Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Tiger parents: what job do you want your kid to end up doing?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • AR
    replied


    So because black outcomes are poor relative to whites, we must give blacks help. It never could be due to intrinsic problems in black culture.
    Click to expand...


    Set aside whether we should "give blacks help".  I want to make it clear that I have taken no position on that in anything I have posted.

    But what you're doing here is basically admitting defeat.  If you acknowledge that black outcomes are worse, then you've acknowledged that being white is an advantage. Maybe in your mind being born black means a higher chance of being born into a culture with "intrinsic problems" and as a result they will do worse on average.

    So in the end, even you agree. Being black results in relatively poorer outcomes.   I guess my work here is done on the race part.   It sounds like we disagree on why those outcomes occur, but it seems undeniable that we agree that the black outcomes are worse.

    Now whether we as a society should be doing something about that is a different question entirely.  Maybe someone can start a new thread on that.

     

    Leave a comment:


  • AR
    replied




     

    Again your studies are biased and it’s funny you cherrypick one thing I said and ignore the rest. Also it specifically says single parent kids do worse. And contrary to popular belief one article in the guardian is not the end all be all for the truth. I know it’s probably hard for you to believe that there are people with different viewpoints. Again most of the stuff on this is extremely biased by political persuasion.
    Click to expand...


    Look it's hard to respond to a lack of content.  Here's how this went.

    1. You posted your feelings.

    2. Then I posted an actual link to an article which referenced studies on the subject.  Sure the guardian is not the final authority. But it references other work.  And at least I posted some evidence.  You've posted none.

    3. You say "your studies are biased".  This is backed up with no analysis or identification of said bias.

    If you think what you're doing here is reasonable and persuasive, then I don't know what to tell you.

     

    Also, I guess you and ENT doc have the same reading problem.  I agree that single parent families are worse.  No one disagrees with that.  Single parent families hurt boys AND girls.  To get where ENTdoc is trying to go, you have to show that the boys are more affected than girls.  All you've done to "prove" that is to appeal to your unsubtantiated "extremely logical" feelings.

    Since you're so broken up about it, I'll get back to the rest of you post sometime later today.  I've got some more pressing stuff to deal with.

    Leave a comment:


  • SerrateAndDominate
    replied




    No wonder docs have such a reputation as uneducated, unintellectual, glorified vo-tech grads.

     
    Click to expand...


    Must say that's the first I've heard such a reputation for physicians.  I'm not saying it came from you (likely didn't), but it's a sad saying because it comes across as being elitist and knocking vo-tech grads.

     

    I don't mind if med schools want to put more emphasis on liberal arts or whatever prerequisite courses or life experiences.  They should just be transparent about their admissions process, especially if a state school.

     

     

    Leave a comment:


  • Tim
    replied
    Black women
    Black men
    White women
    After the black affirmative numbers at met, the target becomes hitting the female targets.
    If those numbers are short, go work the phones, networks, mount minority and female recruiting campaigns. Too many blacks or females is in the contract, 5-10% bonus usually. Dang it, Financial Aid needs to step up their game.

    https://college.harvard.edu/admissions/admissions-statistics
    Please note, it is no accident that “white” or “female” are mentioned. Affirmative action requires strict definition like Native American and Native Hawaiian for emphasis.
    Gender is a completely different issue. LBGT is a no-win.
    White males are fillers. Legacy is a must, field of concentration and geography come next.
    A black female Native American from South Dakota checks a lot of boxes. A white male undecided from public schools without legacy living in New England is a speck in the ocean. Thousands like him.

    Notice, not one mention of GPA, test scores, recommendations, or personal accomplishments. By birth, the admissions will screen out a white male due to affirmative action. That is why it was significant that an unnamed politician claimed Native American ancestry.
    Checked two boxes. Doubled your chances.
    Not everyone plays the game the same. Proof of racism and discrimination NEVER supports white. Of course one cannot prove a negative, so throw that out and go back to Harvard’s diversity. Prove that white males exist. They do! I saw them in September.

    My point, systems have been geared to recruit and publicize virtually anything other than a white male.
    That really makes a white male insecure and not worth even trying. I certainly hope “rumors or gossip” don’t grow into the “She must be believed” thing. Seemed to become pretty popular for awhile. What caused a decrease in the “MeToo” declarations? Actual occurrence decreased or was some declared with motivations other than addressing real assaults and rapes? Harvard uses target marketing for results to be promoted. Bias in the presentation and bias in their approach. Can’t prove a negative, so dismiss it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Panscan
    replied
    There are a lot of people who have broad understandings of the humanities who work at Starbucks.

    I don't understand the point. I think docs don't like reading because they read a lot for their normal job stuff. The humanities are definitely important. So is science. I don't know how a liberal art degree means you know anything more about the humanities. Huge fallacy IMO. Happy medium like anything else.

    I'm not sure how having any specific viewpoint indicates a lack of knowledge or sociology or history. I have no idea who in this argument you agree with, but again I have no idea how you can make that statement based on someone's viewpoints. Doing so would be basically dismissing their entire position.

    Leave a comment:


  • snowcanyon
    replied
    Of course, there are outliers, I'm not denying that. I'm sure I will get flamed for my comments below, and obviously we all know different people. I will say that I've met, trained, and worked with many docs who are highly accomplished in music and sports.

    Compared to folks I grew up with and my classmates from college, the general level of basic education is disturbingly low among physicians. Until I attended medical school, I had never been in class with people who stated (proudly) that they had never read a book for fun. I guess I just think the humanities are important for physicians, and so many went to undergrads or came from families that apparently didn't emphasize or require them, or they personally find them of little value. I see a lot more docs reading John Grisham (if they read at all) than the classics. As I said, it's not universal, but I'm surprised medical schools (especially outside the top twenty or thirty) don't seem to see the value of a broad-based humanities background for physicians.

    Leave a comment:


  • jfoxcpacfp
    replied




    No wonder docs have such a reputation as uneducated, unintellectual, glorified vo-tech grads.

    It seems that’s what we are as a group, and it’s depressing.
    Click to expand...


    Just curious, what, specifically, is the basis for your opinion? That’s certainly news to me and I’ve been around the block a time or two.

    Leave a comment:


  • snowcanyon
    replied
    It would be really great if medical schools emphasized accepting students from liberal arts colleges with a deep and broad grounding in the humanities. The lack of basic understanding of history, sociology, philosophy etc is mind boggling, and sadly not just on this forum. No wonder docs have such a reputation as uneducated, unintellectual, glorified vo-tech grads.

    It seems that's what we are as a group, and it's depressing.

    Leave a comment:


  • Panscan
    replied
    It doesn't go far enough?

    So because black outcomes are poor relative to whites, we must give blacks help. It never could be due to intrinsic problems in black culture. Thats clearly just not possible. /s

    It's like a budget where you don't have money. You can either decrease spending or raise income. Jacking up affirmative action even more is like raising income. Instead of just spending less.

    Your article has nothing to do with affirmative action. Im very familiar with the Brookings institute and their keys for success. All it states is that black people do worse than white people relatively when the same level of keys for success are achieved. I have no idea how that relates to affirmative action. There could be a plethora of reasons for that to happen, and a plethora of ways to address that. Affirmative action is one of many.

    Affirmative action is a failure. It's racist, sexist as well as plain old lazy. I want to help poor people get a head start. Using race and gender as a proxy for that is an extremely bad and lazy idea. There are millions of white kids worse off than Colin Powells kid.

    Notice how I don't disagree with you about how helping people who are worse off. Just that doing it by gender or race is literally the definition of racism and sexism like SJWs so vehemently claim to oppose. I want to help people who are struggling. Regardless of their race of gender.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tyche
    replied










    I think this thread could have been easily summarized by everyone just noting where they went to college and how they voted in the last 3 elections.

    The really interesting cohort would be people who wish they had the opposite experience e.g. state schoolers who wish they had gone Ivy+ or the alternate. In my experience I have only ever met a few people who wish they had gone to different colleges. Everyone is always just going to declare their experience to be adequate or excellent and their own narrative to be instructive.

    Personally I enjoyed college but I don’t think I went to a great school (State U). I wouldn’t send my kids there if I had to pay a lot of money for it. My med school, much as I enjoyed it, was in the unhappy valley of high tuition and relatively low prestige. My standard advice to college students looking at med school now is “go to your state school or to the best school you can get into.”
    Click to expand…


    a tip of the hat to @ar and @eagleeyes as a woman who has never seen or experienced another woman gaining advantage over men. Especially in medicine holy cow.

     

    MPMD I can be the first of your cohort who wishes her cards had been dealt differently. I have a bachelors, masters, and post certificate. For graduate school in particular I applied at some rather competitive programs, accepted to every one of them. Ended up attending a mid-ish tier program. The decision was 100% based on finances. Every one of the schools I attended were chosen by which was cheapest. Would my future have been different if my family had money? Unquestionably. Have I been discredited and even mocked based on where I went to school? More times than I can count. Am I still more successful than some of my peers with a fancy school behind their name? Some. Depends on the school. Would my talents have been further utilized at a more prestigious program? Yea, I think so. My last year of school a professor said every job he’s ever won he’s known someone on the committee. I was rather shocked by the statement but it’s proven more or less true for me. Issue is, my contacts are from those mid tier programs and not the best.
    Click to expand…


    do you understand what affirmative action is? It’s not just about race. It’s an advantage.

    have you ever seen a guy apply to OB/GYN? Have you ever heard a woman patient refuse to be seen by a male OB/GYN? It’s an advantage.

    Breast surgeons?

    You can debate what the tide is, but to say there are 0 instances of a woman having an advantage is absolutely ludicrous and so naive its scary.
    Click to expand...


    LOL white dudes trying to discount inequality always remind me of those women with a size 0 waist who complain about being fat. Clearly there's something you're not seeing. Hold onto your seat here: not only do I know what affirmative action is, I don't think it goes far enough.

    I'm sure you won't read this but there's some good data in here that outlines my view on these things.

    https://www.brookings.edu/research/following-the-success-sequence-success-is-more-likely-if-youre-white/

     

    Leave a comment:


  • Panscan
    replied
    Black women have a huge advantage. If you look at the scores needed to get into certain colleges with varying combinations of gender and race it is a huge difference.

    Again your studies are biased and it's funny you cherrypick one thing I said and ignore the rest. Also it specifically says single parent kids do worse. And contrary to popular belief one article in the guardian is not the end all be all for the truth. I know it's probably hard for you to believe that there are people with different viewpoints. Again most of the stuff on this is extremely biased by political persuasion.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tim
    replied
    @Snag75,
    “So according to the data, if you created your family with a stay-at-home mom, you may be doing your kids a disservice. ?”

    Wow. You just gave me an idea for passive income. The Invisible Daycare and Nanny Plan. I sure hope your data holds up in court.

    Leave a comment:


  • AR
    replied




    Those pieces of information I quoted were from reputable books on the subject – one in particular called The Boy Crisis cites many of these statistics and studies – some of which are from OECD research.  Hoff Summers has written on this too.  The Economist and Newsweek even ran lengthy articles a few years back about “The Weaker Sex”.  Take a wild guess which one was weaker.  It’s funny that you second guess my sources but provide zero evidence of your own.  I could just as easily make the unsubstantiated claim on your post.  Yet I’m supposed to believe that you’re right.  You say the gap has narrowed but that we’re not there yet.  There where?  With salary?  Other benefits?  What exactly are you talking about?
    Click to expand...


    Look, you can't just say the equivalent of  "I read it in a book somewhere" and expect reasonable discussion. I'm assuming that's what you're looking to avoid.

    Secondly, as far as my claims are concerned. In each case where I made a claim, I told you I would provide you any specific evidence you would like.  My goal was to put in about the same (lack of effort) that you did.  Since you've asked, here is one study I've looked at on the gender gap.

    https://www.glassdoor.com/research/app/uploads/sites/2/2016/03/Glassdoor-Gender-Pay-Gap-Study.pdf

    Note, that I'm not claiming that this is something that I read in book X. I'm giving the actual link to the material so you can view it and we can have an actual discussion.   To answer your question, the study is looking at salary, but as you can see they made adjustments based on other things.

    They show a difference of about 5.4 percent, which I might add, is the most favorable to your viewpoint that I could find.

    And if you require any other evidence of claims that I make, just ask.  I promise it won't be a vague reference to a book, "an Economist article", or something someone allegedly told me.




    The labor force will never achieve some utopian equality due to the simple fact that women have our children.  This simple fact changes everything.  Women will sometimes take extended times off work, pick different employment out of the gates, or quit the labor force to raise children.  This should be celebrated, and they should be allowed to make those decisions with society’s full backing.  But those decisions also have economic realities attached to them.
    Click to expand...


    That's the whole point of correcting for these factors. Even after correcting for the fact that a woman who leaves the labor force to take care of family will have less experience, the gap still persists.

    I actually agree with you here in a way. If we were looking at unadjusted totals, I would agree. We're never going to achieve equality.  But even after adjusting for that (and other factors) why shouldn't we?




    But as the rate of fatherless homes has increased so has incarceration.  There exists a causal link between fatherless homes and deviance, so as one increases you’d expect the other to as well.  I hope you don’t think the fatherlessness rate hasn’t increased over the last 50 years.  That would truly be something.  Also, crime laws have incarcerated these males at longer sentences over the years, making them even less likely to do well in society.
    Click to expand...


    You missed the entire point here.  The problem is that the daughters are also fatherless.  One of the things you have to show is that the fatherlessness is worse for the sons than it is for the daughters.  Of course, you never did this.   But I'm sure you read it in a book or heard it somewhere and you're going to make some vague reference to that.




    The graduation rate and GPA differences are on full display for you to see via a simple Google search.  This has been recognized for years.  As for the feminization of education, indeed this has always been the case and indeed males had prior advantages as they were expected to enter the workforce and be the breadwinners.  But when those expectations changed the dynamic favored the women.  I believe the Economist article talked about this.  All else was not equal over time.
    Click to expand...


    If you read my post you will see that I accepted your claims on these issues.  They were also in the Atlantic article at the end.  Once again a vague reference some "Economist article" is just disingenuous, and I'm not gonig to spend the time searching in the hope that I might find the article that you're thinking of.

    But once again you're conveniently failed to address my point.  Even if all these things are true, and as you point out they have been true for years, when we get to adjusted wage gaps there is still a problem.  The fact that more young women are graduating from college with degrees hasn't actually solved the problem.  It has closed the gap, but it still exists.

    If anything, this is evidence of a bigger advantage for white males.  They can graduate from college at lower rates, get fewer advanced degrees, and still rise to higher positions and make more money even after adjusting for everything we can think of.   Sounds like a pretty great advantage to me.




    Of course women are the targets of sexual assault more often, and that is shameful.  This is certainly a disadvantage.  But that doesn’t discount my point.  It simply shows that women have certain disadvantages.
    Click to expand...


    Of course it discounts your point.  One of the reason why a sexual assault accusation is so damaging is because it is believable and it's believable because these things are not at all uncommon.  Can we at least agree that as far as anything associated with sexual assault is concerned, men are way better off? Is that really so hard to accept?  To even bring up the topic of sexual assault undercuts your entire point as there are plenty who would argue that alone outweighs any other advantage women might have.




    The 5% or so gap you speak of has been shown to be eliminated by being less agreeable and negotiating like a man does.
    Click to expand...


    Ah, once again some good old naked assertion.  Let's see the follow up:




    At least that’s what my female negotiations teacher taught our class.  Pretty sure she was citing a HBR article on this – sorry I don’t have this readily available.
    Click to expand...


    Well that's a surprise! A source that I can't possibly read or question.  Isn't that convenient?

    I'm sure there are studies out there that show that women might be poorer at negotiation and this factor leads to lower wages, but I've never read a single study that shows negotiation eliminates the gap.  And I've read quite a few.  My guess is that you're either making this up, incorrectly remembering what your were told, or your professor was wrong.

    One way we can determine that you are wrong is that if you look at the methodology in the study that I linked, there is no feasible way to include "tenacity of negotiation" into that type of analysis.  It's not a variable that can be collected in the same way as the others.  Moreover, all the other studies that I've seen on the subject use the same type of methodology.  So, you should be able to logically conclude that such a study is highly unlikely to exist.  But if you  ever find it, let me know.

    Furthermore, even if everything you assert is true, it still doesn't discount a white male advantage.  Maybe there is something about society that fosters confidence in males (or even white males) which allows them to be better at negotiation and thus garner better salaries.

     




    Also, from a financial perspective your compounding example was not accurate, as the only thing that can compound is after-tax, after-spending dollars – not the 5% wage difference, if it exists.  Far from the “massive” advantage you suggest.
    Click to expand...


    I don't understand what your problem here is.  If I can make 5% more a year and invest that over 30 years  with compound interest that's a lot of money.  Then the next year I can do it for 29 yrs, etc.  All the compound interest on my additional income will snowball into a massive amount.   To wind up with a 7 figure difference after an entire career would be really easy after such a small difference.   I guess "massive" is subjective, but I'm sure it's an amount that most Americans would find to be very significant.




    I think you missed the overall point of my post.  It was to show that the simple fact that one is male doesn’t confer the advantages that one might think, and that there are substantial disadvantages to being male.  It was give pause to the narrative that males are inherently advantaged.
    Click to expand...


    Well if that's the point of your post, it's pretty silly.  Literally no one is claiming that being a white man is better in every single way.  I don't think anyone needed you to point that out.   The point is that, on balance, being a white male is a clear advantage.

    I freely admit that the advantage is diminishing, on balance.

     




    I don’t think the various advantages and disadvantages each faces can simply be boiled down to say one has a clear advantage.  That was my point.
    Click to expand...


    OK so let's flesh this out a little bit.

    1. Are you saying that we currently have complete equality of opportunity as far as race and gender are concerned?

    2. As far as equality of opportunity is concerned, how would you say the following groups rank in opportunity:

    White Men, Black Men, Black Women.

    Would you say they're all equal?  If not, which group is at an advantage?  How would you rank them?

    Leave a comment:


  • Snag75
    replied







    Yes not having a father is definitely more detrimental to a son than a daughter. Just like I imagine not having a mother would be more detrimental to a daughter. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist or a study to show that. And yes, sons of lesbian couples are definitely at a disadvantage. Just like 2 gay guys raising a girl would put her at a disadvantage. Children need role models. Extremely logical and consistent.
    Click to expand…


    Sorry, man but your feelings aren’t evidence.  Even if you claim your feelings are “extremely logical”.  I assume you practice medicine.  Don’t you have any idea how many things in medicine we once did that were “extremely logical”, but when subjected to actual studies proved not to be the case.  Hint: there’s a lot.

    In fact, on your assertion with respect same sex couples there is plenty of evidence to the contrary.

    Here’s a place for you to start:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/13/there-is-no-harm-caused-by-same-sex-parenting-studies-suggesting-otherwise-are-skewed

     

    I’m not sure that fact will actually convince you here, but if there is anything more I can do, then let me know.
    Click to expand...


    Yup. Same for single parents. Lots of studies out now clarifying what are the variables for emotionally healthy kids, and it's not man+woman, despite the overall feeling that kids from single-parent families are worse off.  The variables seem to be things like financial and familial stability (which can be disrupted with certain parental relationship history, but not all, and traditional couples can face these issues too), and the number of positive adult role models (parents or not).

    In fact, we keep hearing about studies showing that kids who have working mothers do tend to fare better at life these days.  We can speculate as to why, but the data shows the trends which should be respected beyond assumptions made from personal bias.
    So according to the data, if you created your family with a stay-at-home mom, you may be doing your kids a disservice.

    Leave a comment:


  • AR
    replied




    Yes not having a father is definitely more detrimental to a son than a daughter. Just like I imagine not having a mother would be more detrimental to a daughter. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist or a study to show that. And yes, sons of lesbian couples are definitely at a disadvantage. Just like 2 gay guys raising a girl would put her at a disadvantage. Children need role models. Extremely logical and consistent.
    Click to expand...


    Sorry, man but your feelings aren't evidence.  Even if you claim your feelings are "extremely logical".  I assume you practice medicine.  Don't you have any idea how many things in medicine we once did that were "extremely logical", but when subjected to actual studies proved not to be the case.  Hint: there's a lot.

    In fact, on your assertion with respect same sex couples there is plenty of evidence to the contrary.

    Here's a place for you to start:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/13/there-is-no-harm-caused-by-same-sex-parenting-studies-suggesting-otherwise-are-skewed

     

    I'm not sure that fact will actually convince you here, but if there is anything more I can do, then let me know.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X