The Goat Pen

innocentbystander wrote:

Owlman wrote:ROI: Racketball on ice?

I didn't ask you, counselor.

That's a pretty dumb response. It was a question to you, not an attempt to answer a question you asked of someone else (note the question mark). You really must be embarrassed at our tet-a-tet (sp?) last week.

By the way, you didn't ask the question to hedge either.

Owlman wrote:

innocentbystander wrote:I didn't ask you, counselor.

That's a pretty dumb response. It was a question to you, not an attempt to answer a question you asked of someone else (note the question mark). You really must be embarrassed at our tet-a-tet (sp?) last week.

you were being beligerant in your roi comment. so, i was paying your seriousness back "in turn"

you get what you give, counselor

Owlman wrote:By the way, you didn't ask the question to hedge either.

hedge has the maturity of a child. i have grown to expect his sarcasm in the same way I expect it of jungle rat. i don't take anything hedge says seriously. i expect better behavior from you

don't let me down. don't compare yourself to (or act like) hedge

you were being beligerant in your roi comment

Nooooo. It was a question as to what ROI stood for. Still a question. Belligerent? You got something against Racketball?

IB, you're right. I give up. You and your belief that women shouldn't be allowed to vote, or serve on juries, or(now) be doctors, just proves conclusively that yours is the superior intellect. Your brilliant forward thinking is WAY beyond anything this humble professor can compete against. I hang my head in the mere presence of your genius.

I am jealous of those priveleged few, who receive the benefit of your wise counsel at your church.

KKHHAAAAAANNNN!

I'm happy you caught that star trek reference. Of course, IB is so smart and intellectually advanced, he understood the Khan reference before I even typed it. He's just that brilliant, you know.

Professor Tiger wrote:IB, you're right. I give up. You and your belief that women shouldn't be allowed to vote, or serve on juries, or(now) be doctors, just proves conclusively that yours is the superior intellect. Your brilliant forward thinking is WAY beyond anything this humble professor can compete against. I hang my head in the mere presence of your genius.

I am jealous of those priveleged few, who receive the benefit of your wise counsel at your church.

don't be a smart ass. this has nothing to do with Star Trek references. I was being serious.

and don't fob me off with remarks like that if you don't like the answer I give you. my reasoning has to do with basic economics, basic human nature (as it relates to nurturing of children) and the ROI of medical degrees for women. do you know anyone who works in human resources for medical groups that are instructed to hire doctors? I do. i know the problems they have when hiring female doctors (and these problems are ONLY with female doctors.)

and do NOT ask me anymore questions if your respond like a dickhead. you want a serious conversation, don't be a dick professor.

This shit is cracking me up.

But IB said it was a serious conversation...

Yes, women are the ones that have a tendency to have babies and, physiologically, are built to be the nurturers. You can get your ROI with them if you adapt to their needs. I am not talking about government imposed mandates on how to treat them, but sound, sensible, business decisions that can make both sides workable. As a business you have to do it since they represent half the workforce.

7.6%


Now we know what Barracky means by sustainable.

IB is straight dropping fools in here. REVEREND!!!!

sardis wrote:Yes, women are the ones that have a tendency to have babies and, physiologically, are built to be the nurturers. You can get your ROI with them if you adapt to their needs. I am not talking about government imposed mandates on how to treat them, but sound, sensible, business decisions that can make both sides workable. As a business you have to do it since they represent half the workforce.

That is what these medical groups are (largely) doing (adapting to their needs) and have been doing (without government oversight) since women have been allowed in medical school. And it has largely been a business nightmare for staffing purposes.

They adapt to female doctors needs NOT because they want to, but because they MUST. There simply aren't enough medical doctors in the United States for medical groups/hosptials to be fussy. There has been (and always will be) a huge medical doctor shortage. And (with our ever aging population) it is only going to get worse.

Hopefully you'll die quickly.

innocentbystander wrote:

sardis wrote:Yes, women are the ones that have a tendency to have babies and, physiologically, are built to be the nurturers. You can get your ROI with them if you adapt to their needs. I am not talking about government imposed mandates on how to treat them, but sound, sensible, business decisions that can make both sides workable. As a business you have to do it since they represent half the workforce.

That is what these medical groups are (largely) doing (adapting to their needs) and have been doing (without government oversight) since women have been allowed in medical school. And it has largely been a business nightmare for staffing purposes.

They adapt to female doctors needs NOT because they want to, but because they MUST. There simply aren't enough medical doctors in the United States for medical groups/hosptials to be fussy. There has been (and always will be) a huge medical doctor shortage. And (with our ever aging population) it is only going to get worse.

Well then wouldn't the situation be worse if there weren't women in the profession?

sardis wrote:

innocentbystander wrote:

sardis wrote:Yes, women are the ones that have a tendency to have babies and, physiologically, are built to be the nurturers. You can get your ROI with them if you adapt to their needs. I am not talking about government imposed mandates on how to treat them, but sound, sensible, business decisions that can make both sides workable. As a business you have to do it since they represent half the workforce.

That is what these medical groups are (largely) doing (adapting to their needs) and have been doing (without government oversight) since women have been allowed in medical school. And it has largely been a business nightmare for staffing purposes.

They adapt to female doctors needs NOT because they want to, but because they MUST. There simply aren't enough medical doctors in the United States for medical groups/hosptials to be fussy. There has been (and always will be) a huge medical doctor shortage. And (with our ever aging population) it is only going to get worse.

Well then wouldn't the situation be worse if there weren't women in the profession?

No. And this is why.

The United States may very well have the most rigorous and the most selective medical doctor licensing/credentialling in the entire world. (What they consider to be a medical doctor in Egypt, we might never call a doctor here, and as a result that Egyptian doctor would never be able to practice medicine here.) And this rigorous and selective process is limited by the number of slots available in medical schools that the US recognizes for credentialling. And those very limited medical school slots, more and more of them are taken by women.

That would be just fine if those women used those medical degrees the way men typically did (work 50+ hours a year for 35+ years, age 30 to 70) but that is not what happens. That is almost NEVER what happens. The women work full-time for a few years, get pregnant, have their hours renegotiated (downward) and then they get pregnant again and (sometimes/quite often, especially if they married another doctor which is usually the case) leave the medical field altogether. So now, all that medical educational investment in that woman (not to mention the medical school slot she took that a man who would be willing to work 50+ hours a week for 35+ years can't, because she took the slot) is gone.

This is the crap that medical groups and hospitals have to deal with. Women in medical school = a bad medical ROI. We are not talking about women taking slots away from men in colleges (of which there are tens of thousands) to earn their meaningless MRS degrees. We don't have tens of thousands of medical schools sardis. I am amazed that professor tiger didn't have the cognitive ability to figure this one out.....

If you had to choose between a part-time more qualified doctor and a full-time less qualified doctor wouldn't you choose the more qualified?

In my profession I would rather have the more qualified even if she is not full-time, but maybe my industry cares more about quality than the medical profession?

sardis wrote:If you had to choose between a part-time more qualified doctor and a full-time less qualified doctor wouldn't you choose the more qualified?

I have a hard time agreeing with that choice in the manner in which you framed it.

A woman might have had the 4.0 GPA in Biology at Yale and got the medical school slot at Harvard and the man with the 3.5 GPA in Biology didn't (studies at a medical school in Greneda instead), but that doesn't mean that the guy is a lesser "qualified" doctor. That is particularly true in the United States with its extremely rigorous medical licensing.

sardis wrote:In my profession I would rather have the more qualified even if she is not full-time, but maybe my industry cares more about quality than the medical profession?

Its both. Just like in Bridge when choosing "trump", both quality AND quantity matter. And for medical groups when they do their staffing and bidding on work, their "product' (their doctors) are a much more appealing product when they are all willing and able to work very-very hard. For women medical doctors who have negotiated a 20 hour work week (or 70 hour work month, or whatever it is) that is not working hard. It is instead, a "issue" that a hospital must "overcome" when doing their staffing. And then they have to worry about the possibility that the doctor will not be able to stay late in the event of an emergency because she is needed "at home." Yes, this happens in every industry, but most of us don't work life and death jobs.

I wish you worked in a life or death job. Except for the life part...

innocentbystander wrote:

sardis wrote:If you had to choose between a part-time more qualified doctor and a full-time less qualified doctor wouldn't you choose the more qualified?

I have a hard time agreeing with that choice in the manner in which you framed it.

A woman might have had the 4.0 GPA in Biology at Yale and got the medical school slot at Harvard and the man with the 3.5 GPA in Biology didn't (studies at a medical school in Greneda instead), but that doesn't mean that the guy is a lesser "qualified" doctor. That is particularly true in the United States with its extremely rigorous medical licensing.

sardis wrote:In my profession I would rather have the more qualified even if she is not full-time, but maybe my industry cares more about quality than the medical profession?

Its both. Just like in Bridge when choosing "trump", both quality AND quantity matter. And for medical groups when they do their staffing and bidding on work, their "product' (their doctors) are a much more appealing product when they are all willing and able to work very-very hard. For women medical doctors who have negotiated a 20 hour work week (or 70 hour work month, or whatever it is) that is not working hard. It is instead, a "issue" that a hospital must "overcome" when doing their staffing. And then they have to worry about the possibility that the doctor will not be able to stay late in the event of an emergency because she is needed "at home." Yes, this happens in every industry, but most of us don't work life and death jobs.

Your problem is the number of slots available for med school, not women entering med school because you still need them even if you had an endless supply of slots