Jump to content
Premed 101 Forums

Gender Gaps In Medicine


Recommended Posts

I have seen lately that females are making up a higher percentage of med school students compared to males in the past few years. For example, in McMaster, females make up about 60-65% of the class. I also heard that this years QuARMS class was composed of all females. Does anyone know why females are making up more and more of medical students? There has to be something more than socially accepting women in the workplace. Are females preferred in medicine nowadays, or are there other factors here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 100
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I don't think it's affirmative action that accounts for the increased proportion of women. Perhaps theur experiences have shaped them into who they are. People who have experienced oppression are more likely to be empathetic. Also, I think our culture has grown in the past couple decades. I'm so proud of the progress the feminist movement has made. However, there is still a lot to be done. If you look at the demographic of medical schools now, it's not just the female proportion that has increased, but other groups as well. This includes like the LGBTQQIA+, rural, various socioeconomic backgrounds and etc. I think the MMI may reflect maturity. I believe that adversity/oppression/other experiences may accelerate that growth. Obviously this is a gross generalization and doesn't speak for everyone. Many men experience adversity and are also capable of the same amount of growth.

 

I think that privilege can sometimes prevent someone from seeing the world as it is. There are some things a white blonde cis gendered wealthy male will never experience in comparison to Laverne Cox, based on appearance and identity alone.

 

What does everyone else think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have seen lately that females are making up a higher percentage of med school students compared to males in the past few years. For example, in McMaster, females make up about 60-65% of the class. I also heard that this years QuARMS class was composed of all females. Does anyone know why females are making up more and more of medical students? There has to be something more than socially accepting women in the workplace. Are females preferred in medicine nowadays, or are there other factors here?

First thing to know is what the breakdown of applicants is. Maybe 65% of applicants are female.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have seen lately that females are making up a higher percentage of med school students compared to males in the past few years. For example, in McMaster, females make up about 60-65% of the class. I also heard that this years QuARMS class was composed of all females. Does anyone know why females are making up more and more of medical students? There has to be something more than socially accepting women in the workplace. Are females preferred in medicine nowadays, or are there other factors here?

 

QuArms is very hard to get into. BUT, and this is a big BUT, there is little objective fair criteria used.  No standardized tests required.  Little us for results from national or international science competitions.  It's marks, community involvement, references, etc.  Which favours women at young ages.  Bring in a standardized exam, or standardized HS curriculum everyone has to have taken - and there would be less females.  It's why MCAT schools like Western have more men, while schools that don't use many fair objective requirements (like Ottawa) are heavily skewed female.  McMaster, before verbal reasoning and CASPAR and MMI used to be consistently 75-80% female.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mac's class hasn't exceeded 58% female in at least the last five years (I didn't look back further, but I knew we weren't over 60% for sure) and only surpassed 55% two of those years. My year is 52% female.

 

I think a very big reason for women making up a small majority - on the whole it's about 55% across the country - in fact probably the primary reason, is that women are a larger proportion of all university students to begin with. The pool is already skewed female. In fact when you look at the AFMC applicant data, the success rate for male and female applicants to the English only schools is very similar at 18.1% for males and 18.5% for females in 2014/15 (women do have a higher success rate at the French schools.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mac's class hasn't exceeded 58% female in at least the last five years (I didn't look back further, but I knew we weren't over 60% for sure) and only surpassed 55% two of those years. My year is 52% female.

 

I think a very big reason for women making up a small majority - on the whole it's about 55% across the country - in fact probably the primary reason, is that women are a larger proportion of all university students to begin with. The pool is already skewed female. In fact when you look at the AFMC applicant data, the success rate for male and female applicants to the English only schools is very similar at 18.1% for males and 18.5% for females in 2014/15 (women do have a higher success rate at the French schools.)

 

I would agree - you would have to expect more women in medicine ultimately if everything is working correctly if proportionally more women were applying, and in turn that was because simply more women are enrolling in university proportionally (particularly in programs that tend to have people apply to medical school). If that wasn't going on they it would be confusing (suggesting we adopted a policy to boost male applicants and didn't bother to tell anyone about it, ha). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mac's class hasn't exceeded 58% female in at least the last five years (I didn't look back further, but I knew we weren't over 60% for sure) and only surpassed 55% two of those years. My year is 52% female.

 

I think a very big reason for women making up a small majority - on the whole it's about 55% across the country - in fact probably the primary reason, is that women are a larger proportion of all university students to begin with. The pool is already skewed female. In fact when you look at the AFMC applicant data, the success rate for male and female applicants to the English only schools is very similar at 18.1% for males and 18.5% for females in 2014/15 (women do have a higher success rate at the French schools.)

The more balances results are because the dean of admissions, Reiter, felt the old system was so biased against men.  The new system makes it a bit fairer. Up until 6 or so years ago...the class was consistently 75% female...reaching 80% for the class that graduated about 10 years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Girls do better in school. http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/bul-a0036620.pdf. With GPA being a big criteria it's no surprise really. More end up going to university IRC, so proportionally more would be applying to medical schools. 

And men do better in all final evaluation standardized tests.  Meaning that they seem to learn the practical useful stuff better.  USMLEs,. MCATS, NBME exams.  Consistently.

Men, being masochistic, are also way more likely to end up in programs with brutal marking schemes - a high proportion of the smartest men choose engineering - where class averages are really set at Cs.  Unlike MAC health sciences, where a pulse earns you an A.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And men do better in all final evaluation standardized tests.  Meaning that they seem to learn the practical useful stuff better.  USMLEs,. MCATS, NBME exams.  Consistently.

Men, being masochistic, are also way more likely to end up in programs with brutal marking schemes - a high proportion of the smartest men choose engineering - where class averages are really set at Cs.  Unlike MAC health sciences, where a pulse earns you an A.

 

I was gonna post something about your weird vendetta against women and how you seem to think we end up in medicine in higher proportions only when "unfair" methods are used.. but considering this lovely previous quote of yours that I found in your comment history:

 

"I was one of those 2nd years helping out today.  I loved my first year - and thoroughly enjoyed O-Week.  Definitely try to do everything.

 

The white coat ceremony was fun - as a guy it's nice to see all those new first year women in the skimpiest and shortest of dresses with high heels and hair and the old people in the crowd showing disaproval; especially because in a few weeks those clothes will be replaced by much more bummy clothing."

 

... I think it might not be worth the effort :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was gonna post something about your weird vendetta against women and how you seem to think we end up in medicine in higher proportions only when "unfair" methods are used.. but considering this lovely previous quote of yours that I found in your comment history:

 

"I was one of those 2nd years helping out today.  I loved my first year - and thoroughly enjoyed O-Week.  Definitely try to do everything.

 

The white coat ceremony was fun - as a guy it's nice to see all those new first year women in the skimpiest and shortest of dresses with high heels and hair and the old people in the crowd showing disaproval; especially because in a few weeks those clothes will be replaced by much more bummy clothing."

 

... I think it might not be worth the effort :)

 

I should also take this opportunity to note that Western has recently started looking into why its gender ratio is so different than the typical ratio at medical schools. One fact that came out in regards to this is that Western actually offers roughly equal numbers of admissions to both women and men. The ultimate discrepancy in the ratio in the class comes from the fact that men are more likely to accept their admission to Western than women. That is, women are doing just fine on Western's admissions criteria - they just have more options at other schools!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should also take this opportunity to note that Western has recently started looking into why its gender ratio is so different than the typical ratio at medical schools. One fact that came out in regards to this is that Western actually offers roughly equal numbers of admissions to both women and men. The ultimate discrepancy in the ratio in the class comes from the fact that men are more likely to accept their admission to Western than women. That is, women are doing just fine on Western's admissions criteria - they just have more options at other schools!

 

and part of that was to try and figure out exactly why they were selecting other schools. 

 

to be clear none of this had anything to do with maintaining gender ratios directly - if western sends an admission to a student then they want that student over the other students remaining on the waitlist etc. This is a why are we losing preferred candidates problem. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and part of that was to try and figure out exactly why they were selecting other schools. 

 

to be clear none of this had anything to do with maintaining gender ratios directly - if western sends an admission to a student then they want that student over the other students remaining on the waitlist etc. This is a why are we losing preferred candidates problem. 

 

You and I both know that is not entirely fair or true.

 

Because Western has a pretty open face admission policy, that uses the MCAT as a cutoff, more men qualify for the interview than women.  You and I both know the ratio, particularly for NON-SWOMEN is something like 60/40 if not more.  Within SWOMEN, where the individual cutoffs are not as high, it is closer.  WOMEN do much better on the interview...leading to a nearly 50/50 offer ratio.   But the waiting list pool is disproportionately male.  Meaning that even if an equal number of men and women decline - then they will be replaced by more men on average.  And that is what happens.

 

It goes beyond that though.  For applicants to medicine in general, women on average have higher GPAs, and men higher MCATS.  Despite that tendency, the two factors do correlate with each other for random individual applicants irrespective of gender.  In order for women to interview at Western, they need to have high MCATs.  Those high MCATs would then correlate with higher GPAs then men with similar MCAT scores on average.  Meaning the average woman interviewed at Western is more competitive elsewhere to begin with.  Meaning that based on that alone, they have more options elsewhere, and are more able to/likely to decline Western.

 

Rob, I know you are pretty mathematical, and you understand this stuff.  You don't need to be so PC about it.  Queen's, when it used a strict MCAT requirement and low GPA requirement, was also mostly majority male.  They still maintain an MCAT cutoff - but that alone does not guarantee an interview as it did in the past- and their interview pool (that now takes into account subjective stuff) has become slight majority female.  And hence a majority female class (albeit not as skewed at McGill or Ottawa or NOSM, that don't use the MCAT at all, and are generally 65-75% female consistently).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You and I both know that is not entirely fair or true.

 

Because Western has a pretty open face admission policy, that uses the MCAT as a cutoff, more men qualify for the interview than women.  You and I both know the ratio, particularly for NON-SWOMEN is something like 60/40 if not more.  Within SWOMEN, where the individual cutoffs are not as high, it is closer.  WOMEN do much better on the interview...leading to a nearly 50/50 offer ratio.   But the waiting list pool is disproportionately male.  Meaning that even if an equal number of men and women decline - then they will be replaced by more men on average.  And that is what happens.

 

It goes beyond that though.  For applicants to medicine in general, women on average have higher GPAs, and men higher MCATS.  Despite that tendency, the two factors do correlate with each other for random individual applicants irrespective of gender.  In order for women to interview at Western, they need to have high MCATs.  Those high MCATs would then correlate with higher GPAs then men with similar MCAT scores on average.  Meaning the average woman interviewed at Western is more competitive elsewhere to begin with.  Meaning that based on that alone, they have more options elsewhere, and are more able to/likely to decline Western.

 

Rob, I know you are pretty mathematical, and you understand this stuff.  You don't need to be so PC about it.  Queen's, when it used a strict MCAT requirement and low GPA requirement, was also mostly majority male.  They still maintain an MCAT cutoff - but that alone does not guarantee an interview as it did in the past- and their interview pool (that now takes into account subjective stuff) has become slight majority female.  And hence a majority female class (albeit not as skewed at McGill or Ottawa or NOSM, that don't use the MCAT at all, and are generally 65-75% female consistently).

 

The communication from the school implies that the near-equal ratio in acceptances includes offers off of the waitlist...

 

rmorelan is correct, Western doesn't want to lose preferred applicants and has rightly been looking into whether there's a fixable reason we're seeing these higher rejection rates from accepted female applicants. The school wants to know if the gender ratio represents a deeper problem in the way the school presents itself and attracts top candidates. Trying to accurately describe a situation is not "being PC".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The communication from the school implies that the near-equal ratio in acceptances includes offers off of the waitlist...

 

rmorelan is correct, Western doesn't want to lose preferred applicants and has rightly been looking into whether there's a fixable reason we're seeing these higher rejection rates from accepted female applicants. The school wants to know if the gender ratio represents a deeper problem in the way the school presents itself and attracts top candidates. Trying to accurately describe a situation is not "being PC".

 

I think part of the reason why the Schulich ratio exists year after year is because Mcmaster interviews much of the same applicant pool as Western. I know a lot of people who had interviews at both Mac and Western. While this might be a generalization, but most of the females I have spoken to have always liked Mac for its 3 year curriculum (which is super important to women who want to have children in the future) while most of the men prefer the traditional 4 year curriculum (because the extra year isn't a big deal and most guys don't seem to be into small groups/pbl). Even within my class, a lot of the women are very career oriented and are not planning to have children in the future (again anecdotal).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The communication from the school implies that the near-equal ratio in acceptances includes offers off of the waitlist...

 

rmorelan is correct, Western doesn't want to lose preferred applicants and has rightly been looking into whether there's a fixable reason we're seeing these higher rejection rates from accepted female applicants. The school wants to know if the gender ratio represents a deeper problem in the way the school presents itself and attracts top candidates. Trying to accurately describe a situation is not "being PC".

 

The considerable majority of those interviewed at western are either offered admission up front, or could get offered off of the waitlist.  The odds are pretty good at Western compared to the other Ontario schools (McMaster has similar odds but a slower waitlist).  

 

Now tell me once again what the ratio at the interview process was?  I was there this year, and last year...and it was at least 60% male.  Among non-women, it was probably something like 70%!  If you want...we can count this coming year on interview day, but you know I'm being honest.

 

Which means if you are correct about the offers and waitlist offers both being 50% (which is not true for waitlist offers), then the botton quarter of applicants must be something like 75% male.  Which suggests brutal bias in the interview process.

 

And yes, I know Western wants to know why it remains the only school without a massive female advantage on account of a few extremists in the admissions program as well as some of the 'progressive' elements within the university as a whole (not all women BTW).  The considerable majority of medical staff and even students don't think it's an issue, as the admissions process is the most transparent and the interviews favour females strongly already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was gonna post something about your weird vendetta against women and how you seem to think we end up in medicine in higher proportions only when "unfair" methods are used.. but considering this lovely previous quote of yours that I found in your comment history:

 

"I was one of those 2nd years helping out today. I loved my first year - and thoroughly enjoyed O-Week. Definitely try to do everything.

The white coat ceremony was fun - as a guy it's nice to see all those new first year women in the skimpiest and shortest of dresses with high heels and hair and the old people in the crowd showing disaproval; especially because in a few weeks those clothes will be replaced by much more bummy clothing."

... I think it might not be worth the effort :)

Yah don't bother. I tried once and got called a crazy feminist or something along those lines.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have seen lately that females are making up a higher percentage of med school students compared to males in the past few years. For example, in McMaster, females make up about 60-65% of the class. I also heard that this years QuARMS class was composed of all females. Does anyone know why females are making up more and more of medical students? There has to be something more than socially accepting women in the workplace. Are females preferred in medicine nowadays, or are there other factors here?

 

at McMaster in my year I think it was closer to 55% or something along those lines, its definitely a lot less than the 70% it was at one point. Honestly, its never going to be 50-50 and it honestly is pretty close to that as is. 

 

With QuARMS it was just one year and since they take such few students its impossible to call it a trend, more likely an anomaly. Now if it is consistently like that, then it is an issue. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think part of the reason why the Schulich ratio exists year after year is because Mcmaster interviews much of the same applicant pool as Western. I know a lot of people who had interviews at both Mac and Western. While this might be a generalization, but most of the females I have spoken to have always liked Mac for its 3 year curriculum (which is super important to women who want to have children in the future) while most of the men prefer the traditional 4 year curriculum (because the extra year isn't a big deal and most guys don't seem to be into small groups/pbl). Even within my class, a lot of the women are very career oriented and are not planning to have children in the future (again anecdotal).

 

Possibly a component, but entirely speculation. I know that McMaster and Western have a lot of overlap, but I think it gets overstated. For example, if gender ratios between the two schools were significantly connected, McMaster's clear drop in the percentage of women it accepted should have been correlated with an increase in the percentage of women at Western, yet we saw the opposite. Still might be a factor, but it can't be more than a small one. There's undoubtedly a difference in priorities for men and women as a whole, but there's also a very wide range of priorities within each gender and while I don't disagree with your generalization, I think it's importance often gets over-emphasized.

 

The considerable majority of those interviewed at western are either offered admission up front, or could get offered off of the waitlist.  The odds are pretty good at Western compared to the other Ontario schools (McMaster has similar odds but a slower waitlist).  

 

Now tell me once again what the ratio at the interview process was?  I was there this year, and last year...and it was at least 60% male.  Among non-women, it was probably something like 70%!  If you want...we can count this coming year on interview day, but you know I'm being honest.

 

Which means if you are correct about the offers and waitlist offers both being 50% (which is not true for waitlist offers), then the botton quarter of applicants must be something like 75% male.  Which suggests brutal bias in the interview process.

 

And yes, I know Western wants to know why it remains the only school without a massive female advantage on account of a few extremists in the admissions program as well as some of the 'progressive' elements within the university as a whole (not all women BTW).  The considerable majority of medical staff and even students don't think it's an issue, as the admissions process is the most transparent and the interviews favour females strongly already.

 

I have no idea what the ratio at the interviews were! I've participated in more than you have, but it's never something I took particular notice of. My first interview I was kind of focused on doing my best and getting in. The second I was focused on helping those interviewing to do their best and get in. And my most recent one I was focused on evaluating the content of those I was interviewing to select the best candidates. I wasn't running a gender tally in my head, nor am I particularly interested in doing so at the next set of interviews, not least because any sample would likely be a biased - I had and have better things to do during interview days!

 

I think Western wants to know why it has such a disparate gender ratio, despite a near-equality in admission offers, because it worries that women - including some women who would be considered top candidates - may be shying away from Western due to an environment or people who are unwelcoming towards women. For example - oh, I don't know - like a certain second year student who feels compelled to provide unprompted comments about female students' appearances on the internet, or one who likes to group people based on gender when there's absolutely no reason to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Possibly a component, but entirely speculation. I know that McMaster and Western have a lot of overlap, but I think it gets overstated. For example, if gender ratios between the two schools were significantly connected, McMaster's clear drop in the percentage of women it accepted should have been correlated with an increase in the percentage of women at Western, yet we saw the opposite. Still might be a factor, but it can't be more than a small one. There's undoubtedly a difference in priorities for men and women as a whole, but there's also a very wide range of priorities within each gender and while I don't disagree with your generalization, I think it's importance often gets over-emphasized.

 

 

I have no idea what the ratio at the interviews were! I've participated in more than you have, but it's never something I took particular notice of. My first interview I was kind of focused on doing my best and getting in. The second I was focused on helping those interviewing to do their best and get in. And my most recent one I was focused on evaluating the content of those I was interviewing to select the best candidates. I wasn't running a gender tally in my head, nor am I particularly interested in doing so at the next set of interviews, not least because any sample would likely be a biased - I had and have better things to do during interview days!

 

I think Western wants to know why it has such a disparate gender ratio, despite a near-equality in admission offers, because it worries that women - including some women who would be considered top candidates - may be shying away from Western due to an environment or people who are unwelcoming towards women. For example - oh, I don't know - like a certain second year student who feels compelled to provide unprompted comments about female students' appearances on the internet, or one who likes to group people based on gender when there's absolutely no reason to do so.

 

There are plenty of sexist people at other medical schools too - almost all the leadership positions at some schools like Toronto are male.  That has historically not been True at Western - our previous dean was female for example (before scandal unfortunately pushed her out).

 

My position is that many other schools have actively worked against any admission criteria that seems to have a slight advantage towards men (MCAT, hard science prerequisite marks), but have no problem pushing policies that seem to have an advantage towards women (MMI, interviews, overall GPA regardless of undergrad).  And the things that favour women are MUCH more subjective, or prone to randomness.

 

While I may have made comments about the appropriateness/inappropriateness of how some of the students were dressed at the white coat ceremony, I wasn't one of those belligerent 2nd years at frosh week that forced booze down the throats of first years.  Or got embarrassingly drunk.  Or at OMSW started yelling pretty obscene stuff in a chant (that I'm amazed is not on youtube).  Women, sadly, participated in those shameful episodes too.  I'd say that someone like me - that at least tries to bring some balance to overly PC statements on this site - isn't the only problem.  And I don't think the problems here are gender based biases necessarily.  There is a startling lack of respect for the position of MD, and quite a bit of entitlement that can be surprising.  WE should all be humble that we have the opportunity to become physicians.

 

And lastly - the interview ratio is real.  It makes sense.  The producers of the MCAT release gender based data - at the higher levels - the considerable majority of high scores go to men.  It also means the women we interview probably have higher GPAs than the men we interview - and on average, do better in interviews anyways.  Which means a lot of them will also get into schools like Toronto, which are generally considered more desirable.  Unless we have a slightly lower MCAT cutoff for women, we will ALMOST ALWAYS have slightly more men in each entering class.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My position is that many other schools have actively worked against any admission criteria that seems to have a slight advantage towards men (MCAT, hard science prerequisite marks)..

Hey there! I wanted to chime in with my opinion!

 

In regards to this statement, I don't think that admissions is actively trying to find portions of the application that women do better in to favor them. I simply think they are looking for applicants with different qualities. Men and women both interview very well. Otherwise, how would you have gotten in? I'm confident that you are socially competent, a kind person and very intelligent. (I'm being serious. That was not sarcasm)They simply don't want someone who is incapable of social interaction. It's more of a "what kind of person are you? Do you have a moral compas?" I dunno I hope that people do well on an interview, since many specialties have a social aspect to it.

 

UBC removed their prerequisite requirement to allow for people who go to different universities to be able to apply. This was to compensate for people who couldn't afford to go to certain institutions that offered specific courses or were disadvantaged geographically.

 

Also, people from diverse academic backgrounds have other things to offer to medicine. It's not to favor women (maybe it inadvertently does, but I would argue they allow for this policy for people who can't afford to take anymore courses or older applicants who may not have the time to do both an MCAT and take a year to take classes to apply). One of my classmates has a arts background and I always learn a ton from HIM in my PBL classes.

 

I feel like admissions is attempting to choose doctors that are more representative of the population. Affirmative action is attempting to take various factors into consideration. These formulas are to attempt to compensate for the barriers that the individual may have experienced throughout their lives that have hindered their ability to reach their full potential. Perhaps removing these barriers could have resulted in success. I think a lot of men can qualify for it so, depending on certain things in the application. Also, many med schools are adopting these policies. And they are happy with he result. Residents and med students are doing just fine academically. It's not like these policies are allowing unqualified applicants in.

 

Is it a perfect system? No. But was the last system perfect? No. I find that men are being more vocal about this injustice that affects them deeply because it works against their favor now. The system used to work in your favor, and the majority of the profession was dominated by men. Have you heard the term "paternalism"? It reflected the culture at the time. Their attempting to shift the culture of medicine. One that is more inclusive and one that allows for patients of all demographics to have someone to turn to and undersrand their experiences. It's not about you anymore. You took an oath to protect the public. Admissions is simply doing the same.

 

Some may say policies are unfair but maybe someone who is intersectionality discriminated against would say that it's unfair that some men experienced many privileges that set them up for success.

 

I know for me personally, if I didn't have some of the privileges that I had, I don't know if I'd be in medicine today.

 

I think your comment on being too PC is actually very relevant and important to discuss. We're all dancing around words and aren't discussing the root issue a lot of the time, in fear we are offending someone. Your comments (though I strongly strongly disagree with) are actually facilitating discussions that are challenging our thoughts. Rad!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are plenty of sexist people at other medical schools too - almost all the leadership positions at some schools like Toronto are male.  That has historically not been True at Western - our previous dean was female for example (before scandal unfortunately pushed her out).

 

My position is that many other schools have actively worked against any admission criteria that seems to have a slight advantage towards men (MCAT, hard science prerequisite marks), but have no problem pushing policies that seem to have an advantage towards women (MMI, interviews, overall GPA regardless of undergrad).  And the things that favour women are MUCH more subjective, or prone to randomness.

 

While I may have made comments about the appropriateness/inappropriateness of how some of the students were dressed at the white coat ceremony, I wasn't one of those belligerent 2nd years at frosh week that forced booze down the throats of first years.  Or got embarrassingly drunk.  Or at OMSW started yelling pretty obscene stuff in a chant (that I'm amazed is not on youtube).  Women, sadly, participated in those shameful episodes too.  I'd say that someone like me - that at least tries to bring some balance to overly PC statements on this site - isn't the only problem.  And I don't think the problems here are gender based biases necessarily.  There is a startling lack of respect for the position of MD, and quite a bit of entitlement that can be surprising.  WE should all be humble that we have the opportunity to become physicians.

 

And lastly - the interview ratio is real.  It makes sense.  The producers of the MCAT release gender based data - at the higher levels - the considerable majority of high scores go to men.  It also means the women we interview probably have higher GPAs than the men we interview - and on average, do better in interviews anyways.  Which means a lot of them will also get into schools like Toronto, which are generally considered more desirable.  Unless we have a slightly lower MCAT cutoff for women, we will ALMOST ALWAYS have slightly more men in each entering class.

 

It's fair to criticize schools' admissions policies, but your criticism have been inconsistent. You're criticizing schools for using admissions criteria that leads to more women than men being admitted, yet seem perfectly fine with schools like Western admitting more men than women. Likewise, a potential effort by a school like Western to even out its gender ratio - one that hasn't even resulted in a policy change as of yet - you've characterized as being the result of "extremists", while an implemented effort to significantly reduce the number of women at McMaster is lauded. You then claim schools "have no problem pushing policies that seem to have an advantage towards women", despite having yourself provided a clear counter-example with McMaster pushing against what appeared to be female-preferred admissions criteria. The only consistency has been in regards to gender - you've supported actions that you believe benefit men, while opposing actions that appear to benefit women.

 

The fact that there are other people who are sexist or behaving in less-than-stellar ways in no way excuses your own words or actions.

 

With regards to interview ratios at Western, there's no evidence to back up your assertion. It could be true, but there's no real data on it. What we do have data on is the gender ratio of medical school applicants overall, as well as the gender ratio in undergraduate programs in general. Both favour women with a ratio of approximately 5:4, very similar to what is seen in medical schools in Canada overall.

 

Lastly, let's talk about being politically correct. You'll notice there are numerous people in this thread also weighing in on the issue of gender and admissions, talking about ways in which the admissions process might favour women ahead of men, who aren't receiving the type of objections you are. That's because they're presenting their arguments respectfully. There's no reason you can't make your arguments in a respectful way as well. If you can't make an argument without being offensive, you're not being bold or balanced, you're being intellectually lazy. I'm sure I'm one of the people who's making those "PC statements" you deride, but for the life of me, I can't think of what statements you're referring to. In person or online, I don't temper or alter my positions because of popular opinion or on the basis of what's considered decent. I will change the way I phrase my statements, but not their substance. I wouldn't ask any different of you. You're smart enough to present challenging viewpoints in a respectful manner, same as all the other posters here - if you actually have respect for women, you'll take the time to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...