Well I apologise if you found my slant on this distracting. Those of us - on
this side of the Irish Sea at least - are only too well aware of the
substantive issues, hence my interest in the signatories of this missive on
this occasion.
My use of the word interesting was more to suggest intrigue rather than
sarcasm. The source of the email suggests that there might be a greater
degree of outrage among this particular social group - white, largely
academic, males - and this might suggest that this particular group has
fared badly in the first round of MTAS, I'm not sure. I'm sure the detailed
analysis will be revealing.
We do know that "academics" have felt discriminated against in this process,
and I suspect that the source of this email reflects that particular
grievance. Perhaps there is a perfectly innocent reason to explain the
source of signatories, but you could be forgiven for being cynical and
deducing that women in particular have done well in the first round of MTAS.
That would make sense as it's recognised that women, particularly in their
early careers, are far superior to men at the "softer" aspects of
recruitment. This is particularly evident at selection for medical school. I
can't explain, however, the rather unusual ethnic mix - or rather lack of
ethnic mix - seen in this email. Perhaps this is typical of a nationwide
group of consultants, but I doubt it. It is far from typical in London.
The reason I'm being just a little cynical is that you will always find a
group of people who feel they are badly done by when it comes to any
recruitment process. This has been so for years, not just in the last month.
But when you overhaul a system and replace it with something new, it gives
everyone an excuse to "blame the system" whenever they fail to get
recruited. I'm not saying that explains what's going on for all people, but
there is an element of that among many of the protestors. That said, I still
agree that there are lots of problems with MTAS as it stands.
Adrian Fogarty
Training Programme Director, Royal Free Hospital
Honorary Senior Lecturer, University College London
----- Original Message -----
From: "Doc Holiday" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2007 7:27 PM
Subject: Re: ST Interviews
> From: Adrian Fogarty <[log in to unmask]>
> Interesting. I couldn't help noticing that the 27 signatories are almost
> exclusively "white middle-class" males. There is only one woman in the
> whole bunch, and only one non-white name. Also, there are 22 physicians;
> there are four surgeons and one non-medic. No other specialties are
> represented. Most are either professors or presidents of societies, but it
> isn't clear if they signed in person or as representing their society.
> Maybe I'm reading a bit too much into this, but it's interesting
> nonetheless, isn't it?
>
> --> I'm not sure that you're focused on the most interesting bit of this
> piece. Personally, I cosider the content was more "interesting" than the
> list of signatories. I also did not consider it worthwhile to do a
> statistical analysis of the demographics and I hope few others do, or else
> they too might be distracted from the main messages. Additionally, because
> of the poverty of expression afforded us by the medium of e-mail, I am
> concerned that some might mis-interpret your use of the word "interesting"
> as sarcasm and an implication that there is something wrong in having this
> many professors and/or presidents among the signatories. I see no reason
> to respect their opinions less, even if they are speaking on behalf of
> groups...
>
>>Also I'm not sure of the context of this but I presume it was among the
>>BMJ rapid responses.
>
> --> Easy to check, but WHY are you all over the trees and missing the
> forest... which seems to be on fire...
>
>
|