Do Patients Want “Diversity” or Competence? | Dr. Stephen Kershnar (E188)
カートのアイテムが多すぎます
カートに追加できませんでした。
ウィッシュリストに追加できませんでした。
ほしい物リストの削除に失敗しました。
ポッドキャストのフォローに失敗しました
ポッドキャストのフォロー解除に失敗しました
-
ナレーター:
-
著者:
概要
A philosophy professor/lawyer argues that med-school “holistic” + diversity-weighted admissions are less predictive than a numbers-based algorithm—and that the stakes show up downstream in physician quality, access, and patient outcomes.
Guest bio:Dr. Steven Kirschner (as stated in your intro) is a distinguished teaching professor of Philosophy at SUNY Fredonia and also an attorney; he authored the 2024 paper “The Diversity Argument for Affirmative Action in Medical School: A Critique” (Journal of Controversial Ideas).
Topics discussed:- Holistic admissions vs. algorithmic/metrics-based selection
- The “15% top GPA+MCAT rejected” claim (2019–2022)
- Medical error estimates and why measurement is messy
- Predictive validity: MCAT, GPA, boards, and what doesn’t predict
- Specialty selection, pass/fail exams, and ranking problems
- DEI/affirmative action post–Supreme Court and “relabeling” effects
- Workforce shortages, incentives, and productivity (incl. part-time work)
- Disability accommodations, testing integrity, and gaming incentives
- Diversity-of-thought vs demographic diversity; “underserved communities” argument
- The uncomfortable “should patients use demographics as signals?” question
- Admissions should prioritize statistically validated predictors (MCAT + GPA, etc.), not interviews/essays/“compelling stories.”
- Holistic admissions is inconsistent and unvalidated, often functioning like an opaque quota-by-proxy system.
- Medical error and accountability make physician quality a high-stakes selection problem (even if exact death counts are disputed).
- If underserved-service is the goal, subsidize it directly (pay, loan forgiveness, tuition incentives) rather than indirectly via admissions preferences.
- Credential changes (e.g., pass/fail) can make it harder to sort candidates for competitive specialties.
- Workforce shortages strengthen the case for optimizing for long-run productivity and retention, not symbolic criteria.
- The taboo question: whether individuals should use group-level stats as a decision heuristic when individual-level info is limited.
- “The number one error is that we're waiting, giving diversity, um a large amount of weight.”
- “Medical school admissions are done through… a holistic means… and they weight things that have not been statistically validated.”
- “The awkward but correct approach is to say, yes, you should.” (re: whether people should use demographics as predictors)
🎙 The Pod is hosted by Jesse Wright
💬 For guest suggestions, questions, or media inquiries, reach out at https://elpodcast.media/
📬 Never miss an episode – subscribe and follow wherever you get your podcasts.
⭐️ If you enjoyed this episode, please rate and review the show. It helps others find us.
Thanks for listening!