• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Institutional Sexism In Veterinary Medicine

Trausti

Deleted
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
9,784
This graph shows that we've got a lot of work to do to eradicate the systemic and pernicious gender inequality in veterinary medicine. So problematic.

DuAbyKVU4AAul2G.jpg


One may speculate that the reason for the disparity is that men and women have different interests; in countries with greater gender equality this natural difference will become more pronounced. But this cannot be correct. Acceptable contemporary thinking commands that any gender disparity - especially if it results in less representation of women - can only be the consequence of sexism and institutional bias. So, do we need male affirmative action in the veterinary schools?
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
31,182
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
What makes this "institutional"? By saying it's institutional implies it's by design of the veterinary schools.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,550
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
The fact is that it is much harder to get into veterinary school than it is to get into medical school. But not less expensive.

The fact is that it is much more lucrative to become an MD than it is to become a vet.

The fact is that it is much more prestigious to be an MD than it is to be a vet.

The fact is that there is still more pressure on men than women to earn a large income and more pressure within relationships for the male partner to earn more than the female partner.

In my very small observation, vet clinics tend to be more flexible with their work schedules and more accommodating to child care leave and child rearing than are medical clinics.

That is what is at work here, folks. As a society, we expect men to earn more money than women. It is more acceptable for a woman to earn less than a man than the other way around.
 

Jolly_Penguin

Banned
Banned
Joined
Aug 22, 2003
Messages
10,366
Location
South Pole
Basic Beliefs
Skeptic
That is what is at work here, folks. As a society, we expect men to earn more money than women. It is more acceptable for a woman to earn less than a man than the other way around.

You echo Jordan Peterson. He says women "marry up the heirarchy" and are unhappy the other way around, and as more women get better educated than men and earn more, they have a harder time finding "suitable" husband's. I don't buy it.

My sister is the breadwinner in her family. Her husband is a stay at home dad and auto mechanic. They have a happy marriage. Or is she just special?
 

thebeave

Veteran Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2001
Messages
3,505
Location
Silicon Valley, CA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Well, looks like once again the Matriarchy is keeping us down. Time for us men to rise up! I suggest we create a Men's March with lots of signs containing clever rhymes, trendy slogans, and vague goals & demands. We could all wear cute hats too... I suggest blue baseball style hats with penises on top. Whose with me?!
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
19,449
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
The fact is that it is much harder to get into veterinary school than it is to get into medical school. But not less expensive.
Toni, are you sure that it's not the other way around? That it's much harder to get into medical school than into veterinary school?

Patriarchy’s Magic Trick: How Anything Perceived As Women’s Work Immediately Sheds Its Value | Crates and Ribbons which I discuss further in #15 in my Google-dudebro thread. Also #26 there. In a thread on impliciit gender bias, I posted in #2 this: Occupational Feminization and Pay: Assessing Causal Dynamics Using 1950–2000 U.S. Census Data | Social Forces | Oxford Academic online at 88.2.levanon.pdf
Occupations with a greater share of females pay less than those with a lower share, controlling for education and skill. This association is explained by two dominant views: devaluation and queuing. The former views the pay offered in an occupation to affect its female proportion, due to employers' preference for men—a gendered labor queue. The latter argues that the proportion of females in an occupation affects pay, owing to devaluation of work done by women. Only a few past studies used longitudinal data, which is needed to test the theories. We use fixed-effects models, thus controlling for stable characteristics of occupations, and U.S. Census data from 1950 through 2000. We find substantial evidence for the devaluation view, but only scant evidence for the queuing view.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,550
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
The fact is that it is much harder to get into veterinary school than it is to get into medical school. But not less expensive.
Toni, are you sure that it's not the other way around? That it's much harder to get into medical school than into veterinary school?

Patriarchy’s Magic Trick: How Anything Perceived As Women’s Work Immediately Sheds Its Value | Crates and Ribbons which I discuss further in #15 in my Google-dudebro thread. Also #26 there. In a thread on impliciit gender bias, I posted in #2 this: Occupational Feminization and Pay: Assessing Causal Dynamics Using 1950–2000 U.S. Census Data | Social Forces | Oxford Academic online at 88.2.levanon.pdf
Occupations with a greater share of females pay less than those with a lower share, controlling for education and skill. This association is explained by two dominant views: devaluation and queuing. The former views the pay offered in an occupation to affect its female proportion, due to employers' preference for men—a gendered labor queue. The latter argues that the proportion of females in an occupation affects pay, owing to devaluation of work done by women. Only a few past studies used longitudinal data, which is needed to test the theories. We use fixed-effects models, thus controlling for stable characteristics of occupations, and U.S. Census data from 1950 through 2000. We find substantial evidence for the devaluation view, but only scant evidence for the queuing view.

It's what we were always told. For one thing, there are far fewer schools of veterinary medicine than there are medical schools.

It's difficult to make a one/one comparison. Overall acceptance rate for medical schools in the US is about 18%. Sure, some are uber selective, admitting only 6 percent or fewer applicants. Most have a much higher acceptance rate, with the average at about 18%. Vet school acceptance rates are closer to 10-15 percent.

Your point about work being devalued when there is an influx of women is spot on, and something I've noticed for quite some time. Look at how much a physician earns now that there are more women who are physicians. At the same time, the pay for nurses has gone up, as more men have entered the field.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,661
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
It's difficult to make a one/one comparison. Overall acceptance rate for medical schools in the US is about 18%. Sure, some are uber selective, admitting only 6 percent or fewer applicants. Most have a much higher acceptance rate, with the average at about 18%. Vet school acceptance rates are closer to 10-15 percent.

What I would like to know is how many of those vet students are med school rejects or knew they didn't have what it takes to get into med school. Without considering that the data is worthless.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,550
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
It's difficult to make a one/one comparison. Overall acceptance rate for medical schools in the US is about 18%. Sure, some are uber selective, admitting only 6 percent or fewer applicants. Most have a much higher acceptance rate, with the average at about 18%. Vet school acceptance rates are closer to 10-15 percent.

What I would like to know is how many of those vet students are med school rejects or knew they didn't have what it takes to get into med school. Without considering that the data is worthless.

No it’s not.

Anecdote but true: I’ve known people who went to med school because they didn’t get into vet school.
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,066
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
It's difficult to make a one/one comparison. Overall acceptance rate for medical schools in the US is about 18%. Sure, some are uber selective, admitting only 6 percent or fewer applicants. Most have a much higher acceptance rate, with the average at about 18%. Vet school acceptance rates are closer to 10-15 percent.
Comparing acceptance rates is not really a good metric, as the two types of schools might have very different applicant pools.
What are average GPAs of applicants? How does required coursework compare between MD and veterinary schools? Is there something similar to MCAT for veterinary schools. If there isn't, how many veterinary school applicants have taken MCAT? How do their scores compare to MCAT scores of MD school applicants (505-506 for applicants, 510-512 for those who actually get in).

Your point about work being devalued when there is an influx of women is spot on, and something I've noticed for quite some time. Look at how much a physician earns now that there are more women who are physicians. At the same time, the pay for nurses has gone up, as more men have entered the field.
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,330
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
It's difficult to make a one/one comparison. Overall acceptance rate for medical schools in the US is about 18%. Sure, some are uber selective, admitting only 6 percent or fewer applicants. Most have a much higher acceptance rate, with the average at about 18%. Vet school acceptance rates are closer to 10-15 percent.
Comparing acceptance rates is not really a good metric, as the two types of schools might have very different applicant pools.
Since it shows the proportion of applicants who are admitted, it is a good metric. No metric is prefect.
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,066
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
Since it shows the proportion of applicants who are admitted, it is a good metric. No metric is prefect.
It may be a good metric for some things, but it is not a good metric for comparing whether MD or vet schools are more difficult to get in. Without knowing the makeup of the applicant body, the mere acceptance rate says nothing about that question.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,550
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
Since it shows the proportion of applicants who are admitted, it is a good metric. No metric is prefect.
It may be a good metric for some things, but it is not a good metric for comparing whether MD or vet schools are more difficult to get in. Without knowing the makeup of the applicant body, the mere acceptance rate says nothing about that question.

Excuse me?

I reported average acceptance rates of medical schools in the US vs average acceptance rates of vet schools in the US. Those are exactly the criteria that is used to rate how difficult it is to get into say, Harvard vs. Georgia Tech.
 

ruby sparks

Contributor
Joined
Nov 24, 2017
Messages
9,167
Location
Northern Ireland
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
The fact is that it is much harder to get into veterinary school than it is to get into medical school. But not less expensive.
Toni, are you sure that it's not the other way around? That it's much harder to get into medical school than into veterinary school?

Patriarchy’s Magic Trick: How Anything Perceived As Women’s Work Immediately Sheds Its Value | Crates and Ribbons which I discuss further in #15 in my Google-dudebro thread. Also #26 there. In a thread on impliciit gender bias, I posted in #2 this: Occupational Feminization and Pay: Assessing Causal Dynamics Using 1950–2000 U.S. Census Data | Social Forces | Oxford Academic online at 88.2.levanon.pdf
Occupations with a greater share of females pay less than those with a lower share, controlling for education and skill. This association is explained by two dominant views: devaluation and queuing. The former views the pay offered in an occupation to affect its female proportion, due to employers' preference for men—a gendered labor queue. The latter argues that the proportion of females in an occupation affects pay, owing to devaluation of work done by women. Only a few past studies used longitudinal data, which is needed to test the theories. We use fixed-effects models, thus controlling for stable characteristics of occupations, and U.S. Census data from 1950 through 2000. We find substantial evidence for the devaluation view, but only scant evidence for the queuing view.

Excellent and interesting material there. I have to say that whilst I can see the two phemonena (devaluation and queuing) as plausible, and would not be surprised if they were the case, I'm not convinced that they were demonstrated, in that material.

Veterinary medicine would seem like a very good candidate for study on that basis though, given the graph presented in the thread.
 

J842P

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Messages
4,137
Location
USA, California
Basic Beliefs
godless heathen
It's difficult to make a one/one comparison. Overall acceptance rate for medical schools in the US is about 18%. Sure, some are uber selective, admitting only 6 percent or fewer applicants. Most have a much higher acceptance rate, with the average at about 18%. Vet school acceptance rates are closer to 10-15 percent.

What I would like to know is how many of those vet students are med school rejects or knew they didn't have what it takes to get into med school. Without considering that the data is worthless.

In my experience there is very little intersection bewteen people who are interested in being vets and people interested in being doctors.
 

ruby sparks

Contributor
Joined
Nov 24, 2017
Messages
9,167
Location
Northern Ireland
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
The fact is that it is much harder to get into veterinary school than it is to get into medical school. But not less expensive.
Toni, are you sure that it's not the other way around? That it's much harder to get into medical school than into veterinary school?

Patriarchy’s Magic Trick: How Anything Perceived As Women’s Work Immediately Sheds Its Value | Crates and Ribbons which I discuss further in #15 in my Google-dudebro thread. Also #26 there. In a thread on impliciit gender bias, I posted in #2 this: Occupational Feminization and Pay: Assessing Causal Dynamics Using 1950–2000 U.S. Census Data | Social Forces | Oxford Academic online at 88.2.levanon.pdf
Occupations with a greater share of females pay less than those with a lower share, controlling for education and skill. This association is explained by two dominant views: devaluation and queuing. The former views the pay offered in an occupation to affect its female proportion, due to employers' preference for men—a gendered labor queue. The latter argues that the proportion of females in an occupation affects pay, owing to devaluation of work done by women. Only a few past studies used longitudinal data, which is needed to test the theories. We use fixed-effects models, thus controlling for stable characteristics of occupations, and U.S. Census data from 1950 through 2000. We find substantial evidence for the devaluation view, but only scant evidence for the queuing view.

Googling around, I found quite a lot of material about this, much of which I think fits into what is called 'gender devaluation theory'.

This paper, for example, seems to support the conclusions of the one you cited:

The feminization of occupations and change in wages: a panel analysis of Britain, Germany and Switzerland
https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/107004/1/817839763.pdf

Here is an illustrative graph for Britain, measured over a range of occupations:

Screen Shot 2018-12-17 at 11.13.53.png

Similar conclusions are reached in the paper below (which I cannot access in full):

UP THE DOWN STAIRCASE
Women's Upward Mobility and the Wage Penalty for Occupational Feminization, 1970-2007
https://academic.oup.com/sf/article-abstract/91/4/1183/2235777?redirectedFrom=PDF

This next paper introduces issues of race into devaluation theory, suggesting that it is relevant to both gender and race:

MAN UP, MAN DOWN
Race-ethnicity and the Hierarchy of Men in Female-dominated Work
https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/74fhn/

The paper below on the other hand, claims that evidence for gender devaluation theory is scant and that differences can be explained by other theories (in particular gender role theory):

"Our findings are thus at odds with devaluation theory but consonant with sociological gender role theory which argues that men internalize a breadwinner role during adolescence to a higher degree than women which they then act upon when entering college and choosing their fields of study. Consequently, men disproportionately self-select into fields of study such as engineering which primarily provide economic resources and thus pay high wages, whereas women disproportionately self-select into fields like Philology and Pedagogy which are better compatible with the traditionally female identity derived from the housewife role where making money is much more peripheral than in the male breadwinner role. "

Why do women’s fields of study pay less?
(A test of devaluation, human capital, and gender role theory).
https://academic.oup.com/esr/article-abstract/30/4/536/2763463?redirectedFrom=fulltext

Among the interesting metaphors I came across were the 'glass elevator' which suggests that one advantage for men entering female-dominated professions is that they are more likely to be promoted to senior positions, on account of such roles being seen as 'more masculine'. Another was 'tipping point' which suggests that men will 'flee' (or be less likely to enter) professions as they become more feminized (have increasing proportions of women). This seems not dissimilar to the phenomenon of 'white flight' in the housing market, for which I imagine there is a version of devaluation theory also.

This paper also claims that gender devaluation theory does not seem to apply to prestige:

Gender, Occupational Prestige, and Wages: A Test of Devaluation Theory
http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2:184926&dswid=-8298

As far as I can see from googling around, there does seem to be general agreement on one thing, that such effects, whatever causes or caused them, are in decline, and that gender is playing a decreasing role in relation to discrepancies and inequalities in employment generally. If true, that would be the underlying upside, I guess.
 
Last edited:

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,330
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
Since it shows the proportion of applicants who are admitted, it is a good metric. No metric is prefect.
It may be a good metric for some things, but it is not a good metric for comparing whether MD or vet schools are more difficult to get in. Without knowing the makeup of the applicant body, the mere acceptance rate says nothing about that question.
The acceptance rate shows the proportion of applicants who are accepted divided by the number of applicants. A lower acceptance rate indicates that a smaller proportion of people who wish to be accepted into the school are accepted. It clearer measures the hard difficult it is to be accepted into the institution(s) relative to the pools of applicants. To claim otherwise is to deny both fact and reason.
 

AirPoh

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2018
Messages
1,129
Location
Connecticut
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Since it shows the proportion of applicants who are admitted, it is a good metric. No metric is prefect.
It may be a good metric for some things, but it is not a good metric for comparing whether MD or vet schools are more difficult to get in. Without knowing the makeup of the applicant body, the mere acceptance rate says nothing about that question.

Excuse me?

I reported average acceptance rates of medical schools in the US vs average acceptance rates of vet schools in the US. Those are exactly the criteria that is used to rate how difficult it is to get into say, Harvard vs. Georgia Tech.

Don't pick on Harvard. But I do agree that acceptance rate, in and of itself, is not a good metric. If the ratio of applicants to available enrollment is 5 to 1, you expect about a 20% rate. If it's 10 to 1 you'd expect about a 10 % rate. So if there are far fewer vet schools you'd expect a lower acceptance rate just based on the numbers. On the other hand, a 1 in 10 chance is harder than a 1 in 5 chance. So maybe it's not the metric, but what's it's measuring.
 
Last edited:

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,550
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
Excuse me?

I reported average acceptance rates of medical schools in the US vs average acceptance rates of vet schools in the US. Those are exactly the criteria that is used to rate how difficult it is to get into say, Harvard vs. Georgia Tech.

Don't pick on Harvard. But I do agree that acceptance rate, in and of itself, is not a good metric. If the ratio of applicants to available enrollment is 5 to 1, you expect about a 20% rate. If it's 10 to 1 you'd expect about a 10 % rate. So if there are far fewer vet schools you'd expect a lower acceptance rate just based on the numbers. On the other hand, a 1 in 10 chance is harder than a 1 in 5 chance. So maybe it's not the metric, but what's it's measuring.

Admissions rates are exactly what is used to measure the selectivity of schools. I didn’t invent this.
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,066
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
The acceptance rate shows the proportion of applicants who are accepted divided by the number of applicants.
Thank you, Captain Obvious.
A lower acceptance rate indicates that a smaller proportion of people who wish to be accepted into the school are accepted.
Yes. And that's the only thing it indicates really.
It clearer measures the hard difficult it is to be accepted into the institution(s) relative to the pools of applicants.
"Relative to the pool of applicants". Exactly.
That's the problem with it. You need comparable pools of applicants. And if you are comparing different kinds of professional schools, you obviously have very different pools of applicants.

To claim otherwise is to deny both fact and reason.
Well good thing then I never did. I merely pointed out that it was a poor metric for comparing difficulty of getting into MD versus vet schools.
 
Last edited:

ronburgundy

Contributor
Joined
Dec 6, 2014
Messages
5,757
Location
Whale's Vagina
Basic Beliefs
Atheist/Scientist
Overall acceptance rate for medical schools in the US is about 18%.

Where are you getting 18%? I am seeing closer to 8% overall acceptance rates at med schools, with only a few above 10% the more selective schools having rates under 2%.

Also, med school applicants are already a smaller and more selective group of college graduates who took the MCAT which is required for med school rather than the far more common and easy GRE, which is what vet schools use. Both tests entail verbal reasoning and verbal skills but the GRE requires little more than that other than very basic geometry and algebra on the Quantitative section. The MCAT requires detailed knowledge and understanding of theories and methods in Chemistry, Physics, Biology, Biochem, Organic-Chem, plus some Psychology and sociology. The MCAT is far more entensive requiring a greater breadth of mastery of tough science subjects, which is why it takes more than twice as long to complete as the GRE. IOW, a non-science major with solid basic reading and writing skills taught in high school could do well on the GRE without any special preparations, whereas they would fail badly on the MCAT.

Vet school admission is still tough, b/c it requires similar science course prerequisites, plus field experience that med school admission doesn't. But vet school applicants are just required to pass those science courses, whereas med school applicants have to be able to also demonstrate minimal mastery and retention of that knowledge, plus knowledge not covered in those courses.

Put another way, even if your suspect acceptance figures are correct, acceptance rates have no meaningful comparison between med and vet school, b/c the other people you are competing against are not from the same pool of the population. Out performing 90% of the people who take the GRE is much easier (requires less skill and preparation) than outperforming 85% of the people who take the MCAT.
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,066
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
I reported average acceptance rates of medical schools in the US vs average acceptance rates of vet schools in the US.
Yes, you did. But those are two different types of professional schools with very different applicant pools. So acceptance rates tell us next to nothing about which one is more difficult to get into for any given individual applicant.

Those are exactly the criteria that is used to rate how difficult it is to get into say, Harvard vs. Georgia Tech.
I assume you are talking undergraduate admissions here. Compared to MD schools vs. vet schools you are dealing with less different applicant pools.
But even regarding undergrad admissions, applicant pools for different schools are somewhat different, reducing the usefulness of comparing acceptance rates. Simply put: an average applicant at Tech is not the same as an average applicant at Harvard. Given how famous Harvard is in popular culture, I am sure they get a lot more "hopeless" application than less famous universities.
Look at it another way. Fort Valley State University and Georgia Tech have the same acceptance rate, 26%. Yet, Fort Valley is much easier to get into. For example, typical SATs are [R/W 380-470, Math 390-470] (i.e., really, really horrible, ~10th-25th percentile) compared to [R/W 640-730, Math 680-770] (i.e. quite good, 90th-99th percentile) for Tech. Harvard has even higher SAT scores, but not nearly as much as acceptance rate would suggest. You get a similar acceptance rate because students applying to Tech vs. Fort Valley are very different from each other, not because these two schools are equally difficult to get into. What you could say is that the average Tech and FV applicants are similar in how they judge their own strength as an applicant. Compared to them, an average Harvard applicant (acceptance rate 5%) has an entirely too high an opinion of themselves. ;)

So, while comparing acceptance rates among undergrad schools is better than what you were doing, average GPA/SAT scores and other objective metrics are much better at gauging your chances of being accepted at either school.
What you would need to do is take the same applicant (say, 3.8 GPA, 3.6 science GPA, 510 MCAT) and compare their changes at a MD school vs. vet school.

Yes, I know colleges like Harvard love to advertise using the acceptance rate. That doesn't make it an objectively good metric.
 
Last edited:

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,550
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
Overall acceptance rate for medical schools in the US is about 18%.

Where are you getting 18%? I am seeing closer to 8% overall acceptance rates at med schools, with only a few above 10% the more selective schools having rates under 2%.

Also, med school applicants are already a smaller and more selective group of college graduates who took the MCAT which is required for med school rather than the far more common and easy GRE, which is what vet schools use. Both tests entail verbal reasoning and verbal skills but the GRE requires little more than that other than very basic geometry and algebra on the Quantitative section. The MCAT requires detailed knowledge and understanding of theories and methods in Chemistry, Physics, Biology, Biochem, Organic-Chem, plus some Psychology and sociology. The MCAT is far more entensive requiring a greater breadth of mastery of tough science subjects, which is why it takes more than twice as long to complete as the GRE. IOW, a non-science major with solid basic reading and writing skills taught in high school could do well on the GRE without any special preparations, whereas they would fail badly on the MCAT.

Vet school admission is still tough, b/c it requires similar science course prerequisites, plus field experience that med school admission doesn't. But vet school applicants are just required to pass those science courses, whereas med school applicants have to be able to also demonstrate minimal mastery and retention of that knowledge, plus knowledge not covered in those courses.

Put another way, even if your suspect acceptance figures are correct, acceptance rates have no meaningful comparison between med and vet school, b/c the other people you are competing against are not from the same pool of the population. Out performing 90% of the people who take the GRE is much easier (requires less skill and preparation) than outperforming 85% of the people who take the MCAT.

Vet schools do use the GRE. However most students who take the GRE do not apply to Vet school. Vet school applicants are what we are looking at.

I am not certain what criteria you use to determine that the GRE is 'much easier' than the MCAT. Some vet schools accept the MCAT instead of the GRE but not all do.

GRE is comprised of general GRE portion but there are also subject area GRE tests. Many vet schools require the Biology GRE test to be taken.

Here's some info for you:

https://www.avma.org/public/Careers/Pages/vet-school-admission-101.aspx

FWIW, the science courses recommended for medical school are exactly the same as the science courses recommended for vet school ---or for grad school in biology and chemistry. I know. I've taken those courses.

In fact, I've taken more of those courses (and received top marks) than some students I know who went on to medical school or vet school. In fact, in my parasitology course, the prof took a poll to see how many were planning to pursue careers in veterinary medicine vs human medical medicine so that she could best determine the focus of the course: parasites that primarily affect animals or humans. For myself, I did research in parasitology related to a parasite that affects cattle, as well research re: Borrelia burgdorferi, the organism responsible for Lyme disease. I've known at least one English major who went to medical school but all those I know who went to vet school were biology or zoology majors, usually with concentrations in cell and molecular biology.

I realize that some people believe that only the smartest people even attempt to get into medical school and that anyone who applies to any other kind of program is less intelligent or less knowledgeable or less dedicated. That's simply untrue. Brilliant people pursue many different areas of study. Including: gasp! liberal arts!!! Oh, the horror!!!

One of the smartest people I've ever known actually applied to and was accepted at medical school mostly to spite her parents. Ultimately, she made the better choice for herself and went to graduate school in mathematics. I realize that will make some people's heads explode but it was the right choice for this particular woman who didn't really like biology very much and took physics and math classes for fun and considered chemistry to be light course work.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,550
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
I reported average acceptance rates of medical schools in the US vs average acceptance rates of vet schools in the US.
Yes, you did. But those are two different types of professional schools with very different applicant pools. So acceptance rates tell us next to nothing about which one is more difficult to get into for any given individual applicant.

Those are exactly the criteria that is used to rate how difficult it is to get into say, Harvard vs. Georgia Tech.
I assume you are talking undergraduate admissions here. Compared to MD schools vs. vet schools you are dealing with less different applicant pools.
But even regarding undergrad admissions, applicant pools for different schools are somewhat different, reducing the usefulness of comparing acceptance rates. Simply put: an average applicant at Tech is not the same as an average applicant at Harvard. Given how famous Harvard is in popular culture, I am sure they get a lot more "hopeless" application than less famous universities.
Look at it another way. Fort Valley State University and Georgia Tech have the same acceptance rate, 26%. Yet, Fort Valley is much easier to get into. For example, typical SATs are [R/W 380-470, Math 390-470] (i.e., really, really horrible, ~10th-25th percentile) compared to [R/W 640-730, Math 680-770] (i.e. quite good, 90th-99th percentile) for Tech. Harvard has even higher SAT scores, but not nearly as much as acceptance rate would suggest. You get a similar acceptance rate because students applying to Tech vs. Fort Valley are very different from each other, not because these two schools are equally difficult to get into. What you could say is that the average Tech and FV applicants are similar in how they judge their own strength as an applicant. Compared to them, an average Harvard applicant (acceptance rate 5%) has an entirely too high an opinion of themselves. ;)

So, while comparing acceptance rates among undergrad schools is better than what you were doing, average GPA/SAT scores and other objective metrics are much better at gauging your chances of being accepted at either school.
What you would need to do is take the same applicant (say, 3.8 GPA, 3.6 science GPA, 510 MCAT) and compare their changes at a MD school vs. vet school.

Yes, I know colleges like Harvard love to advertise using the acceptance rate. That doesn't make it an objectively good metric.

The applicant pools are really not that different. The students take the same types of courses and usually the exact same courses as undergrads.

I really don't think you understand what acceptance rates mean or the implications, however much you try to cite the definitions and to compare.

The standard measure of how difficult it is to get into any university or program is the acceptance rate. That's the number of applicants accepted/total number of applicants. There is a lot of self selection going on here, and in the case of medical school and of Harvard, there's also a lot of ego also involved. From my experience, people who choose to apply to vet school do so because they sincerely love animals and love working with them. People go to medical school for a lot of reasons that have nothing to do with how much they like people or how much they want to do good in the world. Oh, sure: the best, most successful physicians are those who love their work, who put patients at the center of their practice and who want to provide the best treatment and the best possible outcomes for their patients. But a decent number of people go to medical school for the prestige and for the money. Vets never earn that much money. They do it for the love of the field.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,550
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
It's difficult to make a one/one comparison. Overall acceptance rate for medical schools in the US is about 18%. Sure, some are uber selective, admitting only 6 percent or fewer applicants. Most have a much higher acceptance rate, with the average at about 18%. Vet school acceptance rates are closer to 10-15 percent.

What I would like to know is how many of those vet students are med school rejects or knew they didn't have what it takes to get into med school. Without considering that the data is worthless.

In my experience there is very little intersection bewteen people who are interested in being vets and people interested in being doctors.

That's true. Most people who want to be vets know early on that is what they want to do. Same with most people who apply to med school.

But the undergrad coursework is identical, with the exception that perhaps more prospective medical students take more psychology classes than prospective vet school candidates. Psychology classes are considered to be much less difficult than high level math or science courses.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,661
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Excuse me?

I reported average acceptance rates of medical schools in the US vs average acceptance rates of vet schools in the US. Those are exactly the criteria that is used to rate how difficult it is to get into say, Harvard vs. Georgia Tech.

Don't pick on Harvard. But I do agree that acceptance rate, in and of itself, is not a good metric. If the ratio of applicants to available enrollment is 5 to 1, you expect about a 20% rate. If it's 10 to 1 you'd expect about a 10 % rate. So if there are far fewer vet schools you'd expect a lower acceptance rate just based on the numbers. On the other hand, a 1 in 10 chance is harder than a 1 in 5 chance. So maybe it's not the metric, but what's it's measuring.

Objection: The number of schools is irrelevant. What counts is the number of slots vs the number of people who want to get in.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,330
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
Well good thing then I never did. I merely pointed out that it was a poor metric for comparing difficulty of getting into MD versus vet schools.
No, it is not.

The simple fact is that there are far fewer vet schools (30) than medical schools (141 M.D. and 30 D.O) in the USA, which means there are substantial fewer slots for vet students. So even if every person who applied to medical school also applied to vet school, the acceptance rate for med school would be higher because there are more slots available.

It really is that simple. And yet, we have people who feel the need to deny that simple reality.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,550
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
Excuse me?

I reported average acceptance rates of medical schools in the US vs average acceptance rates of vet schools in the US. Those are exactly the criteria that is used to rate how difficult it is to get into say, Harvard vs. Georgia Tech.

Don't pick on Harvard. But I do agree that acceptance rate, in and of itself, is not a good metric. If the ratio of applicants to available enrollment is 5 to 1, you expect about a 20% rate. If it's 10 to 1 you'd expect about a 10 % rate. So if there are far fewer vet schools you'd expect a lower acceptance rate just based on the numbers. On the other hand, a 1 in 10 chance is harder than a 1 in 5 chance. So maybe it's not the metric, but what's it's measuring.

Objection: The number of schools is irrelevant. What counts is the number of slots vs the number of people who want to get in.

Vet schools are not larger than med schools. There are many fewer vet schools in the US than there are med schools. There are many fewer slots for prospective vet students than there are for med students. It’s just simply numbers.

B
 

scombrid

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2001
Messages
847
Location
Florida
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
What I would like to know is how many of those vet students are med school rejects or knew they didn't have what it takes to get into med school. Without considering that the data is worthless.

You could Google that. Most vet schools have their incoming class profiles public (GRE scores, GPA stats, etc...)

Schools like University of Pennsylvania, Virginia-Maryland College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Florida are highly competitive.

Applicants need to have a 3.5-4.0 GPA in a pre-med type biology degree and GRE scores >90th percentile.

Most schools set a 3.0 GPA as the floor with nothing below a C on any course in the last 45 hours of undergrad even getting a look.

Oh, and you have to have a fuck ton of internship hours as an undergrad.

Then there is the interview process.

Fact is, it is a shit job considering how hard it is to get into and then complete school with med-school equivalent tuition and fees.

You can't make a decent living at it unless you own a practice and then you are stuck managing a business more than practicing medicine.

You come out of school and get a job as a Dr. with one of those shit "Banfield" Value Vet chains and you are fucks. Salary won't even pay the interest on your student loans.
 

scombrid

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2001
Messages
847
Location
Florida
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
We are seeing a similar trend in science in general. In 2017 women made up 50.7 percent of first year med school students.

Marine Biology has become very female, even the traditional male dominated world of Fisheries Science.

Hell, I saw a huge shift at a cow college (VaTech) in the 4 years that I was there. Went from like 60/40 M/F to 45/55 for my freshman class to the freshman class that was starting during my senior year. Engineering, Ag, Biotech, and Natural Resources schools saw some huge demographic shifts.
 

untermensche

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
24,504
Location
Here
Basic Beliefs
magic mood ring
What I would like to know is how many of those vet students are med school rejects or knew they didn't have what it takes to get into med school. Without considering that the data is worthless.

You could Google that. Most vet schools have their incoming class profiles public (GRE scores, GPA stats, etc...)

Schools like University of Pennsylvania, Virginia-Maryland College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Florida are highly competitive.

Applicants need to have a 3.5-4.0 GPA in a pre-med type biology degree and GRE scores >90th percentile.

Most schools set a 3.0 GPA as the floor with nothing below a C on any course in the last 45 hours of undergrad even getting a look.

Oh, and you have to have a fuck ton of internship hours as an undergrad.

Then there is the interview process.

Fact is, it is a shit job considering how hard it is to get into and then complete school with med-school equivalent tuition and fees.

You can't make a decent living at it unless you own a practice and then you are stuck managing a business more than practicing medicine.

You come out of school and get a job as a Dr. with one of those shit "Banfield" Value Vet chains and you are fucks. Salary won't even pay the interest on your student loans.

Part of that is because doctors are part of the health care economy and vets are not.

The health care economy is a protected economy and doctors are able to get money for difficult procedures because of insurance. They are getting less and less because they are not in control. But they are able to get paid for difficult procedures or for doing things that require a lot of training and skill.

Vets have a limit to what they can do. Difficult expensive procedures need to be paid for by the owner.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,550
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
But is it sexism, or indeed institutional sexism? That's the question.

My opinion with no time to look for citations to back it up.

Women have made tremendous gains in some traditionally male occupations in the last 10-20 years. These include especially medicine, research and laboratory medicine (although they still lag in some areas of research) and veterinary medicine.

I think that there are a few reasons for this. The first, most obvious reason is that there has been a much larger, more obvious effort to promote interest of girls in science and a larger recognition on the parts of society, universities and professional programs that increasing participation of females is good for society and good for demonstrating that you are not biased against women.

At the same time all of this positive attention towards the need to increase girls' participation in science and education in general, there has been a marked drop off in positive attention towards boys' participation in science and education in general. This, coupled with an increasing number of female headed households where children have little or only sporadic contact with their fathers, has not worked well to boost the confidence of boys.

We need to encourage the participation of all students in math, science, literacy, the arts, social sciences, etc.


My husband and I have spent a lot of time discussing our different experiences as elementary and secondary students. I have strong memories of being told that my perfect math scores meant that I was 'lucky' and hearing over and over that boys were better at math and science, despite the fact that I usually had the top score in any math or science class I took and that generally, two of the top 3 scorers in my schools were female. My husband recalls the negative attitudes he faced as a boy for needing to be physically active rather than sitting quietly at a desk, and the general attitude that girls were well behaved and boys were not.

The terrible fact is that at least for the last 30 years and probably for longer, elementary school children have less recess time, barely have 20 minutes for lunch, including time waiting in lines. Home lives have altered so that it is very uncommon for children of working or middle class homes to come home at 3:00 to a parent who will give them a snack and then send them outside to burn off some more energy. Children are increasingly in structured group settings from shortly after birth until they are finished with high school, either because they graduated or dropped out. There is little time to explore independently, to daydream, to run around and invent your own games or play pick up games of any sort. Most free time is devoted to screens. In poorer neighborhoods, they are often unsafe enough that parents keep their kids indoors in order to keep them as safe as possible.

Not only have children become fatter, they are increasingly likely to be diagnosed and medicated for all sorts of learning disorders and hyper active and attention deficit behaviors. My thesis is that this hits boys harder even than it hits girls. Schools are more likely to have every second of school time devoted to structured 'learning' involving butts in seats, with compliance to be more and more emphasized. Middle class and above structure their kids every waking moments in sport and structured lessons. Y's and after school programs and boys and girls clubs try hard to make up the difference in programming for less fortunate kids but don't reach every kid. Kids are parked in front of screens from a very early preschool age onward.

This is not a way to raise any child and in general, it hits boys harder as they are more driven to the need for physical activity. Girls are, too, but my observation from raising male and female children is that boys tend to need to run around even more than girls. And folks, I spent hours riding bikes, running around, climbing trees, exploring woods and meadows. The time I wasn't doing those things, I was in school, doing chores and mostly reading. I read a LOT. My husband did the big city version of these things. Most kids walked to school. In my small town, virtually no child will ever walk to school anymore as neighborhood schools are shuttered in favor of large schools located away from anybody's neighborhood.

Women have always been talented in the areas of math and science although that talent has seldom been recognized, much less developed or utilized. This is changing. I would expect there to be a more equal distribution of participation in math and science between the sexes.

But boys are taking a hit and we need to stop this. Not by taking away from girls but by building up boys again, as they were built up in my generation and the generations before.

Having said all of that, as a society, we need to do a much better job structuring our society, our world, to nurture and serve the needs of all of our children and young people---and meet the needs of older folks, as well. If we do that, all of us will better have our needs met and be able to more fully utilize our talents and enjoy our lives and serve society.
 

AirPoh

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2018
Messages
1,129
Location
Connecticut
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Excuse me?

I reported average acceptance rates of medical schools in the US vs average acceptance rates of vet schools in the US. Those are exactly the criteria that is used to rate how difficult it is to get into say, Harvard vs. Georgia Tech.

Don't pick on Harvard. But I do agree that acceptance rate, in and of itself, is not a good metric. If the ratio of applicants to available enrollment is 5 to 1, you expect about a 20% rate. If it's 10 to 1 you'd expect about a 10 % rate. So if there are far fewer vet schools you'd expect a lower acceptance rate just based on the numbers. On the other hand, a 1 in 10 chance is harder than a 1 in 5 chance. So maybe it's not the metric, but what's it's measuring.

Objection: The number of schools is irrelevant. What counts is the number of slots vs the number of people who want to get in.

The number of slots is going to be determined by the number of schools.

The point is using acceptance rates to compare med school to vet school is a very poor metric. But acceptance rates does work well for comparing Harvard to Yale and Princeton.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,550
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
Yes, I know colleges like Harvard love to advertise using the acceptance rate. That doesn't make it an objectively good metric.

Derec, this is the metric that is used in discussions on this forum by pretty much everybody when talking about affirmative action, selectivity, etc. Admissions rates. You, yourself like to compare admissions rates for female vs male students, POC applicants vs white applicants vs Asian applicants.
 

scombrid

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2001
Messages
847
Location
Florida
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Part of that is because doctors are part of the health care economy and vets are not.

The health care economy is a protected economy and doctors are able to get money for difficult procedures because of insurance. They are getting less and less because they are not in control. But they are able to get paid for difficult procedures or for doing things that require a lot of training and skill.

Vets have a limit to what they can do. Difficult expensive procedures need to be paid for by the owner.

The "Blue Juice" definitely keeps costs in check in veterinary medicine.

Insurance as currently structured is a massive inflator for human medicine. There isn't a tax subsidized (like my insurance that is paid by my employer without that compensation being taxed as income) third party payer involved. The Vet Clinic/Hospital is paid directly for service rendered. You know exactly what you are paying and for what.

The insurance scam has been trying to push its way into veterinary medicine but it is a fringe thing right now like "extended warrantees" sold at applicance/electronics stores and isn't really making a dent in the market or price structure.

Human medicine would be a lot cheaper and generally a better value for outcome to cost ratio if you paid for what you could afford direct to medical providers and then blue juiced out when something really expensive came along. Of course we won't generally blue juice a 50 year old person with a bad back whereas that snippy little 9 year old dachshund might killed with a blown disc. (We have a 14 year old Dachshund that blew a disc at age 8. His family was going to kill him but we rehabbed him and also had a $5000 fund set aside in case he went down again). It is crazy how cheap ACL reconstruction and back surgery are for dogs. There isn't a human life at stake but the technology and skill needed to do it right are the same.

- - - Updated - - -

But is it sexism, or indeed institutional sexism? That's the question.

No and I don't think that is the point of the opening post.

Opening post is arguing opposite in a way; providing an example of an unbalance that is not a result of an institutional bias so as to argue that claims of institutional bias are without merit.
 

scombrid

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2001
Messages
847
Location
Florida
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Toni gets into what is biasing the make up of the talent pool that is applying to graduate schools in science; something I started to do when I posted my anecdote about demographic shifts at my old school.
 

untermensche

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
24,504
Location
Here
Basic Beliefs
magic mood ring
Insurance is not a scam.

A nationalized health insurance system that most people used would speed a lot of things up and tighten control on reimbursement to doctors.

Frankly I want the surgeon doing my CABG well paid and very happy.

And I want the skilled medical professions to be very well paid so that they attract the best and competition for the specialty is fierce.

I would like to also see a nationalized malpractice service to cheapen malpractice insurance.

I want the doctors better taken care of then the bankers.
 

ruby sparks

Contributor
Joined
Nov 24, 2017
Messages
9,167
Location
Northern Ireland
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
"Modern computer science is a male-dominated field. A survey reveals that 92% of software engineers are men. But it hasn’t always been this way.

Did you know that there was once a time when computer programming was a women’s field?"


http://www.sysgen.com.ph/articles/why-women-stopped-coding/27216

Screen Shot 2018-12-18 at 16.27.03.png

"It turns out programming is hard, and women are actually just as good at it as men.

What changed?

On the part of the male programmers, there was a deliberate, concerted effort to elevate their work out of the “women’s work” category.

They formed professional associations and discouraged the hiring of women. There were even advertisements framing women as error prone and inefficient."
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,550
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
Insurance is not a scam.

A nationalized health insurance system that most people used would speed a lot of things up and tighten control on reimbursement to doctors.

Frankly I want the surgeon doing my CABG well paid and very happy.

And I want the skilled medical professions to be very well paid so that they attract the best and competition for the specialty is fierce.

I would like to also see a nationalized malpractice service to cheapen malpractice insurance.

I want the doctors better taken care of then the bankers.

The bulk of the cost of medical care is not the care itself nor is it the cost of medicines ( usually). A tremendous portion of every dollar spent towards medical expenses actually pays for administrative costs, including billing insurance and patients.
 

untermensche

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
24,504
Location
Here
Basic Beliefs
magic mood ring
Insurance is not a scam.

A nationalized health insurance system that most people used would speed a lot of things up and tighten control on reimbursement to doctors.

Frankly I want the surgeon doing my CABG well paid and very happy.

And I want the skilled medical professions to be very well paid so that they attract the best and competition for the specialty is fierce.

I would like to also see a nationalized malpractice service to cheapen malpractice insurance.

I want the doctors better taken care of then the bankers.

The bulk of the cost of medical care is not the care itself nor is it the cost of medicines ( usually). A tremendous portion of every dollar spent towards medical expenses actually pays for administrative costs, including billing insurance and patients.

And single payer systems are more efficient.

Right now we have levels of care depending on insurance.

If you have insurance you are going to get things a person without insurance will not get.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,330
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
Objection: The number of schools is irrelevant. What counts is the number of slots vs the number of people who want to get in.
Objections -there are at least 4.5 times as many med schools as vet schools (closer to 6 if you count DO schools). Do you have any evidence that entering classes are 4.5 to 6 times larger in vet schools than med schools? Until you post such evidence, your responses are irrelevant.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,661
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Objection: The number of schools is irrelevant. What counts is the number of slots vs the number of people who want to get in.

Vet schools are not larger than med schools. There are many fewer vet schools in the US than there are med schools. There are many fewer slots for prospective vet students than there are for med students. It’s just simply numbers.

B

Then schools are a reasonable proxy for slots. It's slots vs demand that matters, though. Don't obsess on the proxies.
 
Top Bottom