I like battleship design. I don't know why. I especially like the early Dreadnought battlecruisers and battleships, before such ships became mainly floating anti-aircraft batteries. there is a purity in a ship built to move around heavy artillery and designed to withstand that same weapon.
There is a marked difference in the approach of the German and English ship designers. England was first with the all big gun ship, the Dreadnought, and hence the lasting name of the type. As the power with the biggest navy and colonial empire they had concerns about numbers and seaworthiness. They were not so big on the details of performance , however. Instead, there are repeated references to the beauty of a particular ship, its 'balance' or its 'stateliness'. Nothing about armor, or range finders, or bulkheads. Just adjectives that might be describing a woman, or an admired pet.
The Germans took a very different tack. They built entire sections of their designs and then tested them by firing guns and torpedos at them at short range. They applied the lessons learned and redesigned their ships. as a result they were behind in numbers and time with regard to Dreadnought battleships, and were viewed with a mix of amusement, disdain and fear by the British. German Dreadnoughts were slow, squat, ugly, ungainly.
Yes, that they were. But a battleship is not a piece of art. It is a ship meant to destory other ships and in the process keep from being destroyed. While the strategic results of a battle and a war reflect plans and numbers as much as quality, quality is reflected in single ship action. Well.....
At Jutland, Britain's beautiful battlecruisers fought at a 6:5 numerical advantage against German battlesruisers. In 15 minutes time TWO British ships had been sunk, both having their magazines exploded by a German shell penetrating the turrets. 15 minutes to kill 2500 men. A little later a third was destroyed in the same way. The Germans lost one battlecruiser, scuttled by the Germans themselves as unsalvageable even though it had not sunk. One of their battlecruisers, the Seydlitz, was exceptionally badly damaged, but limped home to be repaired. Another German battlecruiser, the Goeben, was given as a gift to Turkey in 1914. She survived in complete operational condition into the early '60s.
In 1941 another British battlecruiser, the Hood, was detroyed just like the others- a single shot to a magazine. And the Hood was called graceful, lean, etc, etc. She was considered one of the most beautiful ships in the world, and for over 20 years she was the largest ship in the world. And she was sunk by a single shell. All these ships make nice models. But they were lousy fighting ships.
At my reunion my school boasted that the incoming class was 50-50 men and women. And I asked why was that considered an achievement. I was told the school strives for diversity and fairness. Oh. I thought the school was trying to admit the best candidates.
In orchestral and vocal auditions the judges can not see you. They are behind a screen. You are judged solely on musical ability. They don't know if you are young, old, male or female (allowing for vocal type), black, white, Asian, a child. These judges are interested only in hiring the finest players and singers they can find. Not a white chorus, or a diverse chorus, etc, etc.
Choosing students to admit to one of the very finest medical schools in the world based on their sex or race is just like evaluating battleships on their 'balance', grace, lean lines and stateliness. Appearances are irrelevant. The issue is whether a school capaable of choosing from the finest applicant pool in the US really chooses the finest applicants, or sets out to create a certain 'balance'.
Let's look at 'balance' in performance, just like ships at Jutland. balance sounds great, looks great, but does it work in practice. Just like at Jutland, the answer is no. That is a politically incorrect thing to say, and so no one in authority says it, but our efforts at balance are leading to critical trouble.
In Ob/Gyn, where 85% of residents are female, the female grads stop OB much, much earlier than their male colleagues. Men in Ob/Gyn perceive so much resistance from their colleagues and patients that they switch specialities in residency at a significantly higher rate than other specialties or than women in Ob/Gyn. So what, you may say. Society wants female Ob/Gyns. Really? Sure about that? 63% of women prefer a male Gyn surgeon when they need surgery. Still sure? Age matched Ob/Gyns find men outproducing women by 20%. And women drop out of Ob shockingly early. We have a looming and troubling shortage of Obs because of this. It has come to the attention of our college, but there has been no solution posed, other than to make the perfectly ridiculous statement that there is no prejudice against men in Ob/Gyn.
How about other speciallties? I work with our transitional residents, doctors doing a rotating internship year before going into specialized fields like ophthalmology, radiology or dermatology. These spots are coveted by women because of their easy hours, lack of hospital work and lack of call. All people desire work-life balance, but these things should not be drivers in choosing medicine.
When we choose medicine, we are closer to priests than to attorneys. We serve the emotional and physical needs of our patients, and these transcend the limits of office visits and schedules. We are called on to serve the sick, not look for easy jobs. If that is what a person wants there are many career paths that beckon.
In our quest then for 'balance' are we creating a physician workforce unwilling to dedicate their lives to the service of someone other than their families or themselves? Might we be creating a distinct lack of balance when viewed by patients and hospitals? Are we creating, by deliberate efforts at 'equality' doctors who abandon their profession, work part time and decline to do hospital work?
Those are indeed harsh words, and I expect to be roasted for saying them. But I fear they are true. We should look for the best, and a;; other social, racial and sexual considerations be damned.
Ted
I wish my school, a famous and respected institution, was less interested in 'balance' and 'fairness' and interested only in finding the best candidates.
There is a marked difference in the approach of the German and English ship designers. England was first with the all big gun ship, the Dreadnought, and hence the lasting name of the type. As the power with the biggest navy and colonial empire they had concerns about numbers and seaworthiness. They were not so big on the details of performance , however. Instead, there are repeated references to the beauty of a particular ship, its 'balance' or its 'stateliness'. Nothing about armor, or range finders, or bulkheads. Just adjectives that might be describing a woman, or an admired pet.
The Germans took a very different tack. They built entire sections of their designs and then tested them by firing guns and torpedos at them at short range. They applied the lessons learned and redesigned their ships. as a result they were behind in numbers and time with regard to Dreadnought battleships, and were viewed with a mix of amusement, disdain and fear by the British. German Dreadnoughts were slow, squat, ugly, ungainly.
Yes, that they were. But a battleship is not a piece of art. It is a ship meant to destory other ships and in the process keep from being destroyed. While the strategic results of a battle and a war reflect plans and numbers as much as quality, quality is reflected in single ship action. Well.....
At Jutland, Britain's beautiful battlecruisers fought at a 6:5 numerical advantage against German battlesruisers. In 15 minutes time TWO British ships had been sunk, both having their magazines exploded by a German shell penetrating the turrets. 15 minutes to kill 2500 men. A little later a third was destroyed in the same way. The Germans lost one battlecruiser, scuttled by the Germans themselves as unsalvageable even though it had not sunk. One of their battlecruisers, the Seydlitz, was exceptionally badly damaged, but limped home to be repaired. Another German battlecruiser, the Goeben, was given as a gift to Turkey in 1914. She survived in complete operational condition into the early '60s.
In 1941 another British battlecruiser, the Hood, was detroyed just like the others- a single shot to a magazine. And the Hood was called graceful, lean, etc, etc. She was considered one of the most beautiful ships in the world, and for over 20 years she was the largest ship in the world. And she was sunk by a single shell. All these ships make nice models. But they were lousy fighting ships.
At my reunion my school boasted that the incoming class was 50-50 men and women. And I asked why was that considered an achievement. I was told the school strives for diversity and fairness. Oh. I thought the school was trying to admit the best candidates.
In orchestral and vocal auditions the judges can not see you. They are behind a screen. You are judged solely on musical ability. They don't know if you are young, old, male or female (allowing for vocal type), black, white, Asian, a child. These judges are interested only in hiring the finest players and singers they can find. Not a white chorus, or a diverse chorus, etc, etc.
Choosing students to admit to one of the very finest medical schools in the world based on their sex or race is just like evaluating battleships on their 'balance', grace, lean lines and stateliness. Appearances are irrelevant. The issue is whether a school capaable of choosing from the finest applicant pool in the US really chooses the finest applicants, or sets out to create a certain 'balance'.
Let's look at 'balance' in performance, just like ships at Jutland. balance sounds great, looks great, but does it work in practice. Just like at Jutland, the answer is no. That is a politically incorrect thing to say, and so no one in authority says it, but our efforts at balance are leading to critical trouble.
In Ob/Gyn, where 85% of residents are female, the female grads stop OB much, much earlier than their male colleagues. Men in Ob/Gyn perceive so much resistance from their colleagues and patients that they switch specialities in residency at a significantly higher rate than other specialties or than women in Ob/Gyn. So what, you may say. Society wants female Ob/Gyns. Really? Sure about that? 63% of women prefer a male Gyn surgeon when they need surgery. Still sure? Age matched Ob/Gyns find men outproducing women by 20%. And women drop out of Ob shockingly early. We have a looming and troubling shortage of Obs because of this. It has come to the attention of our college, but there has been no solution posed, other than to make the perfectly ridiculous statement that there is no prejudice against men in Ob/Gyn.
How about other speciallties? I work with our transitional residents, doctors doing a rotating internship year before going into specialized fields like ophthalmology, radiology or dermatology. These spots are coveted by women because of their easy hours, lack of hospital work and lack of call. All people desire work-life balance, but these things should not be drivers in choosing medicine.
When we choose medicine, we are closer to priests than to attorneys. We serve the emotional and physical needs of our patients, and these transcend the limits of office visits and schedules. We are called on to serve the sick, not look for easy jobs. If that is what a person wants there are many career paths that beckon.
In our quest then for 'balance' are we creating a physician workforce unwilling to dedicate their lives to the service of someone other than their families or themselves? Might we be creating a distinct lack of balance when viewed by patients and hospitals? Are we creating, by deliberate efforts at 'equality' doctors who abandon their profession, work part time and decline to do hospital work?
Those are indeed harsh words, and I expect to be roasted for saying them. But I fear they are true. We should look for the best, and a;; other social, racial and sexual considerations be damned.
Ted
I wish my school, a famous and respected institution, was less interested in 'balance' and 'fairness' and interested only in finding the best candidates.
I do not want to roast you!! I agree!!
ReplyDeleteI was thinking about the very same issue the other day. And actually, I remember bringing it up one time in talking to Dr. Jesse. I told him that some of the schools I was looking at for college were very concerned with diversity. And I told him that it just didn't matter to me. And he said that it would be important once I got to college.
Well here I am, an almost-graduating senior, and it still doesn't matter one bit. I know personally two people of "latina" descent (who don't actually speak a word of Spanish and are 3rd-4th generation on one side of their families) who got a lower grade on the ACT than I did and yet have a full ride scholarship to Auburn including housing as well as the distinction of being a National Merit scholar. I am not national merit, and my scholarship is 3/4 tuition only. Of course I'm happy to have a scholarship, but how is that fair? It's racism. It's still racism even though it's against a "dominant" race. If I get a 30 on my ACT and you get a 28, it doesn't matter what race/ethnicity you (or your parents) are, you should just let in the best people and give THEM the honors that come with that. I would like to say that only one of those people that I know got into the same highest distinction honors society that I did.
I don't care if my doctor is a man or a woman. I want him or her to be the best at what he or she does. I don't care if they're black, white, Spanish, Dutch, alien, whatever. I just want to know that I'll be taken care of by someone who earned their spot in med school and didn't glide in on race/ethnicity/gender alone.