Why do US schools have such low standards?

[Guest UWOMED2005]

Hmm. . . sounds like out points of view aren't that different, toothy, though we might have a wee bit of a different perspective on a few things. You're definitely right on the fact things could be a whole-lot worse.

 

I'm not a tax accountant, so the only two loopholes I can point out are business entertainment expenses write-offs and donations to political parties. Business entertainment expense write-offs are essentially the reason why even mediocre defensemen often make more than $1 or $2 million per year despite the fact the average Joe can't take his kids to the game. . . and all of us taxpayers are paying that salary and for many of those tickets. Growing up in Ottawa every single person I knew who had season tickets to the Sens owned them through their business and used them as a tax-writeoff. As a result, they were less concerned with the price of the ticket (meaning owners were less inclined to freeze ticket prices,) the owners had more money from increased ticket prices (particularly from luxury boxes. . . pretty much every new arena or stadium built in the 90s had luxury boxes, and who do you think paid for these things?,) players could make higher contract demands as owners had more money, and the people buying tickets paid less money into tax revenue so there was less money for education and healthcare. Nice system. . . of course if we changed it, all Canadian sports teams would fold and I wouldn't be able to proudly wear my Sens jersey throughout exam week as they compete for the Stanley cup final (knock on wood.)

 

To be honest, I don't understand many of the loopholes as I'm not a tax accountant. But my understanding is that, as you point out, this is somewhat intentional as it benefits the wealthy. I think this is not because of the economic theory of trickledown economics (which actually refers to investing money into something like military arms and hoping that money trickles down to the people who feed, clothe, etc the arms dealers) but rather because it's the wealthy who fund our political favours and they're then owed favours. This leads to the other loophole I was referring to: donations to political parties get the highest return of any charitable or like donation - 75%. While not a loophole in the traditional sense (you're still losing money by making donations to political parties) you're getting 75% of that contribution back in tax refunds, and you're potentially getting the political favour that donation is currying. The opposite effect is also true. . . I think most politicians enter politics partly to benefit the public good but also for the potential contacts. . . ever noticed how many members of corporate board of governors are ex-politicians? Chretien has introduced legislation to limit corporate donations to political parties, and I sincerely hope it goes through and is effective. . . it could be the most important legislation of his term.

 

I also loved your comments about us not being the 51st state and the like. You'd be and are right to say a lot of what I propose wouldn't work because of the current US-Canadian relationship. I think on the whole that relationship is a good thing, but we have gotten way too close when more than 80% of our trade is with one country, and that one country dictates what items it will include and exclude from free trade (ie softwood lumber dispute) and use our reliance on trade with the US to try to blackmail us into adopting policy they approve of (for example Celluci's comments on our position on the US conquest of Iraq and recent veiled threats that if we decriminalize marijuana, trade will suffer.)

 

Toothy, it's good to see another future health care professional take an interest in discussing such issues of politics. I find it unfortunate to see some med students eager to ignore such things completely. . . if we are to live in and benefit from a democracy, then we need to know what's being talked about so politicians or the media or corporations don't pull the wool over our eyes to manipulate our voting. I think this is especially true for those of us who will be doctors and dentists (and lawyers, teachers, professors) as we are (pardon if this comes off as arrogant) are often respected for our opinions.

 

Koft. . . calling politicians all liars is a common exercise but also an oversimplification of whats going on today in the Western world. And to suggest that their personal perks (politician's salaries, by the way, are NOT tax exempt though their expense accounts are) are even close to being the reason for the deficit in the early 90s or the current shortages of funding for education or health care is way off. Even at a couple of hundred million dollars, that's hardly a dent into either the 1993 Deficit (over 50 billion dollars) or even the amount of money Romanow thinks the healthcare system alone needs to bring it up to specs ($5 billion.)

[Guest toothy]

sorry to be dredging up an old post, but I just noticed some talk over at studentdoctor.net about GPA...

 

in the dental forum, Yah-E gave the following chart:

 

Letter Grade - GPA - Percentage

A = 4.0 = 94-100%

A- = 3.6 = 90-93%

B+ = 3.3 = 87-89%

B = 3.0 = 84-86%

B- = 2.6 = 80-83%

C+ = 2.3 = 77-79%

C = 2.0 = 74-76%

C- = 1.6 = 70-73%

 

which is skewed down compared to the OMSAS style GPA conversion we are all used to. Could this be the reason why americans seem to have lower marks? But on the other hand, maybe it's easier to get 90s there than here?