3 ms·
I agree mostly with the article, but this stuck out to me >Measure the proportion of graduates who pursue and are accepted into advanced degree programs. (adju
by DiscourseFan 2y ago
I agree mostly with the article, but this stuck out to me
>Measure the proportion of graduates who pursue and are accepted into advanced degree programs. (adjusted for field of study so acceptance into medical school > masters in art history)
The only reason, however, that medical school is more competitive than an art history masters (to be fair, most paid masters programs aren't super competitive) is because the medical board has set up the system of accreditation to limit the number of practising doctors in the US in order to artificially inflate the salaries of doctors. The UK, for instance, has the opposite problem, where becoming a doctor is much easier, but for that very reason their pay is relatively low and the job is increasingly undesirable (not to mention cuts to the NHS).
This is all to say that, in just this instance, the author falls prey to precisely the same mystification that he is criticizing, by seeing something as "better" just because its more exclusive.
- sealeck 2y ago> The UK, for instance, has the opposite problem, where becoming a doctor is much easier According to a friend who qualified in the UK and now practices in the US the _process_ of becoming a doctor is much harder in the UK: medical schools in the UK test students holistically (i.e. big exams which test all the topics) whereas American students are tested one module at a time (so lots of cramming). I agree that gaining acceptance is probably harder though (ish: the UK government subsidises the provision of medical teaching so places are also capped in the UK for financial and capacity reasons).
- thaumasiotes 2y ago> medical schools in the UK test students holistically (i.e. big exams which test all the topics) For reference, "holistic" is the opposite of "objective", not of "specific".
- ineedasername 2y agoIt's not the opposite of objective. It is a POV that says that something can best be understood and addressed as a whole rather than by its parts individually. Basically a "greater than sum of parts" thing.
- dbjacobs 2y agoFrom webster - relating to or concerned with wholes or with complete systems rather than with the analysis of, treatment of, or dissection into parts So it is more the opposite of specific than objective. I think your confusion comes from colleges using holistic to mean they looks at things beyond beyond objective measurements like test scores and GPA
- thaumasiotes 2y agoI know what it's supposed to mean. I also know that it is never used in that sense. That meaning is gone.
- ameister14 2y agoI don't know why you think this but you are incorrect. Especially in health, wellness, and nutrition, holistic is used to mean 'concerning the whole' all the time.
- mensetmanusman 2y ago[flagged]