I disagree with your definition of the screening/interview process. The way higher education actually works is by looking for people who'll make the best medical *students*. The screening process makes no predictions about who'd make the better doctors, and the article doesn't address that (except to say that male doctors cost more in malpractice suits, but that may just be because there are more of them in high-risk consultant roles), so I can't speak to data I don't have.
Similarly, I can't really address your personal experience in terms of women doctors you know who work part time. Looking at what junior hospital doctors make, how many hours they work and what the cost of living is against the cost of private childcare in, say, greater London, it doesn't look good.
But you haven't addressed the issue of achieving equality by taking away a non-descriminatory competitive advantage. Would you get behind, say, making all men in their 30's take a 5-year career break because that's what a lot of women do? Would you consider it discriminatory? Why? Or, why more discriminatory than the existing situation, where women are the ones who work part time and take career breaks to take care of the kids?
(no subject)
Date: 2008-04-04 01:20 pm (UTC)Similarly, I can't really address your personal experience in terms of women doctors you know who work part time. Looking at what junior hospital doctors make, how many hours they work and what the cost of living is against the cost of private childcare in, say, greater London, it doesn't look good.
But you haven't addressed the issue of achieving equality by taking away a non-descriminatory competitive advantage. Would you get behind, say, making all men in their 30's take a 5-year career break because that's what a lot of women do? Would you consider it discriminatory? Why? Or, why more discriminatory than the existing situation, where women are the ones who work part time and take career breaks to take care of the kids?