(06-22-2022, 11:25 PM)Guest Wrote: Barrow? Northwestern? I wonder when people here--most of whom have learning disabilities--are going to start blaming the bad apples instead of the tree?
You fools all sound like the left-wingers who will blame everyone for the crime--the cops, the teachers, the doctors, the neighbors, the parents--except, that is, the criminal himself.
My senile grandpa brings "the left" into every conversation as well. What you perfectly display here, is refusing to look at complicated issues in a nuanced way. Both the apple and the tree may be at fault.
I don't think I'm leaning too far out the window when I say that we're seeing in neurosurgery what the rest of the workforce has experienced heavily since covid. People started reevaluating their lives and most don't want to expose themselves to a grueling 7 years of residency and many more of making their professional life the essence of oneself. I'm not saying that's good or bad, but we're getting there. Hiring will be harder
(06-23-2022, 05:32 AM)Guest Wrote: (06-22-2022, 11:25 PM)Guest Wrote: Barrow? Northwestern? I wonder when people here--most of whom have learning disabilities--are going to start blaming the bad apples instead of the tree?
You fools all sound like the left-wingers who will blame everyone for the crime--the cops, the teachers, the doctors, the neighbors, the parents--except, that is, the criminal himself.
My senile grandpa brings "the left" into every conversation as well. What you perfectly display here, is refusing to look at complicated issues in a nuanced way. Both the apple and the tree may be at fault.
I don't think I'm leaning too far out the window when I say that we're seeing in neurosurgery what the rest of the workforce has experienced heavily since covid. People started reevaluating their lives and most don't want to expose themselves to a grueling 7 years of residency and many more of making their professional life the essence of oneself. I'm not saying that's good or bad, but we're getting there. Hiring will be harder
Good. I hope this means that it will be easier to match.
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.
(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.
Compared to most other specialties, or matching historically, that's pretty damn hard. I agree that, if you're being smart about it and start early, it's very doable.
Then again, I feel the tide shifting in terms of evaluating applicants based on their research volume as many of those "academic superstars" ended up disappointing. The number of faculty that are fed up with just picking people who can write systematic reviews is rising and we're hopefully getting back to the, much more difficult, nuanced way of a more holistic approach to choosing good applicants. Thank god subI volume is increasing again.
(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.
(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.
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.
(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.
(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.
This varies from institution to institution. My program explicitly favors "diversity". Matches have reflected this initiative for years. Really undermines confidence in the individuals who are matching knowing that they attained the position based on immutable characteristics.
(06-24-2022, 12:08 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.
This varies from institution to institution. My program explicitly favors "diversity". Matches have reflected this initiative for years. Really undermines confidence in the individuals who are matching knowing that they attained the position based on immutable characteristics.
Jesus Christ, what kind of student doctors are you. Stop with this anecdotal nonsense and show some data if you want to make these claims that I’m sure you would say “Sounds racist but isn’t.” I hope you don’t make medical decisions from anecdotal data, too.
It sounds like you take issue with more minorities and women being hired, saying that it is evidence of looser requirements to get the job. An easy way to refute the claim (not the only one but it’s a message board, not an essay): medical schools have had more diversity initiatives, so there is an increase in affirmative-action-targeted medical students, so there are naturally more individuals from those groups in the match pool. Since there are more and there is no evidence of a significant difference in performance than non-affirmative-action-targeted applicants, there will be more matched. No shit.
Affirmative action was only ever designed to improve access and create equitable opportunities, but everyone knows it’s not a substitute for performance, especially in medicine. You don’t get top of your class and a fantastic step score because the school or USMLE gave you a few points for your skin color or genitals. If you feel your spot is threatened by a marginal affirmative action applicant, you probably weren’t top of your class, since the top of the class isn’t worried about small things displacing them from their desired field.
I suppose you are also supportive of malignant programs, correct? That way if someone is hired that doesn’t cut it, it is easy undo the hiring decision? On the other hand, are you worried your performance may cause others to rethink hiring you?
^^ My guy, the fallacy of these diversity initiatives is equality of opportunity should equal equality of outcomes. Any outcomes that are different by race are a “disparity” and often people conclude without evidence it must be due to hatred of skin color.
260s URM are at the top of my rank list. 220s 230s but URM are next. Period. 260s lots of papers etc are after them, then theres everyone else.
|
