Medicine in Canada now biased towards females?

[Guest strider2004]

My question is, why is it that a scholarship for a black woman or a chinese woman is not viewed with equal distaste?

Actually, it IS viewed with equal distaste. In Queen's there are no such scholarhips - they be select for location or profession or even family profession but not ethnicity. SOme scholarships openly describe their *preference* for a certain person but noone can be omitted from applying.

 

As for equality - I remember protesting not having a men's field hockey team and winning....so it's a bit premature to say that stuff like that doesn't happen!

 

 

I'm surprised noone's saying anything about high proportional of asians in medical school classes compared to the Canadian population. Most classes now likely have about 25% asians which must be 2-4x more than the Canadian demographic. (BTW, this can't be called affirmative action/socialism because asians have always had a disproportionaly higher percentage in professional school). Yes I am trying to be devil's advocate here but I think the gender argument has been beaten to death and we need a new topic. Our male student friend hasn't been able to back up any of his claims.

[Guest wattyjl]

ttryit: again - i'm not knowledgeable enough on this subject to really argue it with anything more than opinion - however, if reserving spots/scholarships, etc. for under-represented groups is the only way to get them 'through the door', i have no problem with it. why? because we have to start somewhere... people will argue that the position should go to the best person (some people still say man) for the job. well, how can we expect anybody other than the white male to be the best person when we have oppressed/not-supported the education of anybody else than white-males for most of history? we have to start somewhere, to get the ball rolling, to give people roll models and evidence that not only white-males can do X, and eventually competetion will be on completely equal grounds.

[Guest ttryit]

w, I have to agree with you there...perhaps this is the only way to get them through the door.

 

But then again, aren't these special scholarships just a cop-out? They represent a failure on society's part to bridge the gap between have and have nots.

 

When we have "stop racism day" in March, I often laugh. How can universities claim they are anti-racism yet preach affirmative action.

 

I once saw a line that said "We are an equal opportunity, affirmative action employer". Isn't that contradictory?

 

tt

[Guest FrancophoneRN]

Maybe scholarships based on grades and family income would be best since it doesn't discriminate against colour, creed, religion, etc. And it would really serve the people that desperately need it.

 

There is a good series of articles on class in the NYTimes this week. They talk of class and health, class and marriage, class and religion, class and education, etc. Really interesting...

[Guest ttryit]

FRN, you bring up an interesting point. Does an asian woman with twice the family income of a white woman deserve to win a scholarship based on enthnicity?

 

The definition of racism is "Any attitude, action or institutional structure which systematically treats an individual or group of individuals differently because of their race." It is usually used with a negative connotation, but I suppose there can be positive racism?

 

tt

[Guest wattyjl]

ttryit: you're right, society has failed. well, actually it hasn't, because of course when it was all about rich old white men (which it still is of course, if one surveys most of our politicians) that's what they wanted and it was great.

 

now hopefully we are forcing ourselves out of that situation. we have to correct the mistakes of the past. and yea, if we have to target scholarships and placements for particular groups, because that's the only way large numbers of them will be able to compete against those with a rich, white, male societal upbringing (knowing they have the world at their fingertips), then that's what has to be done for now. yea, it's not exactly 'equality', but come on, i always laugh when i hear the rich white boy crying about inequality and reverse discrim. it basically doesn't happen, i think. we are scared of losing our status in society... as said, politics, business, etc., is still full of rich white men. and my cynical opinion is that the only reason we are seeing this push to get underrepresented people represented is so that our politicians appear to care about this issue, when really it's, of course, a PR move and meant to keep them their job (and thus in power, maintaining, less superficially, the rich, white man agenda). haha, i guess i sound like a paranoid conspiracy theorist, but you know that's how it is...

 

anyway, i like F-RN's point about not only race but economic status...

[Guest ttryit]

Everyone this has been great! This will give me lots to think about as I drift off to sleep.

 

tt

[Guest noncestvrai]

Women do better in school (HS and University) on average. The right question is why. Complaining about the situation is not constructive, bring some input as to improve men's performances. Since women do better, shouldn't they have the opportunity to study where they want, which is fair to me. What is unfair, to me again, was the heavy bias of say Queen's university in the 1960's of like 76:4...men:women, and similar numbers around Canada. It took "balls" for these women to pave the way for the following generations...

 

In Quebec, I think we have the highest average of women in medschool, McGill being at the national average. We are still far from balancing the equation, but now, grades and extracurrics speak for everyone worthy of a medical school spot (see data in this topic).

 

noncestvrai

[Guest joonboy]

Face it. Chicks are smarter and more determined nowadays. They really bite boys' behind:rollin

[Guest kaymcee]

What an explosion of posts! An excellent troll-job by whats-his-face. I have skimmed through everything here, and hopefully opinions similar to my own haven't already been mentioned.

 

Could the reason more women are being admitted to medical school is that they have better interpersonal communications skills? Women, in general, tend to be more naturally empathetic, and this could possibly shine through in an interview. Having shadowed doctors from both genders, I find the female ones connect better than males with their patients on an emotional level. I'm not saying men are emotionally deprived robots (I certainly don't think I am), but the female doctors I've seen communicate better than I do.

[Guest moo]

That's a blanket generalization (of course) that women communicate better than men.

 

Wait until you do an ob/gyn rotation. All but one of the female residents I worked with treated me like @#%$. Every single one of the male attendings treated me like an equal.

 

Even the clerkship director commented at the end, after numerous complaints from the students, that the females were "a bunch of babies" and they are trying to recruit more males to the program (yes, he actually said this!). As I said earlier, they have not been very successful: no males are in next year's residency class.

 

Clearly your statement does not apply. At least in the field of ob/gyn.

[Guest joonboy]

The main reason I am going into medical school is for the money. I have no regrets saying this here on an anonymous message board. That is my true reason.

 

Gosh....UWOmalestudent, you are the most painfully honest person I have ever seen so far in this forum...

[Guest FrancophoneRN]

I would have to agree with what you've just said. Some women can be a bunch of babies and psychos. Having done my university with a bunch of girls and now working with a bunch of them, I can say with all fairness that there is nothing better than a couple of men to balance things out. I am just aching for more men to "jine up" and make things more sane.

 

My big problem with women is their conflict-resolution skills. They WILL try to destroy you if they feel threatened, and in the most passive-aggressive or soul-crushing ways. I find that men, usually, are much more honest and immediate about beefs they may have with others. They won't waste their time, usually, making a person's life a living hell. But then again, it is because we still live in a society where if a guy does it, it's okay but if a woman does it, she's a psychobitch simply because we expect more empathy, kindness and better communication skills from them?

 

You'll see good and bad from both genders, and in different ways. Some people, regardless of gender, are just dinks.

 

As for the OB comment, I agree wholeheartedly. When I did my OB specialization as a nurse, I was thoroughly unimpressed with the bedside manners of the females OBs (not to mention the way they treated staff and students). I found there was such a difference bewteen male OBs and female OBs, it was like night and day. But could it be particular to the hospital I was in, maybe.

 

But if your statement is true as for only female OBs in residency lately, and the fact that most of them were babies to boot, and from what I've observed in my experiences with them, then god help us all. And god help me when I get there.

[Guest Jochi1543]

Every medical professional at the clinic I volunteer at is female, and I`ve had a terrific experience being treated by all of them. As a volunteer, I get discounts on being seen there, but even if I didn`t, I`d still go there.

On the other hand, I`ve never had a bad experience with a male doctor. But I have to say I`ve seen VERY few of them. I had one encounter with a very unprofessional female doctor whose intellectual abilities were also questionable. But I`m not gonna generalize and say all women doctors suck because I`ve met one bad one, or that all male doctors rock because I`ve met like 2 of them and both happened to be good at whatever they did. This whole thread is just bigoted, in my opinion. All these anti-female arguments are not better than the ranting that goes on about men in predominantly female workplaces. Can`t moderators lock threads or something?

[Guest wattyjl]

yea mods can lock threads but i don't really think that's necessary yet - things aren't too bad if you scan through the posts. generally i believe it's good to discuss these issues (especially 'touchy' subjects) rather than just ignore/turn away from them. why? because people who might benefit from ideas/concepts present in the discussion lose out on that.

 

the only bit of misogyny i've tasted has been from the OP, and that's what they were trolling for. the rest has been pretty balanced.

 

i don't want to sound like i'm patronizing, but women have it pretty rough in the workplace, especially in traditionally male-dominated careers. i doubt that (i love this btw) evangelical christian MP tony whats-his-name would have called any male that crossed the floor a 'whore for power'... the double-standard is ridiculous, as someone mentioned above. if women are competetive, they are labelled X, if women try to retain their femininity, they are labelled X, etc. etc. indeed as i've seen with PI's in science, women 'turn around' and discriminate against other women, based purely on gender. it's a hugely complicated social issue that i'm not doing justice to.

 

i think attitudes will slowly change, as the current crop of old politicians/business men/etc. are replaced - hopefully the ones that do the replacing, be they male or female, won't have the same gender-biased attitudes.

[Guest UWOmalestudent]

Thank you for your post moo,

 

I have also found female physicians to be much more arrogant than male physicians.

 

Not only do they work less than males do, but they also do an inferior job.

[Guest satsumargirl]

Well, I can't believe I am posting on this topic because it seems so ridiculous to me.

 

However, it doesn't address the fact the female physicians on average work less than male physicians.

 

UWOmale student....are you suggesting that schools should have a bias toward males because women a) tend spend more time with their patients relative to males and decide to have families and be responsible parents?

 

Are you suggesting that because on average women work fewer hours and take time off, they are less valuable contributors to the profession? Dare I suggest less valuable contributors to the workforce in general? My God...why are women allowed to work at all, with their baby making and mat leaves and caring for aging parents (yes, it is women who tend to do this too). Women should have just quietly gone back to their homemaking roles after the war was over, so your life could be so much easier.

 

Are you suggesting that medical school make their selection of current students based on previous averages instead of the individual before them?

 

Men are starting to take parental leave as well these days, I know a colleague who took 3 months off work when his wife had their child. And I know of a few who would love to work part-time and be at home with the kids. I know of women in medicine (surgery) who decided not to have kids due to their lifestyle. So who is to say which women and which men will work harder than others at the time of application? And what a sad world we live in that would have someone have to make the choice between a career and family. And just because men work -on average- more hours than women, does that make them better physicians??? (and I stress the "on average" piece. Individually, some females will work more than some males) Maybe physicians working more hours (male or female) are burnt out, maybe they don't take the time to listen to their patients. More hours does not necessarily mean better service.

 

If the bias was currently in favour of males, would you be encouraged to leave for the States as well?

 

How do you suggest schools would accomplish a strict 50:50 ratio? There are 50 spots for males and 50 for females regardless of who the more qualified applicants are?

 

 

If there is no bias in Canada, then why are there more females than males in medical school when males beat females on the MCAT? (I don't know the GPA breakdown)

 

Is your view on practicing medicine so myopic that you are unable to realize that being a good candidate for medicine involves more than MCAT scores and more than GPA?

 

I never considered myself a feminist. But then I saw an educational program that discussed the issue, it's roots and what the movement really is and is not. The actual idea behing it is simply that women should have equal rights and opportunities as men. Plain and simple. And I thought to myself when I heard that...hmmm, maybe I am a feminist and I guess probably everyone would be with that definition.

Perhaps I was wrong!

[Guest satsumargirl]

I would have to agree with what you've just said. Some women can be a bunch of babies and psychos. Having done my university with a bunch of girls and now working with a bunch of them, I can say with all fairness that there is nothing better than a couple of men to balance things out. I am just aching for more men to "jine up" and make things more sane.

 

I agree, there are certain dynamics that go on between women that a male or two can balance out.

 

This is precisely what my male friends who were in male dominated engineering courses thought as well though. That having a couple of women in the class tended to balance out the certain male dynamics that happen.

[Guest 007]

(This message was left blank)

[Guest kaymcee]

I know we're all a bunch of normal people here, but could we stop feeding the troll by not responding directly to any of his inflammatory comments? Commenting on the thread is alright, but just don't talk directly to UWOmalestudent.

 

Thanks for your input, moo, in regards to your experiences with male and female doctors. Obviously the number I've witnessed of each doesn't constitute a comprehensive survey. My comments are merely from personal experience. I was just putting the idea out there.

[Guest ttryit]

But then I saw an educational program that discussed the issue, it's roots and what the movement really is and is not. The actual idea behing it is simply that women should have equal rights and opportunities as men. Plain and simple.

 

Sats, if this were true, then we wouldn't have those things I had mentioned. We wouldn't have scholarships designed to promote women in science and engineering. We wouldn't see a HUGE descrepancy between the application and admission statistics at Mac where gender is concerned.

 

tt

[Guest chemgirl]

"That's a blanket generalization (of course) that women communicate better than men.

 

Wait until you do an ob/gyn rotation. All but one of the female residents I worked with treated me like @#%$. Every single one of the male attendings treated me like an equal.

 

Even the clerkship director commented at the end, after numerous complaints from the students, that the females were "a bunch of babies" and they are trying to recruit more males to the program (yes, he actually said this!). As I said earlier, they have not been very successful: no males are in next year's residency class.

 

Clearly your statement does not apply. At least in the field of ob/gyn."

 

Pot, meet kettle. You are refuting a blanket generalization with another huge blanket generalization based solely on your own experiences at your particular school. Other residency programs may be markedly different. Ours certainly is, at least in my experience with the female ob/gyn residents I've met.

[Guest Future MSFer]

UWOmalestudent,

 

If you became a Doctor just to become rich you are not very logical. There are much easier jobs out there to become rich. Being a Doctor may pay well, but you have to put in the hours as well.

 

 

With your attitude, I feel sorry for your future patients.

[Guest satsumargirl]

We wouldn't have scholarships designed to promote women in science and engineering.

 

tt, I will not deny that there may be some scholarships out there for women. I can say, however, that I have held 2 national scholarships, 2 provincial scholarships and 2 university scholarships (seems 2 is my lucky number!). None of these scholarships favoured me because I was female. And I know of no major scholarship that favours females, or believe me I would have applied!!

 

I am personally aware of 1 scholarship that required the submission from a female of an essay on the challenges women face choosing a career in science . The value of the scholarship, however, was tiny, like maybe $1000. Enough to cover fees and some travel to a major conference. I doubt that such tiny little scholarships are going to put anyone at an advantage over anyone else in the long run. And in this case it served to generate idea about what challenges are present and how to problem solve around them. And if you think there aren't challenges, think again!

 

If I remember your earlier post you mentionned the scholarships from the so called disadvantaged populations and pointed out how there are no scholarships for people who are equal...or something like that. That comment makes no sense to me. If someone is already has the same "equal" opportunity then why does that group need a special kind of scholarship? Why do we need to encourage them to enter programs when there are already plenty of them represented there?

 

I am not sure what scholarships you are referring to. Many of the smaller scholarships offered through universities are made possible from private donors who simply may have some attachment to a specific gender, or town. Maybe the scholarship was set up to remember a daughter who was interested in chem but never got the chance to study it, and maybe this person grew up in Blind River and so, they'd like the applicant to be from those surroundings. These are usually of small amounts and not using government funds. So, even though I never seemed to have the right combination of anything those smaller scholarships were asking for, I have no issue with their existence.

 

Medicine should endeavour to attract applicants from many socioeconomic backgrounds, because physicians must care for patients from various backgrounds. So, if the job of the medical school is to produce physicians who will be able to meet the needs of the population, maybe the best applicant isn't the person with the 4.0 average. Maybe it's the 3.6 average who grew up in some community North of the Sault because that 3.6 will likely head back there and practice with an understanding of that communities concerns and challenges etc.

 

As for the MAC issue, I think you'd need to look beyond just application and admission stats to determine what is going on there. Are women in general better applicants? Does MACs learning style favour females? Do more females accept MACs offers? Or do they actually have some affirmative action plan?

etc.

 

Those are my thoughts. My own view is everyone should have equal opportunity. And that does not necessarily translate into equal results (ie if you take 5 years from work to raise kids, don't expect to be promoted to the same level right away as someone who was there for those extra 5 years working hard all along....but I wouldn't expect to be denied any position for fear that as a women I might need to take mat leave at some point...If my pay reflects my performance than why should it be the same as a male colleague who's worked longer and hypothetically, lets say harder. But if we are starting out with the same credentials for the same job, why should I get paid less?). Anyway, none of these issues will be solved on this thread.

 

I can say with confidence though, that the only industry I can think of where women are truly at any advantage is the porn industry. So unless any of the men on this thread are aspiring in this direction, I wouldn't be too worried. Ha!ha!

 

Sats

[Guest tim23]

if you don't know any major science scholarships for women alone you aren't looking very hard. Are you in biology? that might explain it, but in the physical sciences at the graduate level there are tonnes of scholarships exclusive to women. I think you get like $5K just for being a women in grad school. just trying to straighten out the facts not supporting any sexist arguments.

 

Tim