we move to canada
This is interesting. Brain drain is still claiming Canadian doctors, but not our doctorals. Hmmm.http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/07/05/phd050705.html
Persecution of press freedoms/protections in the wake of TimeGate and impending prison sentences for journalists would be a good one too. Especially considering that if this goes down the way it is headed, will sources step forward in the future if the precendent exists to strip their anonymity?
Brain drain is still claiming Canadian doctors, but not our doctorals.I read that study and one thing struck me as flawed about the approach. They asked new PhDs if they intended to stay in Canada or leave. However, intentions are not the same as actions. When I completed my dissertation, I certainly intended to stay in Canada if possible (and, as it turned out, I did), but it took a year to land a full-time position and if I had gotten something else in the US before that, I would have taken it. I think it would be more instructive if they determine where PhDs actually end up after, say, 5 years than what they intend to do immediately after graduation.I also noticed from the source material at the StatsCan website that over 40% of PhDs in life sciences and about 20% of PhDs in physical sciences instend to leave the country, but fewer than 10% of PhDs in the humanities intend to do so. This probably reflects the limited opportunites in the humanities and skews the overall result.
You know, I read this too (even before G posted it!) and had the same thoughts as Rob - intentions versus tracking what really happens to them. Persecution of press freedoms/protections in the wake of TimeGate and impending prison sentences for journalists would be a good one too. A good one...? For...?
A WMTC post. Given your background, I would be interested to read your take on the implications of TimeGate (for lack of a more overused wording). Specifically regarding sources and what the future may hold regarding their ability to speak if their anonymity is unprotected (ie anonymity becomes a crime), this issue is frightening. If the writers do go to jail for not revealing their sources, what does that suggest for the state of 'free' (hah!) media down the road?It's something that ties into issues such as Deep Throat - perhaps the potential/likely jailings are a measure to ensure there will not be another DT? Just a thought ... what are your feelings on the issue, LG?
Ah-ha! I'm a little slow on the uptake today. I'll read and think more about it, and post later in the week. Thanks for the suggestion, G - and for caring what other people think. (A strength of you Canucks, I notice.)
A strength of you Canucks, I notice.It comes from decades of trying to keep Quebec happy within Canada and the US happy outside of Canada.
It comes from decades of trying to keep Quebec happy within Canada and the US happy outside of Canada.Kinda like children of alcoholics and other dysfunctional families who learn how to keep everyone happy. How's that for an analogy!
Works for me! :)
Fitting, yes.You will do just fine as an Ontarian, L-G. ;-)
The tip off was all the apologizing. :)
I'm marrying (or not, we still haven't decided if we want to do the whole ceremony thing) into a medical family, so I get a little bit of insight others don't see. My future father-in-law is a family doctor, and my future brother-in-law is a paramedic.At least in Ontario, here's what I've learned. - One of the reasons there's a shortage of doctor's is that in the 80's the government decided that there were too many doctors in the system (i.e. it was costing them two much) so they cut the number of med school seats in university. They're upping it now, but not enough, and it takes a good decade or so before a doctor is actually fully trained and ready to start a practice. - A lot of younger doctors prefer to go into a specialty, or they'd rather work in a walk-in clinic. Walk-in clinics are usually run by a private, for-profit company that takes a percentage of the doctor's billings. The company takes care of hiring staff, maintaining records, leasing the office, etc. which is a real headache when doing yourself in a private practice. - Many doctors are leaving the system, not to work in the U.S. but to get comfortable salaried 9-5 jobs. Many doctor's are finding the day-to-day too stressful, especially if they're the only doctor in a rural area (which means they're perpetually on call). - A lot of doctors that have moved to the U.S. complain that the high cost of malpractice insurance negates the higher salary. You don't really make that much more in the U.S. - There's a lot more women doctor's in the system. Female doctor's tend to keep much shorter hours than male doctors. Whereas my father in-law works 8-6, and 8-9 on Thursday and Friday, my girlfriend's doctor (doctor's rule: don't be the doctor for family members) generally works 9-4, and she also operates a private cosmetic surgery buisness on the weekends.
Oh, for the U.S. I should say "you don't make that much more as a family doctor".As a specialist, you can make way more, even with the high insurance cost.
Very interesting perspective, Kyle. My doctor has asked me to report back to her on how docs fare under the Canadian system. She loathes the US "system" and feels it has ruined medicine. She hasn't let it ruin her practice - but has lost a lot of money in the process. My brother is an oral surgeon, and he's done the same thing. He doesn't belong to HMO plans or networks of any kind. He makes less $$ but he can make his own decisions based on medicine instead of expedience. (And it's not like he's poor - three kids in college...!)I'm marrying (or not, we still haven't decided if we want to do the whole ceremony thing)Here's to common-law forever! Bah to paper signing! :)
Well, Gee the El Bee, I've been reading and perusing have decided I can't blog about the jailed reporters. It's not new - which doesn't make it good - but I don't know that it's a departure or part of a larger trend. It could be. But there's too much history, I can't sort out what it means at this point. Confusing things further is Judith Miller herself. She's a government hack, a Bush stenographer - not to be trusted at all.The most obvious interpretation of her refusal to name sources is that she's protecting the govt that pays her, or she's under strict orders/threats from them to keep quiet. What may look like persecution of a free media may be just the opposite.On this article there are some links to stories from when a NY Times reporter went to prison for not revealing sources in 1978.I'm going to keep reading, though. You've given me good stuff to think about!
Miller is the worst of the worst -- way worse than the suckups at Fox -- because her lies appeared at the top of the front page of the New York Times -- and were used by the Junta as evidence to hoodwink the public into supporting their illegal invasion of Iraq.Boiled way down, it went like this:1. A Cheney flak tells Miller the Lies O' The Day.2. Miller writes up the lies and the Times publishes them above the fold.3. Cheney goes on TV and says "Fact X" is true and points out as evidence for that truth that it has been reported as the day's top story at the Times.Miller is at the very least a water carrier for the Junta. The fact that the Times hasn't fired her for her obvious lies (the lies of Jayson Blair are aboue .00001% of the severity of Miller's lies) speaks volumes about how much the Times is willing to provide political cover for the Cheney administration.To lump Miller in with past writers who went to jail to protect sources that were hellbent on exposing govermment corruption is a gross perversion.Miller belongs on trial at the Hague with Cheney, Rumsfeld, Myers, etc.
L-girl on iPAQ:It's really part of the whole shell game, innit? Journalist hero-martyr is really govt-sponsored hack, nothing is as it appears to be.Newspeak.L.
OMG, that picture is hillarious! LOL.
Redsock, thanks for the history lesson. More to this than meets the eye, for sure. Appreciate that.L-G, I hear you. That's cool. Thanks for the link - good article.Interesting point you both make on Miller as a GovHack - highlighted by today's development of Cooper revealing his source while Miller did not. Explains a lot ... thanks!
Post a Comment