Gender Gaps In Medicine

[mononoke]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Our previous dean was also female and our current vice dean is female. Also the demographics for Toronto classes have shown an equal 50:50 split between men and women for the past 3 years, with the mcat score not as big of a barrier as western's.

[rmorelan]

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

 

 

 

ahhh scandal? She served 2  full terms. That is the normal amount of time for a dean at a medical school (they like to rotate them out to ensure new ideas and a shake up occurs). She has a long list of accomplishments (and I mean long) at the school and then left after 11 years in office. She successfully oversaw the expansion of the school to include Windsor. \

 

Basically this is one of Canada's top physicians and before the term scandal is thrown around that is going to have to be backed up.  

[sdj78we9jtf2o3mgfvj298j]

. 

[uwopremed]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

The big difference is that there are no official movements to address the medical schools that use policies that unduly favour women, but the only school that seems to slightly favour men is under review.  That is the bias of the current world we live in - where women are perpetual victims (when underrepresented), and men are undeserving or under qualified (when underrepresented).  This is true in literally all arenas of life in CAnada in 2016 because to talk about biases that may exist against males is considered taboo.  Just because men 'benefited' from sexism 30 years ago does not make it fair to do the reverse now.  

 

Women are overrrepresented in medical, law, dental, pharmacy, optometry, and veterinary schools - the 6 most prestigious and highly paid 4 year post-graduate programs.  In some programs, like vet school, they are 80%+!.  Men are over represented in engineering, where the average pay and job security is WORSE than all 6 of the previous aforementioned programs - and that is the one program targeted for having too many men because of presumed discrimination against women.  In the 10 largest metro areas of the US, women under 35 make considerably more than men under 35.  http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/03/nyregion/03women.html.  That gap is getting larger by the year, and almost certainly true in Canada's largest cities.  The reason why it probably changes when women are older is because there will always be a few women that choose kids, marry wealthy men, and choose to work less - and of course older women are from a different older more sexist generation in the first place.

 

When strictly fair and objective things like the MCAT or course prerequisites (like requiring chemistry) slightly favour men - it's deemed discriminatory.  When something that is much more subjective, like essays or interviews or overall GPA not taking into account program or university, strongly favours women - it's deemed being holistic.  When men dominate math and physics contest - it's because of discrimination.  When women dominate scholarships or writing awards - it's because they are hard working and talented.

 

A lot of people wonder why a dangerous jerk and unqualified fool like Trump can win an election.  It's because the 'elites' promote obvious biases like this again and again - and when someone speaks up about some of the obvious hypocrisy - they are a jerk.  So the people vote for the most un PC jerk they can find.  And I'm afraid it could happen in Canada too.

 

Anyways...my last words on this topic.

[MountainAmoeba]

Except that as a metric to determine success in not only the medical program, but also through residency and board exams, many schools are realizing that the mcat is a poor predicative measure. The University of Calgary for example only looks at CARS. As the director of admissions has stated, it is actually the only measure on the MCAT to positively correlate to future success as an MD. Many schools consistently review admissions standards based off of positive correlations between their criteria and predictors of future success. That doesn't exacatly sound very biased. And if it favors women, then it is only because men through exposure to societal pressure are less prepared to perform well in those areas, which only suggests that we need to learn how make sure male children are provided equal opportunity to succeed in these areas over the course of their growth and development. Who cares about the outcome of a standardized test if has no correlation to future outcomes as an MD?

 

Most schools are constantly evolving the admissions criteria to reflect parameters that help them predict who will become excellent physicians and have successful careers. They don't randomly choose these criteria, but rather use statistical analysis to determine which components of the admissions process are useful as accurate tools, and provided predictive ultility in the process. The best tools after all offer consistent results, are precise, and are valid. The MCAT in many cases does not stand against scrutiny in this evaluative process.

[ralk]

The big difference is that there are no official movements to address the medical schools that use policies that unduly favour women, but the only school that seems to slightly favour men is under review.  That is the bias of the current world we live in - where women are perpetual victims (when underrepresented), and men are undeserving or under qualified (when underrepresented).  This is true in literally all arenas of life in CAnada in 2016 because to talk about biases that may exist against males is considered taboo.  Just because men 'benefited' from sexism 30 years ago does not make it fair to do the reverse now.  

 

Women are overrrepresented in medical, law, dental, pharmacy, optometry, and veterinary schools - the 6 most prestigious and highly paid 4 year post-graduate programs.  In some programs, like vet school, they are 80%+!.  Men are over represented in engineering, where the average pay and job security is WORSE than all 6 of the previous aforementioned programs - and that is the one program targeted for having too many men because of presumed discrimination against women.  In the 10 largest metro areas of the US, women under 35 make considerably more than men under 35.  http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/03/nyregion/03women.html.  That gap is getting larger by the year, and almost certainly true in Canada's largest cities.  The reason why it probably changes when women are older is because there will always be a few women that choose kids, marry wealthy men, and choose to work less - and of course older women are from a different older more sexist generation in the first place.

 

When strictly fair and objective things like the MCAT or course prerequisites (like requiring chemistry) slightly favour men - it's deemed discriminatory.  When something that is much more subjective, like essays or interviews or overall GPA not taking into account program or university, strongly favours women - it's deemed being holistic.  When men dominate math and physics contest - it's because of discrimination.  When women dominate scholarships or writing awards - it's because they are hard working and talented.

 

A lot of people wonder why a dangerous jerk and unqualified fool like Trump can win an election.  It's because the 'elites' promote obvious biases like this again and again - and when someone speaks up about some of the obvious hypocrisy - they are a jerk.  So the people vote for the most un PC jerk they can find.  And I'm afraid it could happen in Canada too.

 

Anyways...my last words on this topic.

 

Let's talk about disadvantages men face. One area I feel males fall behind in, often unfairly, is in primary education. Men tend to develop more slowly and often don't get taught the value of working hard in school or of education in general. I did a lot of work both before medical school and now during it to work with school-aged boys in a way that supports them through their education. I would love to see and have advocated for public schooling that allows for learning styles that fit the way male students tend to learn better. More importantly, I would like to see our public education system provide for more opportunities for catch-up, so that later-maturing boys aren't forced down one path or another prematurely. I believe these early disadvantages contribute to the female-heavy ratio in post-secondary education and are worth addressing.

 

There's room for discussion of where gender biases may be having an unfair influence, for both men and women. I'm encouraged by the increasing numbers of men in nursing just as I'm encouraged by growing numbers of women in STEM fields. I think it's valid to talk about why men are lagging in writing ability, but that doesn't excuse us from discussing why women are lagging in many maths or physical sciences. Having studied math and physics, I have directly observed the discrimination that still exists in those fields. Likewise, while the worst examples of sexism 30 years ago have largely disappeared from the medical profession, sexism is hardly a non-issue either. I've directly heard multiple physicians make disparaging remarks about women, without hearing the same going the other way from female physicians. I've seen female physicians treated differently because they were female. It's not just an issue from decades ago, it's still an issue now.

 

Likewise, when it comes to medical school admissions themselves, the charges of discrimination you level don't hold water. Again, when you say "there are no official movements to address the medical schools that use policies that unduly favour women", that's simply not true. As I said, you yourself provided an example of a school doing just that! No one is calling the MCAT discriminatory, just as the removal of prerequisites wasn't done because of gender concerns. Claiming otherwise is assigning a motive to those changes in policy to which you have no proof, only speculation. In the end, medical schools are admitting women at roughly the same ratio that they apply. You're not pointing out hypocrisy by blindly advocating for policies that benefit men over women, you're just being hypocritical in the other direction. There exist significant, enduring biases against women in medicine and many other fields. Not every action that happens to advantage women is necessarily discriminatory towards men. We can have discussions about where there exist disadvantages for men and boys in our society, and in our education, but those conversations have to be grounded in reality with an awareness that men historically enjoyed significant advantages based on gender alone and in more than a few cases, continue to do so. Most importantly, as I stressed in my last post, these conversations should be respectful, even as they are critical of the current system. There's no excuse for an intelligent person like yourself to resort to the lazy language of prejudice when you have an otherwise non-prejudicial argument to make.

[uwopremed]

Except that as a metric to determine success in not only the medical program, but also through residency and board exams, many schools are realizing that the mcat is a poor predicative measure. The University of Calgary for example only looks at CARS. As the director of admissions has stated, it is actually the only measure on the MCAT to positively correlate to future success as an MD. Many schools consistently review admissions standards based off of positive correlations between their criteria and predictors of future success. That doesn't exacatly sound very biased. And if it favors women, then it is only because men through exposure to societal pressure are less prepared to perform well in those areas, which only suggests that we need to learn how make sure male children are provided equal opportunity to succeed in these areas over the course of their growth and development. Who cares about the outcome of a standardized test if has no correlation to future outcomes as an MD?

 

Most schools are constantly evolving the admissions criteria to reflect parameters that help them predict who will become excellent physicians and have successful careers. They don't randomly choose these criteria, but rather use statistical analysis to determine which components of the admissions process are useful as accurate tools, and provided predictive ultility in the process. The best tools after all offer consistent results, are precise, and are valid. The MCAT in many cases does not stand against scrutiny in this evaluative process.

 

So much for my last word on the issue.

 

No it is not.  For success at the USMLE and passing board exams - the MCAT actually has the best correlate for success.  More than GPA, definitely more than interview, more than even subjects studied in undergrad.  Other measures of success (i.e. - odds of being under investigation for malpractice) are not that useful - because so few cases get taken to court successfully - even in the USA.  In Canada - the CMPA is so powerful - you basically have to be a butcher or a predator to get into trouble.  The data has rarely been published in Canada because francophone students don't write the MCAT - so nationwide data is tricky (at the moment, 6 medical schools in Canada don't require the MCAT and several use only one component or as a flag).

 

CARS is the most relevant...but the bio scores are also strongly correlated with success.

[uwopremed]

Let's talk about disadvantages men face. One area I feel males fall behind in, often unfairly, is in primary education. Men tend to develop more slowly and often don't get taught the value of working hard in school or of education in general. I did a lot of work both before medical school and now during it to work with school-aged boys in a way that supports them through their education. I would love to see and have advocated for public schooling that allows for learning styles that fit the way male students tend to learn better. More importantly, I would like to see our public education system provide for more opportunities for catch-up, so that later-maturing boys aren't forced down one path or another prematurely. I believe these early disadvantages contribute to the female-heavy ratio in post-secondary education and are worth addressing.

 

There's room for discussion of where gender biases may be having an unfair influence, for both men and women. I'm encouraged by the increasing numbers of men in nursing just as I'm encouraged by growing numbers of women in STEM fields. I think it's valid to talk about why men are lagging in writing ability, but that doesn't excuse us from discussing why women are lagging in many maths or physical sciences. Having studied math and physics, I have directly observed the discrimination that still exists in those fields. Likewise, while the worst examples of sexism 30 years ago have largely disappeared from the medical profession, sexism is hardly a non-issue either. I've directly heard multiple physicians make disparaging remarks about women, without hearing the same going the other way from female physicians. I've seen female physicians treated differently because they were female. It's not just an issue from decades ago, it's still an issue now.

 

Likewise, when it comes to medical school admissions themselves, the charges of discrimination you level don't hold water. Again, when you say "there are no official movements to address the medical schools that use policies that unduly favour women", that's simply not true. As I said, you yourself provided an example of a school doing just that! No one is calling the MCAT discriminatory, just as the removal of prerequisites wasn't done because of gender concerns. Claiming otherwise is assigning a motive to those changes in policy to which you have no proof, only speculation. In the end, medical schools are admitting women at roughly the same ratio that they apply. You're not pointing out hypocrisy by blindly advocating for policies that benefit men over women, you're just being hypocritical in the other direction. There exist significant, enduring biases against women in medicine and many other fields. Not every action that happens to advantage women is necessarily discriminatory towards men. We can have discussions about where there exist disadvantages for men and boys in our society, and in our education, but those conversations have to be grounded in reality with an awareness that men historically enjoyed significant advantages based on gender alone and in more than a few cases, continue to do so. Most importantly, as I stressed in my last post, these conversations should be respectful, even as they are critical of the current system. There's no excuse for an intelligent person like yourself to resort to the lazy language of prejudice when you have an otherwise non-prejudicial argument to make.

The number of men in nursing, while 'increased' compared to 3 decades ago...has been stuck at 10-15% for years.   There are very few 'feminized' fields that have men moving into them in large numbers.

 

Additionally - many medical schools are NOT admitting males/females roughly to the percentage that apply.  Ottawa, NOSM, and all 4 quebec schools have 70-75% female classes, with females comprising 55% of applicants, from the data I have reviewed.  For the quebec schools, admittedly much of it has to do with CEGEP to MD applications when women are more mature.  But it should be noted that none of these schools require the MCAT either.  In fact, prior to MMI and the MCAT requirements, McMaster was consistently 70-80% female (at a time when less than 50% of the applicants were female).  To McMaster's credit, they recognized the extreme favouritism (especially when the class of 2006 has 20 or so failures on the MCC part 1 when there were virtually no failures at the other Ontario medical schools), and worked to change their admission policy to the more equitable one we have today (where the classes are between 55 to 60% female.

 

In regards to disparaging comments - the worst behaviour I've seen is how female staff treat female medical students.  Ask your classmates.  Though to be honest, I have heard a couple of the male surgeons be bothered by the fact they feel many of the female residents complain about the hours while the male ones do what they are told.  And I think if I was a female surgery resident, it would annoy me to hear that.

 

From a practical point of view, trying to get a 50/50 or 45/55, 55/45 class by having an admissions criteria that is objective and fair to both men and women is ideal, and can benefit society as well.  Especially as male physicians are more likely to work longer hours, have longer careers, and provide continuity of care for their patients.  Hidden underneath the talk about MD shortages and growing adult populations is the simple fact that our massively increased medical school sizes also had to compensate for the fact that an average female MD graduate provides 7/10ths the medical care of an average male MD graduate.

[indefatigable]

So much for my last word on the issue.

 

No it is not. For success at the USMLE and passing board exams - the MCAT actually has the best correlate for success. More than GPA, definitely more than interview, more than even subjects studied in undergrad. Other measures of success (i.e. - odds of being under investigation for malpractice) are not that useful - because so few cases get taken to court successfully - even in the USA. In Canada - the CMPA is so powerful - you basically have to be a butcher or a predator to get into trouble. The data has rarely been published in Canada because francophone students don't write the MCAT - so nationwide data is tricky (at the moment, 6 medical schools in Canada don't require the MCAT and several use only one component or as a flag).

 

CARS is the most relevant...but the bio scores are also strongly correlated with success.

US is on a standardized test system and it makes sense that doing well on one medicine related large standardized test (MCAT) would indicate ability to do well on another standardized test (MLE) given adequate preparation. Completing the MLE is a major step in becoming a physician in the US, but long term success as a MD is possibly more difficult to quantify.

 

In Canada, the macro challenges are often delivering care across large geographic areas and sometimes different languages. We are a larger country but far smaller population (granted mostly uninhabited). The Canadian MD curriculums are probably more heterogenous and wouldn't necessarily cover the material necessary for MLE success like detailed pathology (with exception maybe of schools like McGill, UofT...). Canadian faculties are generally more attuned to GPA but there can be grading disparities for various reasons which open up the whole issue.

[MountainAmoeba]

...

[Lifeisawesome]

The number of men in nursing, while 'increased' compared to 3 decades ago...has been stuck at 10-15% for years.   There are very few 'feminized' fields that have men moving into them in large numbers.

 

Additionally - many medical schools are NOT admitting males/females roughly to the percentage that apply.  Ottawa, NOSM, and all 4 quebec schools have 70-75% female classes, with females comprising 55% of applicants, from the data I have reviewed.  For the quebec schools, admittedly much of it has to do with CEGEP to MD applications when women are more mature.  But it should be noted that none of these schools require the MCAT either.  In fact, prior to MMI and the MCAT requirements, McMaster was consistently 70-80% female (at a time when less than 50% of the applicants were female).  To McMaster's credit, they recognized the extreme favouritism (especially when the class of 2006 has 20 or so failures on the MCC part 1 when there were virtually no failures at the other Ontario medical schools), and worked to change their admission policy to the more equitable one we have today (where the classes are between 55 to 60% female.

 

In regards to disparaging comments - the worst behaviour I've seen is how female staff treat female medical students.  Ask your classmates.  Though to be honest, I have heard a couple of the male surgeons be bothered by the fact they feel many of the female residents complain about the hours while the male ones do what they are told.  And I think if I was a female surgery resident, it would annoy me to hear that.

 

From a practical point of view, trying to get a 50/50 or 45/55, 55/45 class by having an admissions criteria that is objective and fair to both men and women is ideal, and can benefit society as well.  Especially as male physicians are more likely to work longer hours, have longer careers, and provide continuity of care for their patients.  Hidden underneath the talk about MD shortages and growing adult populations is the simple fact that our massively increased medical school sizes also had to compensate for the fact that an average female MD graduate provides 7/10ths the medical care of an average male MD graduate.

 

That might be a bit of an exaggeration ...

 

https://www.cma.ca/Assets/assets-library/document/en/advocacy/36-Chart-AvgHrsXSex.pdf

[ralk]

The number of men in nursing, while 'increased' compared to 3 decades ago...has been stuck at 10-15% for years.   There are very few 'feminized' fields that have men moving into them in large numbers.

 

Additionally - many medical schools are NOT admitting males/females roughly to the percentage that apply.  Ottawa, NOSM, and all 4 quebec schools have 70-75% female classes, with females comprising 55% of applicants, from the data I have reviewed.  For the quebec schools, admittedly much of it has to do with CEGEP to MD applications when women are more mature.  But it should be noted that none of these schools require the MCAT either.  In fact, prior to MMI and the MCAT requirements, McMaster was consistently 70-80% female (at a time when less than 50% of the applicants were female).  To McMaster's credit, they recognized the extreme favouritism (especially when the class of 2006 has 20 or so failures on the MCC part 1 when there were virtually no failures at the other Ontario medical schools), and worked to change their admission policy to the more equitable one we have today (where the classes are between 55 to 60% female.

 

In regards to disparaging comments - the worst behaviour I've seen is how female staff treat female medical students.  Ask your classmates.  Though to be honest, I have heard a couple of the male surgeons be bothered by the fact they feel many of the female residents complain about the hours while the male ones do what they are told.  And I think if I was a female surgery resident, it would annoy me to hear that.

 

From a practical point of view, trying to get a 50/50 or 45/55, 55/45 class by having an admissions criteria that is objective and fair to both men and women is ideal, and can benefit society as well.  Especially as male physicians are more likely to work longer hours, have longer careers, and provide continuity of care for their patients.  Hidden underneath the talk about MD shortages and growing adult populations is the simple fact that our massively increased medical school sizes also had to compensate for the fact that an average female MD graduate provides 7/10ths the medical care of an average male MD graduate.

 

Computer sciences has been stuck in the 15-20% female range for a long time too. Gender-based barriers exist both ways, cherry-picking numbers doesn't advance the conversation.

 

Some medical schools do admit women at higher rates than men. However, some schools do the opposite, admitting more men than women based on application numbers. The balance does have a small preference towards women, but nowhere near the extent that you claim and as far as I can tell, that preference has decreased in the last 7-10 years or so. Ironically, two of the schools you mention are, if anything, male-preferring from stats on the last class for which data is available - both NOSM and McGill are very close to equality in admission-to-applicant ratios, with small preferences towards men. NOSM is the closest to giving each gender a near-identical chance at admissions. The AFMC publishes this data on all schools except Western and Toronto, who have no made that data available. In this case, you're not only cherry-picking data, you're cherry picking incorrect data.

 

As Lifeisawesome points out, the hours worked per week is nowhere near 7/10 for women compared to men, and the average female physician is working more than a full-time job. In addition, both men and women are looking to reduce their hours and have been over the past 2 decades. That's ok.  A physician working fewer hours gets paid less based on the time they take off, so it doesn't cost the system money for physicians to work more typical hours. Moreover, there are plenty of people eager to enter medicine and cover those extra hours. We don't have a shortage of physicians in many fields and in many cases have an oversupply.

[uwopremed]

Computer sciences has been stuck in the 15-20% female range for a long time too. Gender-based barriers exist both ways, cherry-picking numbers doesn't advance the conversation.

 

Some medical schools do admit women at higher rates than men. However, some schools do the opposite, admitting more men than women based on application numbers. The balance does have a small preference towards women, but nowhere near the extent that you claim and as far as I can tell, that preference has decreased in the last 7-10 years or so. Ironically, two of the schools you mention are, if anything, male-preferring from stats on the last class for which data is available - both NOSM and McGill are very close to equality in admission-to-applicant ratios, with small preferences towards men. NOSM is the closest to giving each gender a near-identical chance at admissions. The AFMC publishes this data on all schools except Western and Toronto, who have no made that data available. In this case, you're not only cherry-picking data, you're cherry picking incorrect data.

 

As Lifeisawesome points out, the hours worked per week is nowhere near 7/10 for women compared to men, and the average female physician is working more than a full-time job. In addition, both men and women are looking to reduce their hours and have been over the past 2 decades. That's ok.  A physician working fewer hours gets paid less based on the time they take off, so it doesn't cost the system money for physicians to work more typical hours. Moreover, there are plenty of people eager to enter medicine and cover those extra hours. We don't have a shortage of physicians in many fields and in many cases have an oversupply.

 

In what way is NOSM close to equal??  http://www.nosm.ca/classprofiles/  The most recent entering class is 75% female.  The previous 2 years were somewhat anomalous in being 56% and 59% female - but previous to that, it's been consistently 66% to 75% female.  The applicant profile is closer to 50/50 than some other schools - mainly because rural northern areas are actually more male than the country as a whole; young educated women disproportionately move to larger urban areas.

 

The costs to the system for part time doctors is way greater than you suggest.  First of all...the public cost to train a doctor, whether he or she is full time or part time (or no time) is the same.  Secondly, the inefficiencies that occur when a patient has to see multiple medical doctors as opposed to 1 or 2 for primary care are real.  Each visit it often longer, and it takes time to develop to doctor/patient relationship.  Lastly, because part time doctors work less, they often try to be more efficient with their billing - bordering on the edges of acceptable - to still make a decent living.  That's human nature in general.  Increasing the number of doctors to do the same amount of work should in theory not cost the government more in OHIP billings - but the real world has shown that indeed does happen.

 

Despite the glories of silicon valley, or the grand river region, the average computer science graduate does not make a lot of money.  Nursing, while being more stable with better benefits, has the same average salary of a computer science grad.  Don't let the top tier of computer science grads fool you - not everyone becomes a silicon valley CEO.  To top it off, the average female computer science graduate is so actively seeked out by recruiters it's remarkable.  Aside from psychiatry wards, the same is not true for male nursing graduates.  Heck, some well paid fields, like midwifery, are so actively anti male there are virtually no males in the country (actually 1 i believe).  Can't even remotely think of one field like that for women in this country.

[nbgirl93]

Despite the glories of silicon valley, or the grand river region, the average computer science graduate does not make a lot of money.  Nursing, while being more stable with better benefits, has the same average salary of a computer science grad.  Don't let the top tier of computer science grads fool you - not everyone becomes a silicon valley CEO.  To top it off, the average female computer science graduate is so actively seeked out by recruiters it's remarkable.  Aside from psychiatry wards, the same is not true for male nursing graduates.  Heck, some well paid fields, like midwifery, are so actively anti male there are virtually no males in the country (actually 1 i believe).  Can't even remotely think of one field like that for women in this country.

 

Look dude, it's pretty obvious that this is something that bothers you a lot for whatever reason but have you ever thought about why certain fields skew male or female? I get that you can look at numbers and statistics and that's all the information you need, but there are reasons why things are the way they are. In very very general terms, jobs that are seen as "women's work" are considered less valuable, and as a society we actively push men away from these jobs because the worst thing a man could possibly be is a sissy. The reason why women work fewer hours is because we as a society think (and teach our men and women) that tasks like cooking, cleaning, doing laundry and taking care of children are for women, so women disproportionately take on these roles within the home. Women can have sexist views about women just like men can, so I'm not sure why you keep bringing up discriminatory practices carried out by women as if that proves a point. Maybe you're uninformed or maybe you just don't care to inform yourself, but if I'm being completely honest here I'm a bit confused about your critical thinking skills and more than a bit concerned about your obvious biases and how you'll treat your female patients in the future. Just my take. 

[uwopremed]

Look dude, it's pretty obvious that this is something that bothers you a lot for whatever reason but have you ever thought about why certain fields skew male or female? I get that you can look at numbers and statistics and that's all the information you need, but there are reasons why things are the way they are. In very very general terms, jobs that are seen as "women's work" are considered less valuable, and as a society we actively push men away from these jobs because the worst thing a man could possibly be is a sissy. The reason why women work fewer hours is because we as a society think (and teach our men and women) that tasks like cooking, cleaning, doing laundry and taking care of children are for women, so women disproportionately take on these roles within the home. Women can have sexist views about women just like men can, so I'm not sure why you keep bringing up discriminatory practices carried out by women as if that proves a point. Maybe you're uninformed or maybe you just don't care to inform yourself, but if I'm being completely honest here I'm a bit confused about your critical thinking skills and more than a bit concerned about your obvious biases and how you'll treat your female patients in the future. Just my take. 

There probably are different average innate interests between men and women in terms of desirability to stay home with kids or do domestic duties.  A combination of societal expectations and genetics.  This idea that it is only societal is something that comes out the research from liberal social study programs in Western universities, but is really only a theory.   I actually think there are average female and male traits.  Thinking otherwise actually ends up countering the whole transgender movement which I strongly support - the idea that we can feel male or female inside.  I believe that gender and sex are different things - and I believe that most people that feel they are female (whether externally biological or not) do have traits that value home time over work.  On average.

 

Irrespective - that is not my argument at all.  The argument is that if any medical school consistently had a 65-70% male population - there would be a national outcry.  The reverse - nothing.  To think otherwise is to have delusion.  WE consistently hear complaints about how STEM jobs are mostly men.  Or most elected politicians are men.  Or most CEOs (a tiny percentage of all people) are men.  ALL THE TIME.  But Medicine, Dentistry, and Law are MUCH higher paying on average, and are majority female at the university and recent graduate level.  And not one peep out of these same newspapers.  Not talk about the much higher rates of male suicide, unemployment, homelessness, incarceratin and all types of disease.  Nothing.  It's the hypocrisy that appalls me most.

 

And quite frankly, when I read your post, I see someone that automatically assumes that the male is the abuser in a relatinship.  That women should automatically get custody of children.  And that when males suffer in society, they deserve it.  And people like you are the type to ultimately create room for a Trump like persona to win in Canada eventually (sadly).

 

My opinion is a minority opinion in the newspapers and public arena.  Definitely not in private.  Even in my class, and even among many of the women in my class.

[MountainAmoeba]

It would be good not to talk about what nursing does or doesn't do, when you aren't a nurse. I'm a male nurse, and I'll tell you. I am highly sought. Most units prefer a balanced ratio of males to females.

[uwopremed]

It would be good not to talk about what nursing does or doesn't do, when you aren't a nurse. I'm a male nurse, and I'll tell you. I am highly sought. Most units prefer a balanced ratio of males to females.

Hospitals do indeed want a better balance.  But at out two big hospitals, male nurses are barely 10% still.  But I agree in that there is opportunity for men there. There is huge demand in psychiatry for the physicality.  

 

But the areas where male nurses suffer are in the other areas of nursing.  Private nursing.  Nursing homes.  Travelling nurses.  Cruise Ships.  These often actively discriminate against men.  Heck - a quick run through even on Kijiji or Workopolis will show that.

[SunAndMoon]

There probably are different average innate interests between men and women in terms of desirability to stay home with kids or do domestic duties.  A combination of societal expectations and genetics.  This idea that it is only societal is something that comes out the research from liberal social study programs in Western universities, but is really only a theory.   I actually think there are average female and male traits.  Thinking otherwise actually ends up countering the whole transgender movement which I strongly support - the idea that we can feel male or female inside.  I believe that gender and sex are different things - and I believe that most people that feel they are female (whether externally biological or not) do have traits that value home time over work.  On average.

 

Irrespective - that is not my argument at all.  The argument is that if any medical school consistently had a 65-70% male population - there would be a national outcry.  The reverse - nothing.  To think otherwise is to have delusion.  WE consistently hear complaints about how STEM jobs are mostly men.  Or most elected politicians are men.  Or most CEOs (a tiny percentage of all people) are men.  ALL THE TIME.  But Medicine, Dentistry, and Law are MUCH higher paying on average, and are majority female at the university and recent graduate level.  And not one peep out of these same newspapers.  Not talk about the much higher rates of male suicide, unemployment, homelessness, incarceratin and all types of disease.  Nothing.  It's the hypocrisy that appalls me most.

 

And quite frankly, when I read your post, I see someone that automatically assumes that the male is the abuser in a relatinship.  That women should automatically get custody of children.  And that when males suffer in society, they deserve it.  And people like you are the type to ultimately create room for a Trump like persona to win in Canada eventually (sadly).

 

My opinion is a minority opinion in the newspapers and public arena.  Definitely not in private.  Even in my class, and even among many of the women in my class.

 

 

Haha. I can feel that you are having a lot of fun with this.

 

1. You have essentially, with no evidence, raised and solved an eternal debate in one paragraph. Congratulations. There is no doubt that there are some innate characteristics associated with biological sex and that many of those are enhanced, exaggerated or distorted by social forces. The line separating biological from social is murky, and I would say that, on average, people who try to put it somewhere do so arbitrarily, to fit whatever agenda they have. On average. 

 

2. Likely. I am, however, bothered by arguments of negation or inversion. It is telling that, often, the plights suffered specifically by men are only raised after someone talks about women. Not only is it dishonest, but it also is an argument for a status quo: "don't change anything or I'll open up another can of worms [that I would otherwise not really care about]". 

 

3. When I read your post, the picture I paint of you is not exactly glowing either. But I don't know you and will refrain from being insulting or unnecessarily rude. 

 

Your post could not end in a better way: an implication that your voice is being silenced by political correctness, that the truth goes against the grain, and that you are here as a beacon of light, ready to illuminate us all with the shocking, hard, liberating truth.

 

Thank you.

[nbgirl93]

There probably are different average innate interests between men and women in terms of desirability to stay home with kids or do domestic duties.  A combination of societal expectations and genetics.  This idea that it is only societal is something that comes out the research from liberal social study programs in Western universities, but is really only a theory.   I actually think there are average female and male traits.  Thinking otherwise actually ends up countering the whole transgender movement which I strongly support - the idea that we can feel male or female inside.  I believe that gender and sex are different things - and I believe that most people that feel they are female (whether externally biological or not) do have traits that value home time over work.  On average.

 

Irrespective - that is not my argument at all.  The argument is that if any medical school consistently had a 65-70% male population - there would be a national outcry.  The reverse - nothing.  To think otherwise is to have delusion.  WE consistently hear complaints about how STEM jobs are mostly men.  Or most elected politicians are men.  Or most CEOs (a tiny percentage of all people) are men.  ALL THE TIME.  But Medicine, Dentistry, and Law are MUCH higher paying on average, and are majority female at the university and recent graduate level.  And not one peep out of these same newspapers.  Not talk about the much higher rates of male suicide, unemployment, homelessness, incarceratin and all types of disease.  Nothing.  It's the hypocrisy that appalls me most.

 

And quite frankly, when I read your post, I see someone that automatically assumes that the male is the abuser in a relatinship.  That women should automatically get custody of children.  And that when males suffer in society, they deserve it.  And people like you are the type to ultimately create room for a Trump like persona to win in Canada eventually (sadly).

 

My opinion is a minority opinion in the newspapers and public arena.  Definitely not in private.  Even in my class, and even among many of the women in my class.

 

 

To be completely clear, the people who create room for Trump and people like him are the people who vote for him - not people like me who advocate for equal rights and social justice. If you think the world is becoming "too PC" or any other ridiculous variation of that, that's your problem and not mine. It's called the advancement of society, and I wouldn't even be enrolled in medical school right now without it. If anything, "people like me" are far more willing to actually believe and help men who are abused by women, and far more likely to advocate for equal rights for men when it comes to child custody. The unfortunate reality is that men often don't assume the role of caregiver (in large part for the reasons I mentioned above), but somehow most men only seem to care about/bring up the custody issue, etc. when women try to have conversations about the sexism they experience as women. Funny how that works.

 

It doesn't matter to me whether or not there are innate aspects of womanhood or manhood, and it's certainly not something that keeps me up at night, but assigning me a role within society based on perceived boxes that I should fit in simply by virtue of being a woman isn't really ok with me. I'm not sure why you think I don't support trans people because somehow I doubt that you're any more supportive of LGBTQ+ people than I am, given that I'm a member of the community myself. 

 

Things like higher rates of suicide, unemployment and incarceration among men are actually very important issues that I'd bet most if not all "people like me" would love to talk about and try to fix, because more than likely they're products of a patriarchal society that benefits exactly nobody (not even men, believe it or not). The problem is that you only mention them to try and silence women when we talk about our own issues, which leads me to believe you don't actually care about these issues at all.

[Clapton]

There probably are different average innate interests between men and women in terms of desirability to stay home with kids or do domestic duties.  A combination of societal expectations and genetics.  This idea that it is only societal is something that comes out the research from liberal social study programs in Western universities, but is really only a theory.   I actually think there are average female and male traits.  Thinking otherwise actually ends up countering the whole transgender movement which I strongly support - the idea that we can feel male or female inside.  I believe that gender and sex are different things - and I believe that most people that feel they are female (whether externally biological or not) do have traits that value home time over work.  On average.

 

Irrespective - that is not my argument at all.  The argument is that if any medical school consistently had a 65-70% male population - there would be a national outcry.  The reverse - nothing.  To think otherwise is to have delusion.  WE consistently hear complaints about how STEM jobs are mostly men.  Or most elected politicians are men.  Or most CEOs (a tiny percentage of all people) are men.  ALL THE TIME.  But Medicine, Dentistry, and Law are MUCH higher paying on average, and are majority female at the university and recent graduate level.  And not one peep out of these same newspapers.  Not talk about the much higher rates of male suicide, unemployment, homelessness, incarceratin and all types of disease.  Nothing.  It's the hypocrisy that appalls me most.

 

And quite frankly, when I read your post, I see someone that automatically assumes that the male is the abuser in a relatinship.  That women should automatically get custody of children.  And that when males suffer in society, they deserve it.  And people like you are the type to ultimately create room for a Trump like persona to win in Canada eventually (sadly).

 

My opinion is a minority opinion in the newspapers and public arena.  Definitely not in private.  Even in my class, and even among many of the women in my class.

 

 

Amen to that.

[ralk]

In what way is NOSM close to equal??  http://www.nosm.ca/classprofiles/  The most recent entering class is 75% female.  The previous 2 years were somewhat anomalous in being 56% and 59% female - but previous to that, it's been consistently 66% to 75% female.  The applicant profile is closer to 50/50 than some other schools - mainly because rural northern areas are actually more male than the country as a whole; young educated women disproportionately move to larger urban areas.

 

The costs to the system for part time doctors is way greater than you suggest.  First of all...the public cost to train a doctor, whether he or she is full time or part time (or no time) is the same.  Secondly, the inefficiencies that occur when a patient has to see multiple medical doctors as opposed to 1 or 2 for primary care are real.  Each visit it often longer, and it takes time to develop to doctor/patient relationship.  Lastly, because part time doctors work less, they often try to be more efficient with their billing - bordering on the edges of acceptable - to still make a decent living.  That's human nature in general.  Increasing the number of doctors to do the same amount of work should in theory not cost the government more in OHIP billings - but the real world has shown that indeed does happen.

 

Despite the glories of silicon valley, or the grand river region, the average computer science graduate does not make a lot of money.  Nursing, while being more stable with better benefits, has the same average salary of a computer science grad.  Don't let the top tier of computer science grads fool you - not everyone becomes a silicon valley CEO.  To top it off, the average female computer science graduate is so actively seeked out by recruiters it's remarkable.  Aside from psychiatry wards, the same is not true for male nursing graduates.  Heck, some well paid fields, like midwifery, are so actively anti male there are virtually no males in the country (actually 1 i believe).  Can't even remotely think of one field like that for women in this country.

 

Providing final admission statistics for one school - particularly the smallest in the country - without the corresponding application statistic is far from evidence of your point. Here's the numbers the AFMC puts out, which includes both admission numbers and application numbers, for all schools. This is the last year of information available and clearly shows NOSM at near-parity between the admission rates of genders. More women got in, but more applied. You can build any argument if you cherry-pick the data and conveniently ignore counter-examples or broader trends...

 

My opinion is a minority opinion in the newspapers and public arena.  Definitely not in private.  Even in my class, and even among many of the women in my class.

 

Prove it. Western has numerous ways to express your opinion in the public arena in a safe, constructive manner. There are multiple school-affiliated blogs, a student-run journal (plus journals at other schools which accept publications), a debate group (which was active when I was in pre-clerkship), as well as numerous opportunities to speak out through organizations like the OMA and CFMS. If you believe that Western's consultations on its admission process - which, I'll remind you, have not led to any changes in the admissions process yet if ever - and that diminished male representation in medicine is such a cost to the system, speak out, publicly. It sounds like you feel you have significant support from your classmates for your ideas, so what's stopping you?

[uwopremed]

Providing final admission statistics for one school - particularly the smallest in the country - without the corresponding application statistic is far from evidence of your point. Here's the numbers the AFMC puts out, which includes both admission numbers and application numbers, for all schools. This is the last year of information available and clearly shows NOSM at near-parity between the admission rates of genders. More women got in, but more applied. You can build any argument if you cherry-pick the data and conveniently ignore counter-examples or broader trends...

 

 

Where do you think I get my data from?  I've perused the afmc data for years.  You picked ONE of TWO years (2015) from the last 10 when NOSM had a more 'fair' ratio (which I already stated in my earlier post).  The male applicant numbers have dropped over the years as well - probably as they sense they have less chance.  Irrespective, the KEY number was the index of female/male success based on applicant numbers OVERALL for all medical schools.  And is was 108.  And it has been well over 100 for years.  Meaning that an average female applicant had an 8% better chance of being admitted than a male.  The data does not include Toronto (which is generally 52% female) or Western (which is around 60% male, but has a majority male applicant pool because of the MCAT). THEN look at the MCAT data.  The mean male applicant was better in ALL ARENAS.  In some areas, more than a point higher on average (which is a very big difference when you have a logarithmic 15 point scale).  Try to imagine those numbers in the reverse.  Women consistently better in the one objective area of admissions - and yet the average male have an 8% better chance of actually getting in.  There would be articles in all the newspapers.  

 

​On a total aside, Manitoba is the other Canadian school that consistently has more men.  It also uses the MCAT very heavily and reduces the value of marks.  It also has an objective interview cutoff criteria.

 

Prove it. Western has numerous ways to express your opinion in the public arena in a safe, constructive manner. There are multiple school-affiliated blogs, a student-run journal (plus journals at other schools which accept publications), a debate group (which was active when I was in pre-clerkship), as well as numerous opportunities to speak out through organizations like the OMA and CFMS. If you believe that Western's consultations on its admission process - which, I'll remind you, have not led to any changes in the admissions process yet if ever - and that diminished male representation in medicine is such a cost to the system, speak out, publicly. It sounds like you feel you have significant support from your classmates for your ideas, so what's stopping you?

 

How do you know that I don't speak out?  I certainly do.  But I'll also wait until I've matched into my specialty before I become more vocal or try to get articles published in media that might be friendly to my opinions (the star, huffington post and several others would not be friendly to these opinions - though post media or the globe/mail might be).  The silent majority remains quiet mostly to keep the peace and avoid any sort of repercussion.  

[MountainAmoeba]

This is great. So you feel that males are disadvantaged, because lesser numbers get into medicine. And you think the disadvantage is a discriminatory selection process. Rather than asking why men aren't able to compete against women in interviews and other non acedemic aspects of the application?

 

That maybe the disadvantage has to do with the ways males are socialized, and thus lose opportunities to gain the skills required to be competative.

 

And the idea that there are distinct differences genetically in the way males and females behave is only supported if you accept binary gender categories. Other non western cultures have as many as 7 distinct genders.

 

You have a lot of opinions.

[nbgirl93]

This is great. So you feel that males are disadvantaged, because lesser numbers get into medicine. And you think the disadvantage is a discriminatory selection process. Rather than asking why men aren't able to compete against women in interviews and other non acedemic aspects of the application?

 

This is actually a really important point, and one I hadn't really considered until now. When we talk about jobs where men are overrepresented, people like @uwopremed tend to point the finger at women and say we can't measure up, or we aren't qualified or smart enough. But in cases like medicine and nursing, all of a sudden the system is "favouring women."

To me it seems that this whole situation is due to a combination of two (probably more) things, 1. that women are simply graduating from university in higher numbers and therefore applying to medical school in higher numbers, and 2. that the way women are socialized in society lends itself better to interview skills than men's socialization might. To think that there is some kind of active bias against men in the entire admissions process (that is somehow being implemented at most schools across the country) to keep men out of medical school is completely insane. Schools do research on which aspects of applications are actually predictive of success as a physician, and clearly the majority of schools have settled on verbal reasoning scores and interviews as the best predictors of success. It's not a random, haphazard process by any means.

[uwopremed]

This is actually a really important point, and one I hadn't really considered until now. When we talk about jobs where men are overrepresented, people like @uwopremed tend to point the finger at women and say we can't measure up, or we aren't qualified or smart enough. But in cases like medicine and nursing, all of a sudden the system is "favouring women."

To me it seems that this whole situation is due to a combination of two (probably more) things, 1. that women are simply graduating from university in higher numbers and therefore applying to medical school in higher numbers, and 2. that the way women are socialized in society lends itself better to interview skills than men's socialization might. To think that there is some kind of active bias against men in the entire admissions process (that is somehow being implemented at most schools across the country) to keep men out of medical school is completely insane. Schools do research on which aspects of applications are actually predictive of success as a physician, and clearly the majority of schools have settled on verbal reasoning scores and interviews as the best predictors of success. It's not a random, haphazard process by any means.

I don't think it's a matter of competing or not.  IT's a matter of using subjective criteria that is more prone to bias.

 

Let me explain.  Most large corporations use interviews and resumes to allow people to get into jobs.  But several studies have shown that if you have an ethnic sounding name, you are less likely to get an interview.  And that when people are interviewed, non-whites seem to be less likely to get top jobs despite similar objective credentials because of the subjective aspects.  As a result, most companies now have policies trying to reduce the bias.  That includes the review of resumes without names, and even an OSCE type scored interview, with actual tests.  Other agencies have moved towards affirmative action (which also has it's own biases, as it can allow people in with lower standards as long as the meet ethnic or gendered criteria).

 

The SUBJECTIVE aspects of medicine admission favour women.  Not the OBJECTIVE parts.  In other words, it is not the lack of competition from men, but rather that admissions policies that are SUBJECTIVE ultimately favour women.  By a lot. Men are not lacking in the objective components in English Canada.  The considerable advantage that men do have on OBJECTIVE STANDARDIZED tests might even suggest the opposite.  But men, in modern medical school interview panels ,still get judged harshly for being quiet (while a woman is thought thoughtful and shy), but they also get dinged for being too bold (aggressive male with 'privilege').  It's the opposite of the corporate world, where the biases do indeed favour men.  

 

Most of us would agree than any interview process in the corporate world that seems to significantly be biased towards men or whites should be reevaluated.  But when an interview process for medical schools, that are more tightly controlled by university academics (that lean left in general) show clear advantages to women - it can't be discussed?  It's the fault of men who cannot compete?  Is that what you would say to african-americans or women that are not represented among upper middle management in banks?  

 

To McMaster's credit - they did indeed recognize the biases, and I know that UBC is trying to do that too.  But several other schools (I'm looking at Calgary, NOSM, and Ottawa) - don't give one care in the world.  The Quebec schools (french ones) are the worst - they rely almost entirely on 'high school' marks (CEGEP) - their ratios are pretty much always 2:1.