Posted on 04/10/2024 11:31:09 AM PDT by Red Badger
Medical schools emphasizing DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) as criteria for admissions is a prescription for disaster.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The late politician and sociologist Daniel Patrick Moynihan coined the phrase "defining deviancy down" to describe the tendency of societies to respond to destructive behaviors by lowering standards for what is permissible. Texas physician Dr. Yakov Gizersky described a lamentable example of this in a letter to the Wall Street Journal, expressing his surprise at the influence of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives on medical school admissions.
He related that he had recently become aware of how “politicized the selection and training of …future physicians has become” while his son was applying to medical schools. Dr. Gizersky described his epiphany thusly:
Nearly all the schools requested multiple essays providing a detailed explanation of the applicant’s dedication to DEI and participating in DEI-related activism. Some schools had essays querying the applicant’s activism for or opinion of progressive border policies. Most also requested that students discuss how they have been adversely affected by systematic racism (and if they haven’t been affected, then they should discuss what they plan to do to fight systemic racism, anyway).
Finally, he noted that some medical schools have stopped requiring applicants to take the Medical College Admission Test, a useful predictor of medical school performance, for “specific applicant groups.” (Emphasis added.)
Dr. Gizerky’s observations took me back… When I entered medical school at the University of California, San Diego, in the 1970s, a requirement for graduation was passing both parts of the medical board exams, the "med boards." Part One tested knowledge of basic science; Part Two, clinical medicine. For several years, the medical school had conducted an aggressive program of recruiting and admitting under-qualified minority students. It turned out that they could scrape by on Part One, but many were failing Part Two.
That was not a surprise to my classmates and me. Grades on exams were posted not by students' names but as curves. Ordinarily, you would expect the grades to fall in what's called a "standard normal distribution," or “bell-shaped curve,” that looks something like this:
Instead, the distribution was often more like this:
That implied, correctly, that there were two distinct populations represented by the scores, and we quickly ascertained that the lower distribution consisted of the under-qualified minority students.
Instead of tightening the admissions criteria, the administration responded by lowering the graduation requirement to passing Part One and just taking, but not necessarily passing, Part Two. Nary, a peep was heard from the faculty about this lowering of standards.
This sort of social engineering at medical schools has not been uncommon. Stanley Goldfarb, M.D., a retired dean for curriculum and co-director of the renal division at the University of Pennsylvania's medical school, has repeatedly criticized the trend toward allowing "social justice" considerations to play a dominant role in medical schools' admissions and curricula. He founded a nonprofit called Do No Harm, which aims "to combat discriminatory practices in medicine."
Dr. Gizersky ended his letter to the editor with this observation: “Medical students are already faced with learning more information than ever, and we can’t afford to have medical schools produce better activists than physicians.” I agree, but I would put it somewhat differently: When you're admitted to the hospital for complicated cardiac or neurosurgery, do you want it to be done by the most competent and accomplished surgeon or by one who was admitted to medical school and residency because he or she was a member of an underrepresented group?
The answer involves looking at the competence of those running medical schools.
These individuals are incompetent, which strongly suggests low IQ.
I want to go see a Social Activist.
We need to save the planet—that means a lot less humans—that means dumbing down doctors....
:-(
They need woke doctors who will kill babies and euthanize old people
It’s much more important to me that my physician has my same skin color than whether he makes a bad decision that kills me.
I am of the opinion that EEE (Education / Experience / Expertise) should be used instead.
“Doc, all of a sudden I get dizzy when I walk up stairs. I get totally out of breath, and the other day I completely passed out when I got to the top. I think something is wrong.”
“Yeah, you bet something is wrong. You’re a racist!”
That’s racist!...................
>>>and euthanize old people.......
VOLUNTARILY.................for now.....................
Social activists of course for those serving the general public. Heck, why train them, just hire more folks from India with a (((supposed))) medical education/training. It’s cheaper.
But they need to be top tier for those serving the political elite and our oligarchs.
We have a granddaughter in 2nd year of med school...
She tells me DEI crap goes in one ear and out the other without stopping...
“Should Med Schools Strive To Produce Competent Physicians Or Social Activists?”
Gee, I don’t know. Let me ponder that for a couple of microseconds.
Back in 1982 the class ahead of me at Northwestern had a “quota student”. A Black female. Flunked her freshman year. Flunked it again. And they STILL tried to drag her by the weave through school. Thank God she finally gave up. God only knows how many she would have maimed or killed. And she took a spot some competent student could have used to actually treat patients.
You don’t need a to be a genius or complex thinker to be a “health care professional,” in America.
It takes damn near zero brains to follow a flow chart.
American health care has turned into conveyor belt health care. It’s managed health care. It’s socialist health care with a private store front (insurance companies).
It actually combines the worst of both worlds, combining the corporate greed with its monopolies and price gouging from big pharma, hospitals etc. with a government managed system in regards what the standard of care is defined as: FDA, CDC, DEA, NIH.
So, the American pays an incredibly high price for Euro style government managed health care.
You don’t need the smartest for that. Just people that can follow rules.
Wrong. They are quite intelligent. They just have an agenda that over rules clinical competence as the goal.
You don’t need a to be a genius or complex thinker to be a “health care professional,” in America.
“I’m A Bad Doctor”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-QiLHdsNN8
I disagree emphatically.
When you run the system and your decisions cause it to fail, the failure defines your competence as low.
And let’s face it—the ability to deceive is not a true mark of intelligence.
I literally believe that the Deep State has influenced enrollment standards and curricula for medical students to select for psychologically conforming people.
I recall decades ago finding physicians to be expert critical thinkers, able to swiftly make deductions and analyze novel situations.
Now I find they are reliant on pre-defined ICD-9 codes and if your symptoms do not meet an ICD-9, they believe you are making it up.
When the CDC was pushing the whole ‘Covid’ narrative, those docs with critical thinking skills were getting canceled and the rest were confidently trusting every.single.pronouncement as if it was Gospel if it came from the CDC.
Note that our television ‘programming’ helped cover this transition from doctors who were ‘thinkers’ to those who are blinded ‘comply-ers.’ I withdrew from television when TV ‘programming’ featured doctors-as-champions who were always bucking the system, risking their careers for their patients, weekly. I reasoned that the ER was about the last place I wanted to be at any given moment and yet there were programs to make it seem like the center of life, romance, valor, excitement. Sick.
But a few generations of Americans have been raised on this image, even as the physician pool increasingly incorporates compliant and unqualified applicants, as long as they signal absolute conformity.
The public has been ‘programmed’ to trust the medical establishment far beyond reason and the physicians have been selected/trained/credentialed to trust and obey the medical regime without question.
Dr. McCullough was among the first doctors to square off with the medical regime on the subject of Covid and Covid ‘vaccines’. He was moved by the suffering of patients told to go home until their lips turn blue and then go to the ER. His medical group formed an effective Covid protocol and he has testified in front of officials as to the effective treatments available, and later about the ‘vaccine’ harm. For this the establishment is working to destroy him, but he fights on.
But I recall watching one of his interviews where he was puzzled, asking where the public ever got the impression that doctors are warriors who fight the good fight, saying, “We’re rule followers.”
Well to some extent, they have rules to follow, but I do recall physicians from decades ago who would be disgusted if not furious to be told to shut down their reasoning facilities re the vaccine, (i.e., ‘If you collapse and feel sick after vaccination, it means it’s working!”)
I think it took years of modifications to applications, training and testing to hone a force of obedient medical drones. The CDC created licensure for the US hospital system - all are now licensed, and that gave the CDC more control/compliance as, among other things, freedom from liability and financial incentives abound.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.