3 ms·
You are describing a bias in terms of expected traits of a doctor. You can imagine (and attempt to measure) that there are a good number of people who share the
by 11101010001100 3y ago
You are describing a bias in terms of expected traits of a doctor. You can imagine (and attempt to measure) that there are a good number of people who share these traits who are not doctors and a good number of doctors who do not share these traits.
- 0xB31B1B 3y agoYes. The 3 dominant features are (1) income and (2) ability, (3) alternative opportunities. Highly specialized doctors in the US get paid a lot because they have great alternatives because they are some of the smartest and most driven people alive. If we increase the number of training slots, that doesn't increase then number of qualified applicants to train because we are already at an equilibrium where marginal slots are unfilled in competitive fields. If we want to increase the number of qualified doctors we need to increase training slots AND increase pay for these docs. This will move some of the top talent pool from drug discovery/finance/law/software back to medicine. Will a law partner become a top surgeon ever? No. Will a highly capable 18 year old who is choosing their path be more likely to take the "highly compensated surgeon" route over the "highly compensated finance worker" route? Yes. Some of the best folks I know in the field have previously worked in business services/legal routes before settling on medicine relatively late in their career.
- yibg 3y agoLots of things stated as fact that isn’t necessarily supported. How do you know they are the smartest and most driven people alive? How do you know we are at equilibrium? I open up 100 spots and pick a terrible qualifying criteria I can still have a shortage of “qualified candidates” but it doesn’t mean there aren’t qualified candidates, it just means I have a shitty filter.