Being a male applicant.

[aaronjw]

Does anyone think that labeling people as racist, sexist, etc actually impairs our ability to thoughtful discussion and education on the topic?

 

When we condemn people for what they say you drive them underground but they still think it. Wouldn't it be better to allow them discussion without fear of label in an attempt that reasoned discourse may lead to heightened sense of awareness, education and reductions if such views.

 

If we called everyone an idiot for thinking what they do then they'd never open their mouth for fear of being labeled and likely wouldn't learn anything new or different as to why they're wrong in the first place.

 

Something to consider in the discussion of political correctness.

[Der Kaiser]

Back to the original topic if you do a google search on Casper and "too many females" or something to that effect there is a Globe and Mail article that explains that CASPER was supposed to help close the gender gap a little. I guess females in general tend to have higher gpas (and are more numerous in universities now). Anyway, I remember reading something (I think in the mentioned article) that said it may actually be more advantageous in the application process to be male since schools covertly aim for a 1:1 ratio of males to females.

 

p.s. Trojanhorse is clearly sexist .

[Quantum]

Back to the original topic if you do a google search on Casper and "too many females" or something to that effect there is a Globe and Mail article that explains that CASPER was supposed to help close the gender gap a little. I guess females in general tend to have higher gpas (and are more numerous in universities now). Anyway, I remember reading something (I think in the mentioned article) that said it may actually be more advantageous in the application process to be male since schools covertly aim for a 1:1 ratio of males to females.

 

p.s. Trojanhorse is clearly sexist .

 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/brains-alone-wont-get-you-into-mcmaster-medical-school/article1319478/

 

"In 2002, nearly 77 per cent of students admitted to McMaster's MD program were women, but by 2009, the school had restored some balance, with 61 per cent women. Dr. Reiter credits the MMI, which has proven its neutrality to an applicant's gender and income level. Given CASPer's many similarities, it is also expected to be unbiased."

[ralk]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/brains-alone-wont-get-you-into-mcmaster-medical-school/article1319478/

 

"In 2002, nearly 77 per cent of students admitted to McMaster's MD program were women, but by 2009, the school had restored some balance, with 61 per cent women. Dr. Reiter credits the MMI, which has proven its neutrality to an applicant's gender and income level. Given CASPer's many similarities, it is also expected to be unbiased."

 

Wow, that's a pretty big shift...

 

I wonder how much can really be attributed to the MMI, however - Western draws from much the same applicant pool, places emphasis on many of the same criteria (namely high verbal MCAT scores), yet is one of the few schools which consistently admits more male than female applicants, all while using a rather traditional panel interview.

[MarshMellow]

A friend and I were having quite an interesting chat about admission conspiracies

 

His theory was - "there is no way whatsoever that the majority, if not all, med schools have similar ratios of admitted applicants year after year after year".

 

He argued that although the ratio of males:females may never be 50:50, it's surely always made to be close to that ratio by the schools unless the applicant pool is truly wavered to one gender that cycle. He thinks that if adcoms were true to their websites and formulas...there would surely be at least 60% women admitted every cycle to most, if not all schools, reason being - high GPA's, discipline to dominate many EC's, and dominance in MMI's and Casper.

 

Guys on the other hand may have a harder time expressing what MMI's and Casper's want to see expressed.

 

Essentially...and ironically, he thinks that girls are being screwed over b/c adcoms must maintain an inflow of males into the program just for ratio's sake. While guys just need to be 'qualified' to get in, girls need to be overqualified to get in because there's much more competition within that gender pool.

 

There was an article released (globe & mail I believe) in which the Dean of Med of a certain school in Canada (Ottawa or Mac I believe) pretty much admitted that they had to "admit qualified males against overqualified females" to maintain diversity and to make sure that the profession of medicine is seen as something males should pursue. I can't find the article

 

Just food for thought. Hopefully, everyone admitted at all times is admitted because of merit alone

 

Having said that...I feel women would dominate if that were truly the case.

[capricorn]

First off, for anyone saying I called someone sexist, please point to exactly where I did this. I don't remember ever using the term.

 

Second,

 

We live in a world where many are cacooned with the threat of being called a sexist or a racist. It's this threat alone that restricts the same individuals from expressing their true opinion and promoting transparency.

 

Yeah, just think about all us poor oppressed white males who are in danger of being labelled sexist or racist! This is truly the greatest social issue of our time. /s

 

The onus is on us to learn about social problems, not to put our ignorance on other people and expect other people to explain it to us. And I'm not calling you ignorant. Some of these "defenses" are just a tab bit ridiculous and actually parallel the usual defense that actual racists and sexists jump to. It's odd.

[capricorn]

I think that it's important to take a step back and look at how we define 'male' and 'female.' There are a lot of interesting thoughts out there about viewing gender as a binary concept (i.e. strictly male or female) and about differentiating between biological/anatomical sex, gender identity, gender expression, gender roles, gender fluidity, etc.

 

Also, this is a great post.

[bee723]

To add to Aaron's post:

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19422491

 

http://www.canada.com/news/Female+doctors+hurt+productivity+Report/1612978/story.html

 

But someone might remark that these studies were probably performed and funded by misogynistic hatred.

 

Okay, so these studies point to the feminization of medicine and these data show that female physicians work fewer hours than male ones. Firstly, no one is saying that these studies were "funded by misogynistic hatred". Secondly, we should apply these facts to our critical analysis of gender and medicine.

 

I would argue that perhaps female physicians work fewer hours because of the still disproportionate amount of time women spend on childcare and housework compared to their male partners. Does this present a barrier to female physicians' full immersion in work? Perhaps medicine has been male-dominated for so long that female physicians find it difficult to carry out the long hours expected of them professionally and the long hours expected of them domestically as dictated by traditional gender roles. If so, what can we do to address this change? From the study:

 

"There are two potential approaches to this issue. One

approach would be to optimise the support services

available to doctors so that they can work longer

hours if they so choose. This might include providing

options such as childcare support services during

working hours, greater work flexibility and on-call

flexibility. Alternatively, we could recognise as a

profession that fewer work hours may in fact be

beneficial to both doctors and patients. There is,

indeed, evidence that younger doctors work fewer

hours compared with their counterparts a decade

earlier. It has been shown that longer working

hours can impair functions such as the sustained

attention and vigilance tested in simulated driving

tasks. Perhaps it would be more appropriate and

logical to conclude that doctors traditionally have

worked excessive numbers of hours and that this new

trend is in fact beneficial. In this second approach,

which we believe should be examined by Canada and

other countries in similar situations, the total number

of doctors must be increased by raising the number

of matriculating medical students and increasing

recruitment of foreign graduates."

 

These are the conclusions the authors have come to - they don't simply scapegoat women for the shortage in physicians, but they look at medicine critically and analyze change in the profession over time. This type of analysis benefits everyone! That being said, obviously it wouldn't hurt to shake up traditional gender roles and create a more equal distribution of domestic labour between men and women

[silvantes]

..and then some people just need to pick everything apart to find something to complain about.

[souljaboy]

A friend and I were having quite an interesting chat about admission conspiracies

 

His theory was - "there is no way whatsoever that the majority, if not all, med schools have similar ratios of admitted applicants year after year after year".

 

He argued that although the ratio of males:females may never be 50:50, it's surely always made to be close to that ratio by the schools unless the applicant pool is truly wavered to one gender that cycle. He thinks that if adcoms were true to their websites and formulas...there would surely be at least 60% women admitted every cycle to most, if not all schools, reason being - high GPA's, discipline to dominate many EC's, and dominance in MMI's and Casper.

 

Guys on the other hand may have a harder time expressing what MMI's and Casper's want to see expressed.

 

Essentially...and ironically, he thinks that girls are being screwed over b/c adcoms must maintain an inflow of males into the program just for ratio's sake. While guys just need to be 'qualified' to get in, girls need to be overqualified to get in because there's much more competition within that gender pool.

 

There was an article released (globe & mail I believe) in which the Dean of Med of a certain school in Canada (Ottawa or Mac I believe) pretty much admitted that they had to "admit qualified males against overqualified females" to maintain diversity and to make sure that the profession of medicine is seen as something males should pursue. I can't find the article

 

Just food for thought. Hopefully, everyone admitted at all times is admitted because of merit alone

 

Having said that...I feel women would dominate if that were truly the case.

 

If a dean of med actually came out and said that, i'm pretty sure he's not staying dean for long.

[aaronjw]

More liberal socialist CRAP. Just utter frigging crap.

 

Yes let's offer support services to the hard done female doctor. Yeah boooo hooo to the female doctor who can work part time and still make $150K. How about the doctor hire her own support services? Meanwhile, the millions of female workers out there get absolutely no 'support services' and don't make half what a part-time female physician makes.

 

How about we focus change on problems that affect real people instead of the those for the super wealthy in society.

 

 

 

 

 

Okay, so these studies point to the feminization of medicine and these data show that female physicians work fewer hours than male ones. Firstly, no one is saying that these studies were "funded by misogynistic hatred". Secondly, we should apply these facts to our critical analysis of gender and medicine.

 

I would argue that perhaps female physicians work fewer hours because of the still disproportionate amount of time women spend on childcare and housework compared to their male partners. Does this present a barrier to female physicians' full immersion in work? Perhaps medicine has been male-dominated for so long that female physicians find it difficult to carry out the long hours expected of them professionally and the long hours expected of them domestically as dictated by traditional gender roles. If so, what can we do to address this change? From the study:

 

"There are two potential approaches to this issue. One

approach would be to optimise the support services

available to doctors so that they can work longer

hours if they so choose. This might include providing

options such as childcare support services during

working hours, greater work flexibility and on-call

flexibility. Alternatively, we could recognise as a

profession that fewer work hours may in fact be

beneficial to both doctors and patients. There is,

indeed, evidence that younger doctors work fewer

hours compared with their counterparts a decade

earlier. It has been shown that longer working

hours can impair functions such as the sustained

attention and vigilance tested in simulated driving

tasks. Perhaps it would be more appropriate and

logical to conclude that doctors traditionally have

worked excessive numbers of hours and that this new

trend is in fact beneficial. In this second approach,

which we believe should be examined by Canada and

other countries in similar situations, the total number

of doctors must be increased by raising the number

of matriculating medical students and increasing

recruitment of foreign graduates."

 

These are the conclusions the authors have come to - they don't simply scapegoat women for the shortage in physicians, but they look at medicine critically and analyze change in the profession over time. This type of analysis benefits everyone! That being said, obviously it wouldn't hurt to shake up traditional gender roles and create a more equal distribution of domestic labour between men and women

[AtomSmasher19]

Not surprized to see OP getting chewed out for simply posting statistics. Part of the feminist's job is to suppress the truth, if the truth isn't congruent with their politics of man-hating.

[rmorelan]

Wow, that's a pretty big shift...

 

I wonder how much can really be attributed to the MMI, however - Western draws from much the same applicant pool, places emphasis on many of the same criteria (namely high verbal MCAT scores), yet is one of the few schools which consistently admits more male than female applicants, all while using a rather traditional panel interview.

 

We don't know why we have that skew in recent years - it is about 55% to 45% in the last two although in my year it was basically 50/50 - could just be a random flux as it is really kind of hard to see where the bias is in a system that is so open about exactly what they are looking for. That was kind of the point of doing that. It maybe between the two schools (Mac and Western) if an earlier poster was right we are drawing from the same pools so collectively we must be closer to balance.

 

I should say as well that the applicants applying to Mac in days past were very different as well because the school structured itself that way. There was a clear policy shift there

[Quantum]

First off, for anyone saying I called someone sexist, please point to exactly where I did this. I don't remember ever using the term.

 

You may have not said it directly but you were sure hinting at the idea. What exactly did you mean by this statement then?

 

"I find it very difficult to believe that you accidentally forgot how much more privileged men are in our society over women."

 

Second,

 

 

 

Yeah, just think about all us poor oppressed white males who are in danger of being labelled sexist or racist! This is truly the greatest social issue of our time. /s

 

The onus is on us to learn about social problems, not to put our ignorance on other people and expect other people to explain it to us. And I'm not calling you ignorant. Some of these "defenses" are just a tab bit ridiculous and actually parallel the usual defense that actual racists and sexists jump to. It's odd.

I don't even know where to start with this. How can you even assume Trojjanhorse is a white male? Or that racism/sexism is only a problem for white males? Frankly, I'm disgusted with this statement. I can only imagine how inappropriate this would look if it was about any other race.

[aaronjw]

Not surprized to see OP getting chewed out for simply posting statistics. Part of the feminist's job is to suppress the truth, if the truth isn't congruent with their politics of man-hating.

 

You and your bull can go take a flying leap as well. You're the biggest woman hating troll on this board and that's saying something given a few other members of this forum.

[rmorelan]

Not surprized to see OP getting chewed out for simply posting statistics. Part of the feminist's job is to suppress the truth, if the truth isn't congruent with their politics of man-hating.

 

well the statistics themselves aren't the issue - for instance if over all women in university are attending university more than men, out performing men, and applying to medical school in greater proportion to men then they should be represented more at medical schools. If under such circumstances medical school admittance was 50/50 then there would actually be a bias against women.

 

and feminism isn't man hating - many feminists would argue that is actually incompatible with feminist theory, although there is a lot of diversity as their is in any group. Misandry is not a synonym for feminism.

[aaronjw]

You may have not said it directly but you were sure hinting at the idea. What exactly did you mean by this statement then?

 

"I find it very difficult to believe that you accidentally forgot how much more privileged men are in our society over women."

 

 

I don't even know where to start with this. How can you even assume Trojjanhorse is a white male? Or that racism/sexism is only a problem for white males? Frankly, I'm disgusted with this statement. I can only imagine how inappropriate this would look if it was about any other race.

 

Ahh but such things is perfectly ok when they are directed to people who are (may be) white, male and heterosexual.

[ralk]

We don't know why we have that skew in recent years - it is about 55% to 45% in the last two although in my year it was basically 50/50 - could just be a random flux as it is really kind of hard to see where the bias is in a system that is so open about exactly what they are looking for. That was kind of the point of doing that. It maybe between the two schools (Mac and Western) if an earlier poster was right we are drawing from the same pools so collectively we must be closer to balance.

 

I should say as well that the applicants applying to Mac in days past were very different as well because the school structured itself that way. There was a clear policy shift there

 

Yeah, definitely possible that the schools are balancing each other out (if I'm understanding your point correctly).

 

Actually, that was something that struck me about the stats lwu018 provided - while individual schools showed a lot of gender variation, the aggregate numbers will surprisingly gender-neutral. That is, in both years where data is available, a male student applying to at least one medical school had a virtually identical possibility of matriculating to medical school as a female who applied to at least one medical school.

 

On the whole, medical schools in Canada seem to be compensating for each other when it comes to gender ratios - I see no reason why Mac and Western couldn't be a microcosm of this phenomenon!

[ralk]

In the interest of productive discourse, as well as to advance my view that everything should be taught via webcomic, I'm just gonna leave this here: http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2939#comic

 

It seems tangentially relevant

[rmorelan]

Yeah, definitely possible that the schools are balancing each other out (if I'm understanding your point correctly).

 

Actually, that was something that struck me about the stats lwu018 provided - while individual schools showed a lot of gender variation, the aggregate numbers will surprisingly gender-neutral. That is, in both years where data is available, a male student applying to at least one medical school had a virtually identical possibility of matriculating to medical school as a female who applied to at least one medical school.

 

On the whole, medical schools in Canada seem to be compensating for each other when it comes to gender ratios - I see no reason why Mac and Western couldn't be a microcosm of this phenomenon!

 

Yeah if the overall applicant policy is about 50/50 - then for one to have more another must have less of a particular gender.

 

It isn't exactly 50/50 though of course for some of those other reasons mentioned.

[rmorelan]

In the interest of productive discourse, as well as to advance my view that everything should be taught via webcomic, I'm just gonna leave this here: http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2939#comic

 

It seems tangentially relevant

 

Ha, I love saturday morning breakfast cereal.

[capricorn]

Or that racism/sexism is only a problem for white males? Frankly, I'm disgusted with this statement. I can only imagine how inappropriate this would look if it was about any other race..

 

I..... I can't even. That's it, between the actual misogynist in this thread who posts about women stealing sperm from men and this, and people who think the OP "simply posted statistics", I actually cannot tell who is a troll or not.

 

I will say that if you are more concerned with being viewed as a sexist/racist over how your words may effect other people you should really evaluate your priorities.

 

We live in a world where many are cacooned with the threat of being called a sexist or a racist. It's this threat alone that restricts the same individuals from expressing their true opinion and promoting transparency. I had a similar discussion with a McMaster med student on a different thread about the term oriental and how I was racist for using that term in context... He/she even replied back by saying how he/she corrected a physician who he/she was shadowing at the time and it was well received... Well received? Of course it will be well received. That physician doesn't want to be labeled as a racist so of course he will receive your comment well. Certainly there are exceptions to this.

 

For example... If someone in med school told you they had a problem with that word, I am quite concerned that you wouldn't just stop using it.

 

3rd. I want to be accepted for who I am, and not who I conform into or to.

 

I am very concerned you would actually say something like this....

 

Edit: This person thinks a physician would only agree because they don't want to be labeled as racist, not because they could possibly not want to use racist terminology... Then they go on to explain why they should be allowed to use slurs because of some preservation of individuality? And some of you think this person who says these things was "simply posting statistics"....

[Gametime24]

I..... I can't even. That's it, between the actual misogynist in this thread who posts about women stealing sperm from men and this, and people who think the OP "simply posted statistics", I actually cannot tell who is a troll or not.

 

I will say that if you are more concerned with being viewed as a sexist/racist over how your words may effect other people you should really evaluate your priorities.

 

 

 

For example... If someone in med school told you they had a problem with that word, I am quite concerned that you wouldn't just stop using it.

 

 

 

I am very concerned you would actually say something like this....

 

 

Why would you be concerned about that? I feel the same way. I don't want to be accepted for conforming to what someone else wants, I will be accepted for who I am, I don't alter my personality for the sake of an interview or the adcoms. It's worked pretty well so far too.

[aaronjw]

I..... I can't even. That's it, between the actual misogynist in this thread who posts about women stealing sperm from men and this, and people who think the OP "simply posted statistics", I actually cannot tell who is a troll or not.

 

I will say that if you are more concerned with being viewed as a sexist/racist over how your words may effect other people you should really evaluate your priorities.

 

 

 

For example... If someone in med school told you they had a problem with that word, I am quite concerned that you wouldn't just stop using it.

 

 

 

I am very concerned you would actually say something like this....

 

go away troll.

 

stop making trouble where there isn't any to begin with.

[capricorn]

Why would you be concerned about that? I feel the same way. I don't want to be accepted for conforming to what someone else wants, I will be accepted for who I am, I don't alter my personality for the sake of an interview or the adcoms. It's worked pretty well so far too.

 

Please explain to me why not using racist slurs to make other people feel comfortable is in anyway altering your personality.