation of neurosurgeons are not coming from the noble and high class anymore. Most nowadays are coming for money, prestige-seeking, banging nurses right and left because they never had much attraction before, they lie, they have no morals....etc
|
