Post your asides here

[namazu]

In both Canada and the USA, medicine is an undergraduate degree, not a graduate degree.

Not in the USA. It is most definitely a graduate degree for doctors (medical, dental, vision).

Not according to the medical schools I'm familiar with in the US. It's considered a bachelor's degree, not a graduate degree. Maybe it varies by state. It is definitely a bachelor's degree in Canada, despite the fact that some witless have another bachelor's, master's, or even a PhD before being admitted.

Here's a statement from the American Association of Medical Colleges on Medical Education.  It does (contrary to my previous (mis-)understanding and the conferred degree of "medical doctor") describe the 4 years of medical school as "undergraduate education" and residency as "graduate education".

That said, most/all accredited US medical schools require a prior undergraduate degree and/or numerous prerequisite college-level courses in biology, chemistry, physics, math, etc., as a condition of admission, to a so medical education is not generally anyone's first undergraduate degree.

[jimbogumbo]

The mascot at University of Southern North Dakota at Hoople is the Mott, right?

[ciao_yall]

Well... that was a reach.

[Langue_doc]

Grow up--was that really necessary?

[jimbogumbo]

That's too bad. Rufo has the wit of Sean Hannity, and the sincerity of Tucker Carlson.

[Katrina Gulliver]

And the "applicant pools" thread is now the "international healthcare and cost of living" thread.

[apl68]

And the "hate on different states/countries/regions thread."  People have a lot of different reasons for where they choose to leave and choose to go.  It's not all reducible to a few predictable concerns or trends.

[dismalist]

And the "applicant pools" thread is now the "international healthcare and cost of living" thread.

Well, the applicant pool is now faculty rather than students. And it's not about the quality of that pool, but rather about its location. :-)

And the "hate on different states/countries/regions thread."  People have a lot of different reasons for where they choose to leave and choose to go.  It's not all reducible to a few predictable concerns or trends.

Oh, yes it is: Standard of living, broadly defined! :-)

[MarathonRunner]

And the "hate on different states/countries/regions thread."  People have a lot of different reasons for where they choose to leave and choose to go.  It's not all reducible to a few predictable concerns or trends.

Not hate. Just preference not to end up in places with radically different values.

[little bongo]

[unrelated]

Well, if that reader concludes that the culture is upside-down, it's the first hopeful sign I've seen that we might be on the right track.

[marshwiggle]

[unrelated]

Well, if that reader concludes that the culture is upside-down, it's the first hopeful sign I've seen that we might be on the right track.

If you mean me, why is it surprising that I would think spitting on someone is a bigger deal than using a word the person finds offensive?

[little bongo]

It's not surprising so much. But here's the thing: I'm slightly younger than dirt. I lurk and read more than I post; it's taken me years to get to "senior member" status on the "new" fora (and I never could have made it that far in the shark-tank days of the old fora).

So I read a response to someone getting slave-centered Bible verses quoted at them to encourage better team play--something along the lines of, "Well, what about using the term Nazi, huh? Huh? What about casual 'Nazi' use? Know what I mean? Huh? Huh? Huh? Huh?" (This in the voice and stylings of late comic Jack Burns.) And I think, what a silly response on at least two levels: one, it has nothing to do with the subject, and two, as has been quite eloquently pointed out, people DO get mad at that kind of use of the word "Nazi." It happens.

The conversation continues, and we learn that the coach has been accused of spitting (which he denies). And I read from the same person: "Well, what about spitting, huh? Know what I mean? I mean, that's assault, right? Spitting is assault? That's worse than words, right? Huh? Huh? Huh? Huh?" (In the voice and stylings of Jack Burns again.) And I roll my eyes and think, again, not the subject. We don't argue that spitting is bad. We do argue and discuss the potentially hurtful use of language.

Finally, if that same person concludes that the culture is upside down, I'm inclined to think--cool. We're probably okay, at least for now.

[marshwiggle]

It's not surprising so much. But here's the thing: I'm slightly younger than dirt. I lurk and read more than I post; it's taken me years to get to "senior member" status on the "new" fora (and I never could have made it that far in the shark-tank days of the old fora).

So I read a response to someone getting slave-centered Bible verses quoted at them to encourage better team play--something along the lines of, "Well, what about using the term Nazi, huh? Huh? What about casual 'Nazi' use? Know what I mean? Huh? Huh? Huh? Huh?" (This in the voice and stylings of late comic Jack Burns.) And I think, what a silly response on at least two levels: one, it has nothing to do with the subject, and two, as has been quite eloquently pointed out, people DO get mad at that kind of use of the word "Nazi." It happens.

No "huh?huh?" intended. It isn't surprising that descendants of Holocaust survivors are indeed bothered by terms including Nazi. What is odd is the degree to which other people self-censor (or are expected to) about matters relating to slavery vastly more than they do for terms relating to the Holocaust. How many people would suggest that someone should get suspended or fired for using the term "<whatever> Nazi", as some are suggesting is appropriate for the coach for using the term "slave"? (As per the discussion above, if he'd said instead "employee" and "employer", this conversation would probably never have happened.)

The vast difference in moral outrage expressed in those two situations suggest a high degree of hypocrisy, including from highly educated people who should see the connection very clearly.

The conversation continues, and we learn that the coach has been accused of spitting (which he denies). And I read from the same person: "Well, what about spitting, huh? Know what I mean? I mean, that's assault, right? Spitting is assault? That's worse than words, right? Huh? Huh? Huh? Huh?" (In the voice and stylings of Jack Burns again.) And I roll my eyes and think, again, not the subject. We don't argue that spitting is bad. We do argue and discuss the potentially hurtful use of language.

Again, no "huh?huh?" here; just that this seems like a ridiculous case of burying the lede. If, in fact, an incident of spitting on a student didn't bring any action, then it's hypocritical in the extreme to treat this specific action as egregious enough to warrant sanctions. Unless, of course, the message is, in fact, that the use of language has now become a more serious matter in our society than a physical action against a person.

Finally, if that same person concludes that the culture is upside down, I'm inclined to think--cool. We're probably okay, at least for now.

[FishProf]

You find it odd that the incident EVERYONE agrees actually happened AND precipitated the current dust-up is getting more response and attention than an alleged incident that allegedly occurred previously and didn't result in a kerfuffle?

[marshwiggle]

You find it odd that the incident EVERYONE agrees actually happened AND precipitated the current dust-up is getting more response and attention than an alleged incident that allegedly occurred previously and didn't result in a kerfuffle?

If someone called their kid or spouse an idiot in a shopping mall with lots of bystanders, and then it came out that there were rumours of actual unreported physical abuse in the past, wouldn't you expect that any subsequent investigation would be much more focused on the physical abuse than the verbal insult? I sure would.