For those of us still waiting....

[danceprincess88]

hi ClassA,

 

You are exactly what the SWOMEN initiative was created for! Therefore you are evidence in favor of it, however I think if you were to do a quick sample of your SWOMEN classmates and other years SWOMEN classmates you will see the disproportions that I am referring to.

[Gob]

I am not criticizing them, for it is not their fault they have an advantage, but instead it is the SSMD that does not have the foresight to see that they are missing their target applicants and instead filling their class with kids from London high schools, not strathroy, chatham, etc.

 

Actually, the problem with what you said here is that kids from London high schools ARE INCLUDED in their target audience. This is because London itself is underserviced and therefore they are trying to address this issue.

[Alastriss]

Actually, the problem with what you said here is that kids from London high schools ARE INCLUDED in their target audience. This is because London itself is underserviced and therefore they are trying to address this issue.

 

IMO, that's weak (not what you said, but the circumstance - given that by london you mean the city and not the more rural surrounding areas).

 

The reason you choose people who went to highschool in that area is that they will stay there when they are ready to practice. Quite frankly, London itself is so developed, a lot more than other cities, that they don't need to select people who went to highschool in that area to make sure they stay.

 

Danceprincess' refers to areas that are more rural, where individuals from more urban centers would have trouble adjusting to more rural lifestyles, and thus be discouraged from practicing over there. This in consideration, it makes a lot of sense to select those who would less likely have trouble adjusting to this lifestyle and would come back.

 

I'm just trying to say that some of the critical facets that form the bedrock upon which the rationale of the double admission standard exists are hacked away when that same rationale is applied to a fairly developed city like london.

[Guest begaster]

Nah, it makes sense.

 

Who the hell wants to stay in London? If you have a passion for rural medicine (lol), you'll go somewhere rural. If you have a passion for big-city medicine, Toronto's a stones throw away. I can understand why they're underserviced, it's like the worst of both worlds. You don't get the responsibility of being a rural doctor, and you don't get the high-tech, cool factor of being a big city doctor.

[Alastriss]

Nah, it makes sense.

 

Who the hell wants to stay in London? If you have a passion for rural medicine (lol), you'll go somewhere rural. If you have a passion for big-city medicine, Toronto's a stones throw away. I can understand why they're underserviced, it's like the worst of both worlds. You don't get the responsibility of being a rural doctor, and you don't get the high-tech, cool factor of being a big city doctor.

 

You only addressed two big extremes. There are A LOT of people, and I mean A LOT of people that hate big cities but may not be ready (yet) to be dedicated to hardcure rural areas but prefer less quiet cities In fact, one of the big reasons factoring into why I chose queen's over UofT was living quieter city. Taking that into consideration, it doesn't make as much, certainly not because people will either want to go rural or big city and nothing in between.

 

I didn't say London was underserviced, but I did say if you were going to consider that underserviced then you have to add a whole list of cities that are as bad or worse.

 

Just an FYI - there is a lot of high tech research going on at UWO.

[Gob]

I didn't say London was underserviced, but I did say if you were going to consider that underserviced then you have to add a whole list of cities that are as bad or worse.

 

The fact that there are other cities that are underserviced as well doesn't change the fact that London is (note that all I said in my post was that London is an underserviced area which it is). In fact, I completely agree with you that there are areas in this country and this province that are just as bad, but that doesn't mean that Schulich should stop trying to address the needs of London as well as the rest of SWO.

[Alastriss]

The fact that there are other cities that are underserviced as well doesn't change the fact that London is (note that all I said in my post was that London is an underserviced area which it is). In fact, I completely agree with you that there are areas in this country and this province that are just as bad, but that doesn't mean that Schulich should stop trying to address the needs of London as well as the rest of SWO.

 

You seemed to have missed my point Gob,

Not heavily selecting people from the london area doesn't = not servicing london. I simply said that the basis to select people from london isn't as necessary as their need to select people in more rural areas. The reason they select from rural areas, and I quote Dr. Chan "People will go back to their roots". People who grew up in urban centers may have a hard time leaving big cities behind to go to rural areas. Heck, even people from smaller cities may have a hard time giving up the services that urbanized areas have to offer. Its too heavy of a lifestyle choice that may or may not be offset by greater financial incentives. Yet London is pretty developed, there is no 'rural' barrier to overcome in this specific situation as there would be in more underserviced areas. In fact, for many it may just as well be an ideal size to live in. Not too busy like Downtown Toronto, yet still lacking many of the glamorous facets of urban life.

 

Coming from a guy who still has love for the school which showed him no love:

I simply think that they can come up with better and more fair policies for at least the london area. That is all that me and Danceprincess88 and others have been trying to say, with absolutely no hostility or ill-intention. Yet being on the other side may simply make one more apathetic to critically considering our point of view.

 

ps - The quoted text in bold was just to draw to the attention that that was never an object in this debate, or could even be mistaken for one by anything that I said.

[Jectin]

You seemed to have missed my point Gob,

Not heavily selecting people from the london area doesn't = not servicing london. I simply said that the basis to select people from london isn't as necessary as their need to select people in more rural areas. The reason they select from rural areas, and I quote Dr. Chan "People will go back to their roots". People who grew up in urban centers may have a hard time leaving big cities behind to go to rural areas. Heck, even people from smaller cities may have a hard time giving up the services that urbanized areas have to offer. Its too heavy of a lifestyle choice that may or may not be offset by greater financial incentives. Yet London is pretty developed, there is no 'rural' barrier to overcome in this specific situation as there would be in more underserviced areas. In fact, for many it may just as well be an ideal size to live in. Not too busy like Downtown Toronto, yet still lacking many of the glamorous facets of urban life.

 

Coming from a guy who still has love for the school which showed him no love:

I simply think that they can come up with better and more fair policies for at least the london area. That is all that me and Danceprincess88 and others have been trying to say, with absolutely no hostility or ill-intention. Yet being on the other side may simply make one more apathetic to critically considering our point of view.

 

ps - The quoted text in bold was just to draw to the attention that that was never an object in this debate, or could even be mistaken for one by anything that I said.

 

While it is possible that individuals from other cities might have an interest in practicing in London, it is not a foreign concept that home grown individuals (in terms of percentage wise) are more likely to come back. No one can argue that recruiting 20 people from Toronto that a few of them might stay, what I think Gob, I and essentially the Western admissions committee is arguing, is that those from the London area will be more likely to return even if a few of them decide to go to bigger cities.

 

Western is not the only school applying these kinds of standards. Even in Ontario, a province known to be more fair towards out of province students, Ottawa biases their admissions towards those that grew up or live in the Ottawa region. Now I do not know the situation in Ottawa in terms of doctor shortages, but I would say that they are likely trying to achieve the same thing Western is with their admissions.

 

UBC is in a bustling city and one can argue that anyone who goes to medical school there will be enticed to stay (certainly I would). But they truly only allow 10 or so OOP spots per year. They are taking the safer route and not gambling on the OOP students to stay. They know that the majority of their homegrown trained students will come back no matter where they do their residency. Using this same argument, I think that a city person growing up in Toronto who comes to London for medical school and then heads over to Ottawa for residency will likely choose Toronto (where they grew up) or Ottawa (where they hold the largest number of connections in their field). Contrast this with a person who grew up in London and gets into medical school in London but does their residency somewhere else, the chances are equally likely that they might return vs staying where they did their residency.

 

Now a counterargument stemming from this is that some Londoners who go to medical school elsewhere would also be inclined to return because that is where they grew up. This is true based on the argument above but by increasing the enrollment of Londoners to medical school (in London itself), the percentage of returning students would be higher.

 

I think it is unfair to say that we are not in tuned to your arguments and are not considering them critically simply because we are on the 'other side'. I realize that I could have easily been in your situation a year ago. But in all honesty, I never once thought twice about how SWOMEN lowered my chances. I was able to look across all the schools I applied to and realized that these committees are forming admissions policies to serve their mandated areas. This is reasonable.

 

J

[classA]

The SWOMEN program is not only for rural areas its also all of SWO.

 

"The Southwestern Ontario Medical Education Network (SWOMEN) is a partnership of communities throughout Southwest Ontario that includes Windsor, community hospitals and the University of Windsor providing rural / regional and Windsor based medical education and training experience to undergraduate and postgraduate trainees from the University of Western Ontario."

 

This being said Western is trying to improve all communities (London or Aylmer) in SWO by trying to recruit individuals from these areas. Universities have loyalties to their communities. The ones that have "perks" in the admission process for their area residents makes perfect sense. For the GTA area, UofT doesn’t need to have any perks because most of the students applying are from the GTA area. If you look at how many SWOMEN applicants there are you can really see that there is very few (80 interviews out of 450). The rest of interviewees make up areas out side of SWOMEN. The GTA area residents do not need to be highly recruited because they make up the vast majority of applicants. You do not need to have perks to recruit the vast majority of applicants...it just does not make sense.

[danceprincess88]

Some of your arguments are a little off:

 

UBC doesn't punish OOP students because they are unlikely to return, they punish them because the vast majority of funding for medical education comes from provincial governments. Therefore BC doesn't want to pay for Ontario kids medical education, which makes sense. This brings me to my next point, western's mandate should be for ontario not swo since that is where their funding is coming from.

 

Also for the record Ottawa just started their regionalized selection process this year with lower cutoffs, however it will be interesting to see the numbers and if they give as much of a post interview bonus as well.

 

Okay so I am trying to be unbiased here, I can understand why Western lowers the cutoffs for SWOMEN thinking that the lower SES prevents them from succeeding (I don't agree with it but can understand) what I have a big problem with is the fact that a SWOMEN interview candidate is over twice as likely to receive an offer of admission than a candidate outside SWOMEN. So not only lower cutoffs to receive an interview, but a massive bonus post interview..... wow! BTW these numbers are freely available on the UWO dean's report and the AFMC website. It was 2.5 times more likely in 2010 class and 1.8 times more likely in the 2011 class.

 

Western's mandate should be based on their funding, it comes from the ontario government, I am from an underserviced area (worse than london but not as bad as windsor) yet I don't get a bonus anywhere. I contribute the same amount to a medical student's education than someone from SWO does with tax dollars (maybe even more so if the big push for SWOMEN was low SES).

 

If they are going to base admissions on statistics than they should let more men in than women because statistically they are likely to work more hours. I don't see how the SWOMEN policy is any different a form of discrimination than that fictional policy I just mentioned.

[ploughboy]

This brings me to my next point, western's mandate should be for ontario not swo since that is where their funding is coming from.

 

 

UWO receives a metric boat-load of money from the MOHLTC in support of both Swomen and the development of the new medical school in Windsor. When planning started for the Windsor campus, the school was pushed very hard by Smitherman et al to try and open it last fall, just before the election. (source: Dean Rebel)

 

Ultimately the Ministry is going to want a return on all of that investment, in the form of physicians practicining in SW Ontario (and in the form of local ridings continuing to support the current government , he added cynically)

 

By giving a preference to students from the region, UWO is attempting to increase the number of graduates who stick around the area. Of all the regional physician recruiting/retention strategies, this is one of the better ones (see Rourke et al, which I've cited ad nauseum in this forum over the years) As mentioned previously, UWO is balancing this against the needs of the province as a whole and this is reflected in the make-up of Meds '10, '11 and now Meds '12.

 

Is is a perfect system? No. Is it a perfectly fair system? No. Like many things in life, it is what it is.

 

 

Also for the record Ottawa just started their regionalized selection process this year with lower cutoffs,

 

No. Ottawa's tiered GPA cut-offs have been in place for at least five years, if not longer.

[Jectin]

Western's catchment area is Southwestern Ontario. The Ontario government is the main source of funding, yes. It is also the main form of funding for 5 other medical schools in the province, each serving their own region. So if Western wants to give slight advantages to individuals who grew up in the region and are therefore more likely to return, then it is reasonable.

 

There are limited spots. Western is trying to give an advantage to SWOMEN applicants. In turn, more SWOMEN applicants get in then they would have otherwise (which is what the school wants). This decreases the number of available spots for non-SWOMEN. This is in no way intentionally discriminatory. The fictional situation you provided would be an example of intentionally discriminating against women who want to become physicians. Try to pass that across the LCME and you get a big fat probation sticker.

 

And Ottawa's admissions policy has been there for a while. As far as I know, when I looked at it in first year university which was about 4 years ago, it was there. It ended up that if I was living in Ottawa I would have got a shot at an interview, but I didn't and I was denied an interview. Forgot about it, didn't think twice, didn't apply. I just don't understand why you are all getting so worked up about this, you were UNLUCKY not UNQUALIFIED, you will get in next year and if you are of low SES like you claim, you will get a big fat Schulich scholarship with it.

 

J

[Alastriss]

I think my point was missed yet again so I will try to clarify. Much of these rebuttles I agree with, but aren't rebuttles because they aren't rebuttling my argument so to speak.

 

I don't disagree with UWO. I agree with what they are doing. I agree with what other provinces are doing and I understand why. I'm just saying that they could achieve their goals and be less 'discriminatory' towards non-swomen. It just sucks personally hearing from a SWOMEN guy about how he's playing the rural card for his interviews even though he has full intention about going to a big city when he is done. It sucks knowing about people who were able to have regional advantages and got into medical school, even though they just applied because their parents told them to, not really sure if they wanted to be a doctor, but got in. No one is arguing that it works. We are merely questioning the efficacy that a system which decides your potential commitment to rural medicine based on your high school. (frankly, I don't see how anyone can argue against the aforementioned). Its a good system, but it could be better. Yet what I meant with the apathy. You say its unfair, but all that was said when i said teh system was better, was someone quoting Dr. Chain saying that it works. At the end of the day, if they can get even 'some' rural committed doctors out there then they are happy. There doesn't seem to be any true motivation to improve the system for non-swomens.

 

And please, don't tell me they can't come up with modest improvements to a system that determines your potential commitment to rural medicine solely based on the high school you went to.

 

Interesting point about the GTA having excess applicants. It does make sense as you said it does, Jectin, from a limited point of view. The following I pose as a musing rather than an argument. It seems as if Canada's main goal with medical schools is to just solve this healthcare problem. It doesn't matter which students are 'screwed' and which are not, as long as at the end of the day the country is receiving full service. This explains why Quebec's med schools have a ridiculously high acceptance rate, and why people from the GTA have it pretty bad (getting selected AGAINST at most schools simply by virtue of where their PARENTS chose to live). There seems to be much less regard for the student. I guess the country comes first. Again, this is coming from they guy who got the same interviews as 10+ of his friends did, but watched them all get into (and solely into) their home province/region. I am very happy for them, and I am not jealous in the least bit and this is something I am proud of.

 

We were unlucky, but we didn't have to be is all that we are trying to say. Its not the end of the world, it's just unpleasant.

 

The system isn't necessarily fair to every student, but is ultimately fair to a country that badly needs improvement on its healthcare system, and I completely accept that.

 

Regarding the UWO students who are quick to rebuttle, I speak for at least myself when we agree on a lot of important issues, specifically the need and significance of the SWOMEN program. I am simply saying that they can make it better. Example: Don't take away the advantage given to SWOMEN applicants, but give a Non-Swomen applicant 'swomen' status if he has done considerable work in rural areas/shown commitment. Same thing to NOSM: Don't dock a lot of points for someone who comes from the GTA if he has shown some sort of commitment to rural medicine. Is that really too much to ask? Maybe. it would make the application, at least for UWO go behind screening high schools.

[stefanci]

I feel its unfair that they're really, in simple terms, discriminating agaisnt people's living locations.

 

It's simple discrimination based on where you live. We're (most of us) are all Canadian citizens and should all be considered equal regardless of where we come from within Canada.

 

I find it a bit absurd that it goes down like this.... but w/e, we can't change the system.. but at least when some of these pre-med commitees read all of these posts, I hope that at least some of them realize what they're doing.

 

Yeah, Yeah, I've heard em' all. I don't want any more "answers" to be used as excuses for selection criterias...

 

-Stef

[lostintime]

I think my point was missed yet again so I will try to clarify. Much of these rebuttles I agree with, but aren't rebuttles because they aren't rebuttling my argument so to speak.

 

I don't disagree with UWO. I agree with what they are doing. I agree with what other provinces are doing and I understand why. I'm just saying that they could achieve their goals and be less 'discriminatory' towards non-swomen. It just sucks personally hearing from a SWOMEN guy about how he's playing the rural card for his interviews even though he has full intention about going to a big city when he is done. It sucks knowing about people who were able to have regional advantages and got into medical school, even though they just applied because their parents told them to, not really sure if they wanted to be a doctor, but got in. No one is arguing that it works. We are merely questioning the efficacy that a system which decides your potential commitment to rural medicine based on your high school. (frankly, I don't see how anyone can argue against the aforementioned). Its a good system, but it could be better. Yet what I meant with the apathy. You say its unfair, but all that was said when i said teh system was better, was someone quoting Dr. Chain saying that it works. At the end of the day, if they can get even 'some' rural committed doctors out there then they are happy. There doesn't seem to be any true motivation to improve the system for non-swomens.

 

And please, don't tell me they can't come up with modest improvements to a system that determines your potential commitment to rural medicine solely based on the high school you went to.

 

Interesting point about the GTA having excess applicants. It does make sense as you said it does, Jectin, from a limited point of view. The following I pose as a musing rather than an argument. It seems as if Canada's main goal with medical schools is to just solve this healthcare problem. It doesn't matter which students are 'screwed' and which are not, as long as at the end of the day the country is receiving full service. This explains why Quebec's med schools have a ridiculously high acceptance rate, and why people from the GTA have it pretty bad (getting selected AGAINST at most schools simply by virtue of where their PARENTS chose to live). There seems to be much less regard for the student. I guess the country comes first. Again, this is coming from they guy who got the same interviews as 10+ of his friends did, but watched them all get into (and solely into) their home province/region. I am very happy for them, and I am not jealous in the least bit and this is something I am proud of.

 

We were unlucky, but we didn't have to be is all that we are trying to say. Its not the end of the world, it's just unpleasant.

 

The system isn't necessarily fair to every student, but is ultimately fair to a country that badly needs improvement on its healthcare system, and I completely accept that.

 

Regarding the UWO students who are quick to rebuttle, I speak for at least myself when we agree on a lot of important issues, specifically the need and significance of the SWOMEN program. I am simply saying that they can make it better. Example: Don't take away the advantage given to SWOMEN applicants, but give a Non-Swomen applicant 'swomen' status if he has done considerable work in rural areas/shown commitment. Same thing to NOSM: Don't dock a lot of points for someone who comes from the GTA if he has shown some sort of commitment to rural medicine. Is that really too much to ask? Maybe. it would make the application, at least for UWO go behind screening high schools.

 

Which advantage are you speaking of? The cutoff advantage? Because I think they do give you extra consideration as part of your suitability/commitment to rural medicine, etc. if you've had the experience and can elaborate during your interview.

 

Of course, this doesn't help non-SWOMENs in the boat who don't meet the cutoffs. That being said, many non-SWOMEN I've heard of have gotten in without rural experience.

[Jewels1986]

I think the issue is that there are conflicting rights here. You can argue that applicants have a "right" to equal consideration regardless of where they live, but you can also argue that people in underserviced areas have a "right" to a doctor / health care, and changing cut-offs based on where you're from is the most efficient and least expensive way of doing ensuring that the latter right is at least partially upheld. I agree that it's probably not the best way though - it would make sense for them to give points based on rural experiences and that sort of thing. Cheers!

[1234]

I understand Alastriss's frustration. Unfortunately, I do not agree with his argument or the rationalizations associated with them.

 

The Canadian governement views issues from a population-based perspective. With their significant contribution and subsidization in medical education in Canada, they have a right to influence which issues should be dealt with in regards to medical student recruitment. Similar to Ontario schools primarily recruiting Ontario residents, and BC schools recruiting BC residents as students, Ontario has segmented their geography further to address more complex issues, such as the inadequacy of health-care coverage in rural populations. All of a sudden, you feel as though this segmentation is unfair? How so? The argument that the Ontario population has never been segmented is a fallacious one.

 

I don't disagree with UWO. I agree with what they are doing. I agree with what other provinces are doing and I understand why. I'm just saying that they could achieve their goals and be less 'discriminatory' towards non-swomen. It just sucks personally hearing from a SWOMEN guy about how he's playing the rural card for his interviews even though he has full intention about going to a big city when he is done. It sucks knowing about people who were able to have regional advantages and got into medical school, even though they just applied because their parents told them to, not really sure if they wanted to be a doctor, but got in. No one is arguing that it works. We are merely questioning the efficacy that a system which decides your potential commitment to rural medicine based on your high school. (frankly, I don't see how anyone can argue against the aforementioned). Its a good system, but it could be better. Yet what I meant with the apathy. You say its unfair, but all that was said when i said teh system was better, was someone quoting Dr. Chain saying that it works. At the end of the day, if they can get even 'some' rural committed doctors out there then they are happy.

 

I understand your frustration - but your argument is lacks substance. I believe that most of us are intelligent enough to know that people lie or that uncommitted individuals get into medical school. These are simply unavoidable. We don't live in a society of truth-tellers and unlimited resources to run such elaborate systems to truly find the best candidates (nor can i think of any system that would accomplish this).

 

There doesn't seem to be any true motivation to improve the system for non-swomens.

 

Why does there need to be improvement? In what sense? Do you mean streamlining the systems across Ontario? This would reduce the diversity of the successful applicant pool. Simply put, the GTA has a tremendous number of eager, young minds that all want to go to medical school.

 

You also question the efficacy of identifying rurally-committed students. Until you can think of a better solution ( that is implimentable and cost-effective and the rest) to such a complex problem, your question arises and dies with no merit.

 

I'll respond to the rest of your ideas a little later.

[1234]

I feel its unfair that they're really, in simple terms, discriminating agaisnt people's living locations.

 

It's simple discrimination based on where you live. We're (most of us) are all Canadian citizens and should all be considered equal regardless of where we come from within Canada.

 

I find it a bit absurd that it goes down like this.... but w/e, we can't change the system.. but at least when some of these pre-med commitees read all of these posts, I hope that at least some of them realize what they're doing.

 

Yeah, Yeah, I've heard em' all. I don't want any more "answers" to be used as excuses for selection criterias...

 

-Stef

 

OK...... I don't want any more premed students to whine and complain... unfortunately, you can't control what people do/say/argue.

 

And you call this targeted selection discrimination? Tell me, how do you this issue of an underserved rural population that is at the brink of demolishing the very principles that the Canadian Health Care System is supposed to uphold? The current solution is to recruit those that have a connection with rural areas/populations; hence, the targeted selection.

 

You may feel it is unfair. The Canadian government and medical schools have bigger things to concern theirselves with than your feelings of discomfort and uneasiness, such as the crumbling socialized health care system and relative inaccess to health care that rural populations suffer with. What would you have these institutions do? Make 50 students happier that medical schools do no use geographic status as a selection factor, or, create 50 new rural physicians that could serve a significant (2000? 3000? 4000?) rural populants? It is clear which decision would lead to a greater good. I know. I know. Some are going to argue that those 50 students are still significant. And they are; however, our greatest concerns today are a lack of physicians and a lack of rural access of healthcare. You call it discrimination. I call it effective problem-solving.

 

Read my previous post on more intricate segmentation of the Ontario population to address the needs of Ontario.

[Alastriss]

A few things and then don't bother responding:

 

 

The Canadian governement views issues from a population-based perspective. With their significant contribution and subsidization in medical education in Canada, they have a right to influence which issues should be dealt with in regards to medical student recruitment. Similar to Ontario schools primarily recruiting Ontario residents, and BC schools recruiting BC residents as students, Ontario has segmented their geography further to address more complex issues, such as the inadequacy of health-care coverage in rural populations. All of a sudden, you feel as though this segmentation is unfair? How so? The argument that the Ontario population has never been segmented is a fallacious one.

 

 

If you read my post carefully and critically you wouldn't be saying this because you know I agree with it. I said it is true from the point of view that the government is doing the right thing because they need to provide healthcare to underserviced areas. I said it sucks from certain premed's point of view, and yeah it does suck and I don't see how anyone can tell me that certain premeds are disadvantaged based on certain areas. I never said this segmentation is unfair, I said that it was, i just said that it sucks for some students.

 

I understand your frustration - but your argument is lacks substance. I believe that most of us are intelligent enough to know that people lie or that uncommitted individuals get into medical school. These are simply unavoidable. We don't live in a society of truth-tellers and unlimited resources to run such elaborate systems to truly find the best candidates (nor can i think of any system that would accomplish this).

 

For what the above quote was directed to, my argument doesn't lack substance. DO you know why 1234? Because all i said was that the system COULD be better, because it selects based on high school only, which as i said a cagillion times is GOOD but could be better. UT does file reviews for individual applicants for 3000 people. Is it so hard to run simple file reviews or to have a school submission question such as: describe your commitment to rural medicine for non-swomen interviewees? at around 300. Again if you read carefully, I didn't call for an elaborate system, I said a BETTER system.

 

Why does there need to be improvement? In what sense? Do you mean streamlining the systems across Ontario? This would reduce the diversity of the successful applicant pool. Simply put, the GTA has a tremendous number of eager, young minds that all want to go to medical school.

 

You also question the efficacy of identifying rurally-committed students. Until you can think of a better solution ( that is implimentable and cost-effective and the rest) to such a complex problem, your question arises and dies with no merit.

 

 

Exactly the apathy I was alluding to. Say you have a method, x, of selecting rural applicants. Its success ultimately results in 80 admitted students, of which 50

ends up practicing rural medicine. If you have a slight modification which better selects students that will go into rural medicine, and call this method y, then you may only have to admit 70 rural students to get that 50 in the end. 10 seats get transferred to non-swomen kids. Or hell, use 8 of these seats for SWOMEN students and give 2 to nonswomen. Even that works. The faster rural areas are brought up to par, the faster some of these geographical constraints will be removed. I hope this crude, yet effective model, has demonstrated what I mean. Just to further illustrate things for you:

 

SWOMEN applicant: who has lived in London, went to a big city for undergrad and has done many activities there in the summer as well (so ripping off Ottawa's system of using ECs to help establish residency) and has shown no commitment to rural medicine

NON-Swomen applicant: lived in GTA, went to highschool there, has spent considerable time doing volunteer work in rural communities abroad, volunteering on first nations reserve, etc.

 

Don't dock points for the non-swomen right away.

 

 

What has really happened here is that you took my 'arguments' the wrong light. I am not even arguing but simply musing. I am not calling out for a new system, but rather, I think it would be 'nice' if it was a little better. Given my slightly above impartial stance, I think it hardly, and i mean hardly, merits the undercurrent of hostility I received from you 1234. And I say this because I am not the type, and most certainly have not, made any ridiculous leaps in arguments. I did not say the regional selection system was unfair, I just said that with a little bit more effort (not something unreasonable, refer to the UT example) we may have a fairer system. I don't think that is too radical of a statement to make. For the record, as you so arrogantly dubbed us as premeds (I assume you are a med), I speak for myself when I say I am not whining and complaining. My stance, is slightly-more-than-impartial. We are not screaming for a change, we are venting. We agree that its effective problem solving, so dude..CHILL OUT MAN!

 

Pertaining to a point you made, Danceprincess88 already presented a rebuttle:

 

The GTA student pays the same taxes to the Ontario government, but isn't as competitive for the seats as other ontario residents are. I personally don't think this is an issue tho, but just wanted to pass it on to you.

 

 

What would you have these institutions do? Make 50 students happier that medical schools do no use geographic status as a selection factor, or, create 50 new rural physicians that could serve a significant (2000? 3000? 4000?) rural populants?

 

 

Ahh, here it is. This line is exactly why I think you missed a critical facet of what I said:

1) Who's to say we can't select 50 'happy' students with dedication to rural medicine even though they aren't from there?

2) who's to say that those students you created based on geographical status are going to be rural physicians?

With modest changes maybe we can come close to having a more efficient system.

[newguy?]

1234

You called it socialized health care. I hope you understand what that means.

 

"create 50 new rural physicians that could serve a significant (2000? 3000? 4000?) rural populants? It is clear which decision would lead to a greater good."

 

What are you calling the greater good? A doctor going to a village of 2000 and practice there? What should we do about Nunavut then?

 

A lot of you people (that are in UWO medicals' class btw) defend their policy. It's actually unfortunate, and you run to the defence "it's not the best solution, but at least they are trying". If you want to get technical, the financing is done by the government. I am currently looking up stats to show you, just exactly how much of that money actually comes from the GTA. Be prepared, its over 70%.

 

I should also note, didn't someone here in the UWO meds class say a prof asked the class, "how many of you plan on practicing in London?" and like 4 people raised their hands?

 

2 more things

a) healthcare is crumbling, and trying to save the rural aspect, and keep them up to urban standards is ridiculous and a major cause of it. Ya, I'm an urban guy, you rural-ites, are unsustainable. Maybe tele-health will be a solution.

 

Both sides of the argument above this post is rather useless. Find out how many of the class stays in swomen, and find out how many of the residents of UWO stay, and you may be suprised with the results, and maybe you guys should discuss after you have figured that out.

[Sheena815]

I actually think Alastriss has made the most reasonable argument in this thread for a more fair system. I'm not sure I get all the opposition to his position? (And I'm a swomen person.) Sounds like a good idea to me.

 

But the thing is, the primary concern of the government/ swomen area/ health care system in general is NOT what's the most fair to med hopeful students. Its just not. Their primary concern is doing what's best for them, for their system. And no, I don't think its fair. Life is often not fair.

 

Both sides of the argument above this post is rather useless. Find out how many of the class stays in swomen, and find out how many of the residents of UWO stay, and you may be suprised with the results, and maybe you guys should discuss after you have figured that out.

 

I would be interested in seeing this data, does it even exist? Or is the Swomen initiative still too young? This would give us a better idea of whether this system is actually accomplishing its goal.

 

I should also note, didn't someone here in the UWO meds class say a prof asked the class, "how many of you plan on practicing in London?" and like 4 people raised their hands?

 

Is that an argument for or against the swomen advantage? And anyway, if asked this with any city I would not put up my hand. Cause I (and I'm sure many others) cannot "plan" on practicing anywhere at this point.

 

ETA: As for "socialized medicine", I think that term applies more to countries like cuba, where health care is not only government funded, but government administered (ie. docs are employed directly by the government, whereas in Canada you are self-employed, and just bill the government). I find that term gets thrown around way too readily as a way to disparage UHC. We don't call public schools "socialized education", do we? (Not that I think our health care system is perfect- egads no. I'm a two-tier- supporting person).

[1234]

1234

What are you calling the greater good? A doctor going to a village of 2000 and practice there? What should we do about Nunavut then?

 

WTF are you talking about? lol - your argument doesn't even make sense. We are talking about increasing access in the SWOMEN region VS. potentially 50 more happy non-SWOMEN students

 

A lot of you people (that are in UWO medicals' class btw) defend their policy. It's actually unfortunate, and you run to the defence "it's not the best solution, but at least they are trying".

 

If you want to get technical, the financing is done by the government. I am currently looking up stats to show you, just exactly how much of that money actually comes from the GTA. Be prepared, its over 70%.

 

Once again, how does the first paragraph relate to the second? Regardless, simply because the GTA provides a significant portion of the resources in Ontario doesn't justify that they be served to a greater extent than the rest of the province. Both federal and provincial governments (across Canada) have always participated in regional equilization (SEE Provincial Equilization Regimes, etc. etc. etc.). This is a fundamental cornerstone that governments in Canada function upon. Your argument suggests that regions that contribute little fiscally do not have the same rights as richer, more urbanized areas.

 

 

2 more things

a) healthcare is crumbling, and trying to save the rural aspect, and keep them up to urban standards is ridiculous and a major cause of it. Ya, I'm an urban guy, you rural-ites, are unsustainable. Maybe tele-health will be a solution.

 

So - healthcare is crumbling, so we should save the rich, and let to poor die off? Good argument. Really.

 

Both sides of the argument above this post is rather useless. Find out how many of the class stays in swomen, and find out how many of the residents of UWO stay, and you may be suprised with the results, and maybe you guys should discuss after you have figured that out.

 

Useless? See your post.

[danceprincess88]

1234,

 

dude or dudette you have long way to go on your way to becoming a physician. the passion of your argument is admirable but it is clouding your impartiality and combining it with your hostile tone in your posts pose a big problem down the road. it is very important to see both sides to an argument and understand them (but not agree with them) rather than write them off completely by calling someone an idiot.

 

one of the big problems until recently is that no one wanted to practice family medicine (because it paid less) and no one wanted to practice rural (because it paid less). these issues are being addressed, rural family physicians are starting to become some of the highest paid physicians in the countries due to incentives from the community (ie. housing, relocation costs covered, guaranteed salary etc.) and taking away the billing cap. motivated rural family physicians who are working 80 hours a week are pulling in excess of $500k/year. I feel that by having more residency positions take place in rural communities, more money for rural practicing physicians and integrating rural practice into undergraduate medical education (such as UWO's discovery week and part of clerkship taking place outside of london) will curb the rural healthcare problem. we expect alot morally out of physicians but we forget that an accountant/lawyer/etc. is allowed to move communities for increased pay, why shouldn't physicians? If the pay is in rural communities (which it is right now due to demand), physicians will move there.

 

The way the system was 5 to 10 years ago (with the cap and before incorporation) that physician who went to high school in strathroy ontario did his residency in family and emerg medicine in toronto and never looked back. The new pay incentives makes that kid who went to upper canada college in toronto and who went to mcgill for medicine think twice before starting a plastic surgery practice in toronto and lean more towards family medicine in magnetawan, ontario.

 

The other thing to ponder is that someone who 'chooses' to live in rural ontario gives up alot of conveniences (ie. accountants (sorry for the accountant theme), shopping, etc.etc.) and should they accept that healthcare is one of them as well? healthcare shouldn't be one of them according to the canadian government (and any high moral person) but now there is the incentive for a physician to set up there.

[1234]

1234,

 

dude or dudette you have long way to go on your way to becoming a physician. the passion of your argument is admirable but it is clouding your impartiality and combining it with your hostile tone in your posts pose a big problem down the road. it is very important to see both sides to an argument and understand them (but not agree with them) rather than write them off completely by calling someone an idiot.

 

 

 

And you know what it takes to become an effective physician... right...

[Vallinar]

i agree with Alastriss argument of a more in depth analysis of swomen/non-swomen commitment to rural practice.... but what about UWOs commitment to recruiting docs to LONDON... is there really a better way of doing that than the typical HS/living area method? I don't really see one, yet certain people here are having a huge problem with the number of AB lucas grads who "take advantage" of the swomen initiative.