(06-24-2022, 09:22 AM)Guest Wrote: ^^ 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.
This is just plain false. No one is ranking 220-230 URMs above 260s + pubs from other races. If that was the case, then the urm matching in neurosurgery would reflect it. However, what we see is the top programs tend to match white peeps because for one reason or the other, they have stronger applications. Look at the match list from this year and see where urms match, most of them matched at mid-low tier programs where as the top tier programs matched a very normal class
(06-24-2022, 09:22 AM)Guest Wrote: ^^ 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.
None of that is true, and you don’t know what you’re talking about. You’re repeating fear-mongering things you’ve heard someone say.
Ranking marginal URM applicants over top tier non-URM applicants doesn’t actually happen in practice, and when someone that has great numbers didn’t match, it’s usually because of something hard to quantify like being completely inept socially. Smug applicants that don’t have insight into areas where they need improvement is a huge turn off to any program, and that smugness will sink anyone with 200 pubs, 280 step, and chair connections. We don’t want people that make excuses, and some applicant blaming something like reverse racism sounds like someone that’s going to make plenty of other excuses for poor performance in the future.
(06-21-2022, 08:19 AM)Guest Wrote: Wash U lost a PGY-1
Did this leave an open PGY-1, or PGY-2 position?
(06-24-2022, 08:52 AM)Guest Wrote: (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: 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?
I’m probably between the top 20-30% in my class. I do feel threatened by affirmative action. Are my fears invalid because I’m a good but not a top applicant?
(06-24-2022, 01:49 PM)Guest Wrote: (06-21-2022, 08:19 AM)Guest Wrote: Wash U lost a PGY-1
Did this leave an open PGY-1, or PGY-2 position?
They’re not filling
Yes more racism from future and current neurosurgeons. What a surprize.
Blacks face significant racism, and this has been documented
https://www.statnews.com/2022/06/20/blac...residents/
Backs have to get higher grades and scores and evals than other races. On top of that, blacks are not allowed to make small mistakes that other races routinely make. Blacks make up just 1% of current neurosurgeons, despite making up 13% of the US population. According to my calculations, 20% of the incoming residency classes should be black in order to achieve even a semblance of racial parity in neurosurgery, but that is not happening, unfortunately.
Also, research has shown that white doctors routinely discriminate against black patients, so achieving racial parity in terms of number of neurosurgeons is a matter of life and death for many patients. Thankfully, the mood seems to be shifting in a positive direction.
(06-24-2022, 02:06 PM)Guest Wrote: (06-24-2022, 08:52 AM)Guest Wrote: (06-24-2022, 12:08 AM)Guest Wrote: (06-23-2022, 07:49 PM)Guest Wrote: (06-23-2022, 07:33 PM)Guest Wrote: 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?
I’m probably between the top 20-30% in my class. I do feel threatened by affirmative action. Are my fears invalid because I’m a good but not a top applicant?
It sounds like you have your excuse ready for when you don’t match because of substandard performance in school. Programs want to see you fix the problem instead of accept a bad result and change nothing. Real victim mentality there.
(06-24-2022, 03:08 PM)Guest Wrote: Yes more racism from future and current neurosurgeons. What a surprize.
Blacks face significant racism, and this has been documented
https://www.statnews.com/2022/06/20/blac...residents/
Backs have to get higher grades and scores and evals than other races. On top of that, blacks are not allowed to make small mistakes that other races routinely make. Blacks make up just 1% of current neurosurgeons, despite making up 13% of the US population. According to my calculations, 20% of the incoming residency classes should be black in order to achieve even a semblance of racial parity in neurosurgery, but that is not happening, unfortunately.
Also, research has shown that white doctors routinely discriminate against black patients, so achieving racial parity in terms of number of neurosurgeons is a matter of life and death for many patients. Thankfully, the mood seems to be shifting in a positive direction.
You link to an article, not a formal research study.
Nonetheless, the article makes the claim that black residents are "forced" out of programs at greater rates. The article does nothing to clarify the difference between being forced out and not meeting performance standards. One of the main arguments against affirmative action is that it leads to unqualified applicants who are hired, fail to perform, and are subsequently let go. This trend is then interpreted as "evidence of racism," which fuels further affirmative action, and the cycle continues.
According to my calculations, 97% of the NBA draft for the next decade needs to be white in order to achieve racial parity. Let's work on that first as the discrepancy and consequently the racism is much more egregious in that field.
I look forward to the ad hominem attacks that are sure to follow.
(06-24-2022, 03:27 PM)Guest Wrote: (06-24-2022, 03:08 PM)Guest Wrote: Yes more racism from future and current neurosurgeons. What a surprize.
Blacks face significant racism, and this has been documented
https://www.statnews.com/2022/06/20/blac...residents/
Backs have to get higher grades and scores and evals than other races. On top of that, blacks are not allowed to make small mistakes that other races routinely make. Blacks make up just 1% of current neurosurgeons, despite making up 13% of the US population. According to my calculations, 20% of the incoming residency classes should be black in order to achieve even a semblance of racial parity in neurosurgery, but that is not happening, unfortunately.
Also, research has shown that white doctors routinely discriminate against black patients, so achieving racial parity in terms of number of neurosurgeons is a matter of life and death for many patients. Thankfully, the mood seems to be shifting in a positive direction.
You link to an article, not a formal research study.
Nonetheless, the article makes the claim that black residents are "forced" out of programs at greater rates. The article does nothing to clarify the difference between being forced out and not meeting performance standards. One of the main arguments against affirmative action is that it leads to unqualified applicants who are hired, fail to perform, and are subsequently let go. This trend is then interpreted as "evidence of racism," which fuels further affirmative action, and the cycle continues.
According to my calculations, 97% of the NBA draft for the next decade needs to be white in order to achieve racial parity. Let's work on that first as the discrepancy and consequently the racism is much more egregious in that field.
I look forward to the ad hominem attacks that are sure to follow.
I am just here to say no 220-230 URM is taking spots over 260 + multiple pubs non-URM. From the linked article, that doctor was AOA and probably an amazing student by all standards. You don't suddenly become inefficient unless you are surrounded by a toxic environment. Look at the urologist who was "cautioned for operating too fast" despite ample evidence that she was a skilled surgeon. Nonsense
We need to do better b
(06-24-2022, 03:35 PM)Guest Wrote: (06-24-2022, 03:27 PM)Guest Wrote: (06-24-2022, 03:08 PM)Guest Wrote: Yes more racism from future and current neurosurgeons. What a surprize.
Blacks face significant racism, and this has been documented
https://www.statnews.com/2022/06/20/blac...residents/
Backs have to get higher grades and scores and evals than other races. On top of that, blacks are not allowed to make small mistakes that other races routinely make. Blacks make up just 1% of current neurosurgeons, despite making up 13% of the US population. According to my calculations, 20% of the incoming residency classes should be black in order to achieve even a semblance of racial parity in neurosurgery, but that is not happening, unfortunately.
Also, research has shown that white doctors routinely discriminate against black patients, so achieving racial parity in terms of number of neurosurgeons is a matter of life and death for many patients. Thankfully, the mood seems to be shifting in a positive direction.
You link to an article, not a formal research study.
Nonetheless, the article makes the claim that black residents are "forced" out of programs at greater rates. The article does nothing to clarify the difference between being forced out and not meeting performance standards. One of the main arguments against affirmative action is that it leads to unqualified applicants who are hired, fail to perform, and are subsequently let go. This trend is then interpreted as "evidence of racism," which fuels further affirmative action, and the cycle continues.
According to my calculations, 97% of the NBA draft for the next decade needs to be white in order to achieve racial parity. Let's work on that first as the discrepancy and consequently the racism is much more egregious in that field.
I look forward to the ad hominem attacks that are sure to follow.
I am just here to say no 220-230 URM is taking spots over 260 + multiple pubs non-URM. From the linked article, that doctor was AOA and probably an amazing student by all standards. You don't suddenly become inefficient unless you are surrounded by a toxic environment. Look at the urologist who was "cautioned for operating too fast" despite ample evidence that she was a skilled surgeon. Nonsense
We need to do better b
TLDR for the above:
Strawman.
Anecdote.
Catch phrase.
|
