Sexism in Medicine

[VA Hopeful Dr]

*shrug*

My job is 36 patient-facing hours/week with 6 weeks of vacation a year and I'm fairly certain I don't have a uterus. Take any of these arguments to their extreme and we should all be working 13 hour days 6 days a week so as to not decrease access to care.

Depends, how long does it take to get a new patient appointment with you?

If more than 6 weeks, get off your ass and get to work! Weekends are for the weak.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[gutonc]

Depends, how long does it take to get a new patient appointment with you?

If more than 6 weeks, get off your ass and get to work! Weekends are for the weak.

If it's more than 6 hours I catch s*** for it. Usually <2 days...and I added on 2 news to my schedule today and still got out early.

And I'm a dude who chose a <FT gig for the opportunity to spend more time with my kid while she was young.

 

[Raryn]

Depends, how long does it take to get a new patient appointment with you?

If more than 6 weeks, get off your ass and get to work! Weekends are for the weak.

I'm still building my panel. At my one site, you can see me next week. At the other, I'm currently booked out just over 30 days. They want me to redistribute the days but I also hate commuting.

I think my three partners (two of whom are part time to spend more time with their kids) are booked out to March atm.

 

[deleted480308]

*shrug*

My job is 36 patient-facing hours/week with 6 weeks of vacation a year and I'm fairly certain I don't have a uterus. Take any of these arguments to their extreme and we should all be working 13 hour days 6 days a week so as to not decrease access to care.

I’ve never bought the argument that a doc owes society x number of years or x hours per week

 

[NicMouse64]

*shrug*

My job is 36 patient-facing hours/week with 6 weeks of vacation a year and I'm fairly certain I don't have a uterus. Take any of these arguments to their extreme and we should all be working 13 hour days 6 days a week so as to not decrease access to care.

No one said to expect an individual to do anything. Just on a large scale if you start admitting more of a certain gender there are long-term group consequences. Not saying it is good or bad, just stating what will happen due to the biological contributions that define our lives.

 

[Raryn]

No one said to expect an individual to do anything. Just on a large scale if you start admitting more of a certain gender there are long-term group consequences. Not saying it is good or bad, just stating what will happen due to the biological contributions that define our lives.

Take that argument to the extreme and you can get into the same weeds that the Japanese are. With med schools actively discriminating based on sex.

 

[twospadz]

Bias is going to exist everywhere. Some will look down on woman doctors. Others will not prefer a black/Hispanic doctor. Heck, Ive had a patient in the ER that said he was uncomfortable seeing so many white doctors/personnel and thought something bad was going to happen. Its everywhere.

 

[NicMouse64]

Take that argument to the extreme and you can get into the same weeds that the Japanese are. With med schools actively discriminating based on sex.

I'm arguing to make it 50/50. Don't go much outside of that range. I bet you though in the next 20 years though it will be 60/40

 

[rokshana]

It happens in engineering too. Women study it then end up doing politics/business/fashion/etc. What a waste of a spot (at my alma mater which is an incredible engineering school). There's a huge shortage of chemE Software engineers, etc. Not many women wanna do it. It's a shame and bad for the economy

so what about the engineering student that decides to go to medical school...isn't that wasting the spot too?

 

[NicMouse64]

so what about the engineering student that decides to go to medical school...isn't that wasting the spot too?

I'm one of those. In all honesty yeah I did waste my education if I don't use it. But turns out there's a lot in engineering that can be applied to medicine. So no, not true at all. Turns out physicians value innovative medical students .

 

[Errollt]

Adding to sexism, racism and whatnot, this thread has come to be filled with other kind of prejudice based attitudes and opinions like putting medicine in a higher pedestal than other career choices, putting down something as addequate as being able to change career paths when it seems best fitting, and proposing physicians should act like workhorses when it should be common knowledge that the largest the amount of hours worked or patients seen doesn't improve quality of care on itself...and so on and so on...

 

[AMEHigh]

Yeah, I know it's not right but I have always judged people who leave medicine completely. Part time doesn't bother me (even before my wife did it), but giving it up completely does.

Do you mean it bothers you if a person leaves medicine to be a stay at home parent or leaves medicine in general?

Just curious. I’m always happy for them if they find a better career path or come in to money and are lucky enough to longer work haha.

Why be miserable if you don’t have to?

 

[deleted480308]

Adding to sexism, racism and whatnot, this thread has come to be filled with other kind of prejudice based attitudes and opinions like putting medicine in a higher pedestal than other career choices, putting down something as addequate as being able to change career paths when it seems best fitting, and proposing physicians should act like workhorses when it should be common knowledge that the largest the amount of hours worked or patients seen doesn't improve quality of care on itself...and so on and so on...

It’s been a long thread.....racism?

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

Do you mean it bothers you if a person leaves medicine to be a stay at home parent or leaves medicine in general?

Just curious. I’m always happy for them if they find a better career path or come in to money and are lucky enough to longer work haha.

Why be miserable if you don’t have to?

Both to be honest. Its not a great opinion to hold and I accept that, but as others have mentioned there are loads of people killing to get into medical school. Giving up medicine completely seems a waste.

 

[Cryc_to_the_point]

Revolutionary idea...

Stop all quotas. Offer seats to the most qualified applicants.

Anything outside of this is discriminatory. None of us get to choose our race or sex so let's stop rewarding people for being apart of a group.

 

[Raryn]

Revolutionary idea...

Stop all quotas. Offer seats to the most qualified applicants.

Anything outside of this is discriminatory. None of us get to choose our race or sex so let's stop rewarding people for being apart of a group.

There's no quotas. Quotas have been illegal since Regents of the University of California v. Bakke in 1978.

What there are are overall diversity goals. To try to move towards these goals, schools self-define what they feel "most qualified" means in an given context. At a med school level they *have to*. It's an accreditation requirement to "seek diversity".

I personally disagree with this requirement - but it's one of those things where the language matters, because it's actually implemented fairly differently than quotas were (prior to the 70s).

(The history of "holistic" acceptance patterns is actually steeped in racism/antisemitism. It started in the 1920s as an effort to limit the # of Jews getting into elite universities - because if it was based on purely objective #s, they'd have been majority Jewish. It only got funkier from there)

 

[deleted480308]

There's no quotas. Quotas have been illegal since Regents of the University of California v. Bakke in 1978.

What there are are overall diversity goals. To try to move towards these goals, schools self-define what they feel "most qualified" means in an given context. At a med school level they *have to*. It's an accreditation requirement to "seek diversity".

I personally disagree with this requirement - but it's one of those things where the language matters, because it's actually implemented fairly differently than quotas were (prior to the 70s).

(The history of "holistic" acceptance patterns is actually steeped in racism/antisemitism. It started in the 1920s as an effort to limit the # of Jews getting into elite universities - because if it was based on purely objective #s, they'd have been majority Jewish. It only got funkier from there)

And now it’s just wielded against asians and to a lesser degree white applicants

 

[Goro]

Yeah that's just not at all true: Ten Year Projections for US Residency Positions: Will There be Enough Positions to Accommodate the Growing Number of U.S. Medical School Graduates? - PubMed - NCBI
"The growth rate of all categorical positions available in U.S. residency programs [between 2005 and 2014] was 2.55 percent annually,"
Lots of places are funding their own spots as you are correct that Congress hasn't increased residency funding in quite some time.

My own school and at least CUSOM are working on building residency slots for our grads.

That reminds me of something that I saw, transiently, on Wikipedia: the term "bum", which is "a derogatory term for a homeless person with a poor work ethic".

A 100% accurate description of my late brother-in-law.

Revolutionary idea...
Stop all quotas. Offer seats to the most qualified applicants.
Anything outside of this is discriminatory. None of us get to choose our race or sex so let's stop rewarding people for being apart of a group.

Define "most qualified".

 

[mvenus929]

Except when it literally isn’t perjorative because there is nothing wrong with working less if you want more time with your kids

I’m glad you think so. I agree. Unfortunately, some people (and some of them in positions of power) do not agree.

Revolutionary idea...

Stop all quotas. Offer seats to the most qualified applicants.

Anything outside of this is discriminatory. None of us get to choose our race or sex so let's stop rewarding people for being apart of a group.

How do you define “most qualified”? By numbers? I know a lot of people who do great on tests, but are terrible people and less than great physicians. And people who struggle on tests but do very well with taking care of patients. Once you start getting into those “squishy” traits, it becomes much harder to narrow the field.

 

[deleted480308]

Once you start getting into those “squishy” traits, it becomes much harder to narrow the field.

But race and gender are not squishy, and shouldn’t be sought as goals

 

[Cryc_to_the_point]

I think "most qualified," is to a degree subjective, but so is the whole interview process. The artificial goal of removing acceptance committee's subjective input is unrealistic. I can offer that being black, hispanic, of some other minority, or female shouldn't give you a leg up.

Maybe we go with what correlates with success the best? Even if such a measure isn't ideal its better than social justice and this obsession with physical diversity over mental and experience diversity.

I think when we look at acceptance data and the variance seen between matriculating demographics we are forced to consider some prejudice is at play.

 

[AMEHigh]

I can offer that being black, hispanic, of some other minority, or female shouldn't give you a leg up.

.

Why shouldn’t certain characteristics be taken in to account for acceptance in to med school, residency and fellowship if it improves patient outcomes and access to care?

Research has shown that black patients are more trusting of black doctors (rightfully so due to the horrid history of abuse of black patients) and health outcomes are better.

Native Americans are more likely to go back to practice on reservations than others. Some can speak the local language and provide care that is needed in that area.

In general people from rural areas will be more likely to practice in rural areas, where again there is a need for physicians.

If your residency clinic is in a neighborhood with a high number of Mexican immigrants, why is it a bad idea to consider the applicant who grew up in rural Mexican whom speaks Spanish over the white applicant that grew up in Maine, hasn’t been outside of the US and speaks on English?

So why is it bad to take these characteristics in to account when looking to see who should be accepted in certain positions. It’s very clear from these posts that many people don’t think about these issues or don’t care about them which is ignorant because it is important. The best doctor isn’t always the one who had a private tutor, got straight A’s and got a high mcat and usmle score.

 

[OrthoTraumaMD]

The best doctor isn’t always the one who had a private tutor, got straight A’s and got a high mcat and usmle score.

Actually it is. (Minus the private tutor; I don’t know anyone who has had one). high usmle scores have a direct correlation with board pass rates, which is literally the benchmark for competency as a physician.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[sylvanthus]

Why shouldn’t certain characteristics be taken in to account for acceptance in to med school, residency and fellowship if it improves patient outcomes and access to care?

Research has shown that black patients are more trusting of black doctors (rightfully so due to the horrid history of abuse of black patients) and health outcomes are better.

Native Americans are more likely to go back to practice on reservations than others. Some can speak the local language and provide care that is needed in that area.

In general people from rural areas will be more likely to practice in rural areas, where again there is a need for physicians.

If your residency clinic is in a neighborhood with a high number of Mexican immigrants, why is it a bad idea to consider the applicant who grew up in rural Mexican whom speaks Spanish over the white applicant that grew up in Maine, hasn’t been outside of the US and speaks on English?

So why is it bad to take these characteristics in to account when looking to see who should be accepted in certain positions. It’s very clear from these posts that many people don’t think about these issues or don’t care about them which is ignorant because it is important. The best doctor isn’t always the one who had a private tutor, got straight A’s and got a high mcat and usmle score.

Gotta be careful with this kind of stuff though. It is known that women are more likely to work less hours, more likely to go part-time, more likely to have a shorter career. So if we are looking purely at characteristics that help populations around us, than you could argue that taking a man over a woman in a residency program or medical school is justified because men are more likely to treat more patients over the course of their career and more likely to help with the physician shortage. We could never actually say that, and never actually give men a preference in med school/residency or all hell would break loose. But it is ok to give preference to other groups so long as it fits our social justice/PC culture.

 

[Raryn]

Actually it is. (Minus the private tutor; I don’t know anyone who has had one). high usmle scores have a direct correlation with board pass rates, which is literally the benchmark for competency as a physician.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

One of my residency classmates got in the 99th percentile on his ITE all three years. I wouldn't have been surprised if he got near the top score in the country on his IM boards when he took them. I have several other residency classmates who actually failed their boards the first time they took them - though I think everyone has passed at this point.

If I had to choose a doctor to take care of my ill grandmother, knowing everything I know about the above classmates, the former guy is actually not who I would choose first - and I can think of a few of the latter folks that I might choose before him.

The boards are a minimum standard, but doing better on them doesn't mean you're actually a better doctor. You might have worse interpersonal skills, worse procedural skills, or worse ability to actually apply your memorized textbook. Our 99th percentile guy was not particularly pleasant to work with.

 

[OrthoTraumaMD]

One of my residency classmates got in the 99th percentile on his ITE all three years. I wouldn't have been surprised if he got near the top score in the country on his IM boards when he took them. I have several other residency classmates who actually failed their boards the first time they took them - though I think everyone has passed at this point.

If I had to choose a doctor to take care of my ill grandmother, knowing everything I know about the above classmates, the former guy is actually not who I would choose first - and I can think of a few of the latter folks that I might choose before him.

The boards are a minimum standard, but doing better on them doesn't mean you're actually a better doctor. You might have worse interpersonal skills, worse procedural skills, or worse ability to actually apply your memorized textbook. Our 99th percentile guy was not particularly pleasant to work with.

I guess it depends on how you define “best.” In my mind, if you don’t meet the standard by passing boards, I don’t want you touching me or my family. I don’t particularly care about bedside manner; if I have to choose between that and competence I will always choose the latter.
And having worse procedural skills is unlikely in my opinion. In my field for example, step scores correlate with passing oites and boards... and you can’t pass the boards unless you can operate.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[wholeheartedly]

I guess it depends on how you define “best.” In my mind, if you don’t meet the standard by passing boards, I don’t want you touching me or my family. I don’t particularly care about bedside manner; if I have to choose between that and competence I will always choose the latter.
And having worse procedural skills is unlikely in my opinion. In my field for example, step scores correlate with passing oites and boards... and you can’t pass the boards unless you can operate.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

I don't think anyone is suggesting non-passing board scores be considered in this. After a decade in a teaching hospital, I definitely feel that it isn't always the high scorers who provide the highest quality care.

It's also a whole different ballgame to problem solve for an exam vs. the real world where things are fast-paced, stressful (in a different way), and much more messy. Some people do well in one and not the other.

Things like good interpersonal skills have value far beyond bedside manner making patients feel good. It allows you to be a better information gatherer, better collaborator/team leader, and better at persuading patients to follow plans.

As far as procedural or other skills, I sometimes think people in large academic or tertiary places with a disproportionately high number of high achievers aren't always aware of some of the huge variations in quality that can exist outside those settings, such as rural places. We have a surgeon at the hospital in my hometown that passed boards, oites etc, but no hospital staff (esp. docs) would let him near a family member. Clearly passing boards and a surgery residency isn't sufficient to predict skills.

 

[wholeheartedly]

Revolutionary idea...

Stop all quotas. Offer seats to the most qualified applicants.

Anything outside of this is discriminatory. None of us get to choose our race or sex so let's stop rewarding people for being apart of a group.

This would assume the goal of admissions is to serve the applicants instead of the patients.

Since medical schools are heavily funded by the state, they have an obligation to serve the state by providing doctors that will benefit the needs of the state. So beyond a baseline minimum level of qualification, it might better serve the needs of the state to pick someone from a rural setting who is more likely to serve that setting than a city slicker with a slightly higher MCAT. Is this fair to applicants? No. Is it fair to rural patients that there's only one FM doc in the entire county because the school favors high scorers above all else? Or inner city underserved areas? No. Who should win?

 

[wholeheartedly]

I wish it weren’t true, but I know so many people who left either during or after residency to become stay at home moms. And it’s not like they were unmarried with no other options and no way to care for their kids. I’ve never heard of a man doing that.. I mean what’s the point? Why did you waste the money, waste the efforts of those who trained you, and take someone else’s medical school spot, just to leave it all behind anyway? It makes me angry. Useless degree. One person I know left surgery residency the moment she found a surgeon to marry. Why the f did you even bother then, lady? Ugh. It doesn’t do the rest of us women any favors because people will assume the same thing about us.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

You might not have heard of a man leaving clinical medicine to care for kids, but men leave clinical medicine for other reasons. Burnout etc is causing lots of people in general to leave. I frequently see the discussion about women who waste their training leaving clinical medicine, but rarely do I see people discussing men wasting their training when they leave clinical medicine to do research, pharma, politics, venture capital stuff, and a whole host of non-clinical or non-medical stuff.

 

[deleted480308]

Why shouldn’t certain characteristics be taken in to account for acceptance in to med school, residency and fellowship if it improves patient outcomes and access to care?

Research has shown that black patients are more trusting of black doctors (rightfully so due to the horrid history of abuse of black patients) and health outcomes are better.

Native Americans are more likely to go back to practice on reservations than others. Some can speak the local language and provide care that is needed in that area.

In general people from rural areas will be more likely to practice in rural areas, where again there is a need for physicians.

If your residency clinic is in a neighborhood with a high number of Mexican immigrants, why is it a bad idea to consider the applicant who grew up in rural Mexican whom speaks Spanish over the white applicant that grew up in Maine, hasn’t been outside of the US and speaks on English?

So why is it bad to take these characteristics in to account when looking to see who should be accepted in certain positions. It’s very clear from these posts that many people don’t think about these issues or don’t care about them which is ignorant because it is important. The best doctor isn’t always the one who had a private tutor, got straight A’s and got a high mcat and usmle score.

Or it’s “very clear” to some of us that race is a poor substitute metric for foreign language skills if you want foreign language skills and that pandering to racial discrimination from patients is inappropriate.

It is not ignorant to notice those things. It is dishonest to intentionally misportray others as such

 

[deleted480308]

This would assume the goal of admissions is to serve the applicants instead of the patients.

Since medical schools are heavily funded by the state, they have an obligation to serve the state by providing doctors that will benefit the needs of the state. So beyond a baseline minimum level of qualification, it might better serve the needs of the state to pick someone from a rural setting who is more likely to serve that setting than a city slicker with a slightly higher MCAT. Is this fair to applicants? No. Is it fair to rural patients that there's only one FM doc in the entire county because the school favors high scorers above all else? Or inner city underserved areas? No. Who should win?

I don’t think the “needs of the state” are appropriate in this scenario and govt should not be tasked with providing x number of doctors per square mile. Even if one were to accept that premise, racial discrimination is not an acceptable means to that end

 

[OrthoTraumaMD]

You might not have heard of a man leaving clinical medicine to care for kids, but men leave clinical medicine for other reasons. Burnout etc is causing lots of people in general to leave. I frequently see the discussion about women who waste their training leaving clinical medicine, but rarely do I see people discussing men wasting their training when they leave clinical medicine to do research, pharma, politics, venture capital stuff, and a whole host of non-clinical or non-medical stuff.

I think that would be a waste of a degree as well. But at least they are working. If a woman decided to pursue another career, I’m fine with that. But if you stop working at all, then there is no point in having trained. For anything.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[wholeheartedly]

I don’t disagree with you here, but for discussion how many years should one work before it’s no longer a waste when you stop?

 

[OrthoTraumaMD]

I don’t disagree with you here, but for discussion how many years should one work before it’s no longer a waste when you stop?

Definitely not as a resident or in first 5 years LOL, which is when I have seen this the most.

And I have seen people who have the mommy track as a definitive plan going in, or are just looking for the so-called Mrs. degree. If you always knew you weren’t going to work, and took somebody else’s spot just because you want to have a degree and make money for a little while, I find that to be incredibly selfish and unfair to others who want to devote their lives to this profession who could have taken your spot.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[mvenus929]

I think "most qualified," is to a degree subjective, but so is the whole interview process. The artificial goal of removing acceptance committee's subjective input is unrealistic. I can offer that being black, hispanic, of some other minority, or female shouldn't give you a leg up.

If patients are more likely to come to the physician to seek help if the physician is black, Hispanic, some other minority, or female, shouldn't we make sure that those people have the ability to get trained, even if they don't have the same booksmarts as the white (or Asian) male? If the end result is going to be quality physicians, shouldn't we try to offer diversity in our trainees?

And let's be real. The black girl who grew up in the inner city and struggled to get into college because her family has never cared about education before is going to have a far more interesting story than the white boy from New York who had a private tutor and caddied at his father's country clubs over the summer.

Actually it is. (Minus the private tutor; I don’t know anyone who has had one). high usmle scores have a direct correlation with board pass rates, which is literally the benchmark for competency as a physician.

Competency and Success are not necessarily the same thing. I know several people who are 'competent', but who I would absolutely not want taking care of me or my family. And I had one resident that was wicked smart, but was a god-awful physician, to the point where I did not trust them to teach the interns how to be interns. Just because someone knows all the right things doesn't mean they can apply it in real life, or get patients to actually listen to their recommendations (or heck, their colleagues to refer patients to them).

Gotta be careful with this kind of stuff though. It is known that women are more likely to work less hours, more likely to go part-time, more likely to have a shorter career. So if we are looking purely at characteristics that help populations around us, than you could argue that taking a man over a woman in a residency program or medical school is justified because men are more likely to treat more patients over the course of their career and more likely to help with the physician shortage. We could never actually say that, and never actually give men a preference in med school/residency or all hell would break loose. But it is ok to give preference to other groups so long as it fits our social justice/PC culture.

There was that article not too long ago about how patients get better care from female physicians...

 

[deleted480308]

If patients are more likely to come to the physician to seek help if the physician is black, Hispanic, some other minority, or female, shouldn't we make sure that those people have the ability to get trained, even if they don't have the same booksmarts as the white (or Asian) male? If the end result is going to be quality physicians, shouldn't we try to offer diversity in our trainees?

no, no we shouldn't if the path to get there is racial discrimination

 

[Apollyon]

What the hell is people’s issue with white people, who all apparently have private tutors and play golf? It’s been said twice now. That’s as racist as saying black people eat fried chicken and play basketball. Not all of us had it easy. In fact, most white kids I know, particularly the boys, had struggles growing up. They came to medical school from rural communities. And those from New York often had things even worse.

It pisses me off when people conflate every white male with a Kennedy or a Clinton. Struggle knows no race or sex, or even class. And the fact that you think that the girl in your post necessarily has a more interesting story is ridiculous. Struggle stories are a dime a dozen.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

When I was in the Caribbean, I knew a guy that was an expat from the UK (white guy, grew up in Wales, veteran of the British Army). Grenada was nearly all black after the revolution in 1983 (other Carib islands are much more racially diverse). Whenever one of the locals would say that "the white man has kept me down", my bud would say, "Hey mate, the white man has kept me down MY whole life!"

Making a statement of tutors and caddying at my father's country club: yeah, that is offensive. I didn't get to where I am because of my parents, but, in a few ways, despite them.

 

[chocomorsel]

Actually it is. (Minus the private tutor; I don’t know anyone who has had one). high usmle scores have a direct correlation with board pass rates, which is literally the benchmark for competency as a physician.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

I had crappy MCAT but have had no problems passing my USMLE and board exams and am pretty competent. MCAT and USMLE, at least part 2 and 4 exams are completely different exams.

 

[OrthoTraumaMD]

I had crappy MCAT but have had no problems passing my USMLE and board exams and am pretty competent. MCAT and USMLE, at least part 2 and 4 exams are completely different exams.

That’s why I said usmle because that’s actually been studied. I don’t know any literature on Mcat and board pass rates, but there is plenty on usmle.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[mvenus929]

What the hell is people’s issue with white people, who all apparently have private tutors and play golf? It’s been said twice now. That’s as racist as saying black people eat fried chicken and play basketball. Not all of us had it easy. In fact, most white kids I know, particularly the boys, had struggles growing up. They came to medical school from rural communities. And those from New York often had things even worse.

It pisses me off when people conflate every white male with a Kennedy or a Clinton. Struggle knows no race or sex, or even class. And the fact that you think that the girl in your post necessarily has a more interesting story is ridiculous. Struggle stories are a dime a dozen.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

As a white female whose family was on WIC and food stamps for the early part of my life (we weren’t really in a good place financially until I was well into high school), I understand the sentiment. The two individuals I chose were for illustrative purposes (and I was being a bit facetious, which I realize doesn’t come through on forums well). Obviously not every white candidate is going to be a trust fund kid. But I had enough of those in my Med school class, or at least those who had at least one parent who was a physician and well off financially, that it’s not that unusual, either.

The point is that the person who does well academically but comes from an advantaged background (regardless of race or gender) is not necessarily going to be a better physician than the person who struggled through school because they didn’t have those advantages growing up and started 100 yards further from the finish line.

 

[Goro]

Actually it is. (Minus the private tutor; I don’t know anyone who has had one). high usmle scores have a direct correlation with board pass rates, which is literally the benchmark for competency as a physician.
Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

I vaguely recall a paper that showed that this wasn't true for EM, at least.

 

[atomi]

There was that article not too long ago about how patients get better care from female physicians...

Remember that study in the NEJM that found that straight white Christian males with physician parents had the best surgical outcomes?

Oh wait. That’s right. Such a study would have clearly been biased and sexist, racist, misogynist, homophobic, and anti-Semetic.

 

[OrthoTraumaMD]

I vaguely recall a paper that showed that this wasn't true for EM, at least.

Huh interesting. True in surgery... can u see if you can find paper?


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[Goro]

Remember that study in the NEJM that found that straight white Christian males with physician parents had the best surgical outcomes?

Oh wait. That’s right. Such a study would have clearly been biased and sexist, racist, misogynist, homophobic, and anti-Semetic.

Like it or not, there are studies that show that patients of color have better outcomes when treated by physicians of color. No I don't have the citations handy.

 

[deleted480308]

Like it or not, there are studies that show that patients of color have better outcomes when treated by physicians of color. No I don't have the citations handy.

almost every one of those I've ever seen posted was really patient satisfaction and not actual health outcomes, but I'll go full disclosure and say that even if it could be proven I wouldn't approve of racial discrimination

 

[acapnial]

Like it or not, there are studies that show that patients of color have better outcomes when treated by physicians of color. No I don't have the citations handy.

There's this recent paper that said that if you look at step 1 scores by themselves they are predictors of ABEM first time pass rates, but they lose their predicting value if you include step 2 scores. Step 2 scores are apparently good predictors with or without step 1 scores though.

Predicting American Board of Emergency Medicine Qualifying Examination Passage Using United States Medical Licensing Examination Step Scores

 

[Wordead]

Remember that study in the NEJM that found that straight white Christian males with physician parents had the best surgical outcomes?

Oh wait. That’s right. Such a study would have clearly been biased and sexist, racist, misogynist, homophobic, and anti-Semetic.

I mean there was a paper showing that minority women surgical residents were more at much higher risk of failing out.

No need to go MAGA redpill on every topic bro

 

[atomi]

No need to go MAGA redpill on every topic bro

Nah, I’ll continue to call out PC bs whenever I see it. But thanks for the suggestion.

 

[Wordead]

Nah, I’ll continue to call out PC bs whenever I see it. But thanks for the suggestion.

Im all for getting away from how PC society has become. But you're just throwing it in there non sequitur. Makes no sense.

I mean you can see yourself as some crusading warrior if you want I'm just telling you what it looks like to everyone else man.

 

[wholeheartedly]

There's this recent paper that said that if you look at step 1 scores by themselves they are predictors of ABEM first time pass rates, but they lose their predicting value if you include step 2 scores. Step 2 scores are apparently good predictors with or without step 1 scores though.

Predicting American Board of Emergency Medicine Qualifying Examination Passage Using United States Medical Licensing Examination Step Scores

Board scores aren't patient outcomes though.