broyoyoyoyo

broyoyoyoyo t1_jdk9qwe wrote

Oh yeah, sounds familiar for sure. There are some legitimate bottlenecks for increasing the residency spots (the number of residency spots you can open is limited by the number of doctors you already have), but there's a lot of other nonsense. We bring in a lot of immigrant doctors and give them no streamlined way to convert their credentials so they can work here, so a lot of them just end up driving taxis.

Medical school here is insanely competitive, so much so that a lot of brilliant students don't bother with it at all (you risk doing 4 years in Life/Health Science and then getting fucked when you don't get into Med School).

Not to mention that it takes an absurdly long to become a doctor here. 4 years undergrad + 4 years med school + 3 years internship + another 2 years internship if you want to specialize. Why don't we streamline the process by cutting out the undergrad like most countries? Because, like you say, some think it'll dilute the quality of our doctors, which is nonsense since it takes less time to become a doctor in most countries where healthcare is just as good.

Holding the profession up on too high a pedestal is preventing Canadians from receiving adequate healthcare.

8

broyoyoyoyo t1_jb362sd wrote

I suppose the perspective matters. For an educated person (in an in demand field), immigrating to Canada is pretty easy, as you say, but immigrating to the US is difficult. But for an uneducated person, immigrating to Canada is basically impossible, but immigrating to the US is possible through family sponsorship.

7

broyoyoyoyo t1_j97fm5z wrote

Well it might be unconstitutional. Race is a protected class and racial discrimination is explicitly forbidden in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

>Everyone is equal and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination, especially discrimination based on race, national or ethic origin, color, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability. This right does not preclude laws designed to ameliorate disadvantageous conditions that exist because of these factors.

I suppose where it gets messy is that these schools aren't penalizing a specific race like Harvard is, they're boosting 2 other races. Now that last part in the Charter

>This right does not preclude laws designed to ameliorate disadvantageous conditions that exist because of these factors.

might make it legal. The government can make laws to help/protect a race that is affected by discrimination. Can universities make policies that do the same? A court would have to decide, and I don't think anyone has taken these schools to court over this yet.

But I'm not a lawyer, so take that all with a grain of salt.

2

broyoyoyoyo t1_j97d3ei wrote

You can find the info on some of the requirements pages of law/med schools. Most have separate "Black Student" and "Indigenous Student" streams. Some schools outright list the less rigorous standards.

Here are the requirements for Queens Law. General students need at least a 3.7 GPA, Black students need a 3.5.

Not saying that that's wrong, I agree with the idea that a meritocracy is only fair when everyone starts at the same place. But racial discrimination does get icky.

I prefer the way some other schools in Canada do it, by looking at economic factors instead. Instead of asking "are you race X", they ask "Have you ever been to a food bank, are your parents unemployed, etc".

1

broyoyoyoyo t1_j8zlpfw wrote

To be fair fellow Canadian, Canadian universities do something similar, especially at law and med schools. Black & Indigenous students have lower GPA and LSAT/MCAT requirements for admission. Technically, that does mean that somebody of a different race can be passed over for a seat even if they have a stronger application since there are limited seats. Not commenting on whether that's right or wrong, just pointing it out.

And the US does protect many human rights by law, which is why their Supreme Court will probably rule against Harvard.

6

broyoyoyoyo t1_j6kx0rp wrote

That'll never happen because India doesn't see itself as needing Western backing against China. The two countries are both nuclear armed and will never go to open war with each other. They'll experience exponential growth even without direct Western political backing. Really the only thing standing in their way is themselves, in the form of their Hindu hardliners like Modi that prioritize power and authoritarianism over economic growth. Honestly I forsee India continuing to be a growing thorn in the side of Western foreign policy in the Indo-Pacific.

6

broyoyoyoyo t1_j69r4ls wrote

Literally none of those have anything to do with what you're suggesting. The people in #1,3,4 were accused of sexism/racism for comments made outside their music, not anything in their song lyrics. #2 is dailymail trash quoting obscure tweets. Some people call Shakira out for objectifying women because she is also a woman, but I don't see any widespread outrage, it's just sone cherrypicked tweets.

5

broyoyoyoyo t1_iu1zy8s wrote

Well as someone that bothered to read the article, I can say that it seems to be a lot more complex than "he's a spy". He's not actively employed by the US government, and he didn't spy on the US itself. He spied on Qatar's rivals, some soccer officials, and he tried to influence US policy (aka lobbying which is legal). So the question seems to be whether he broke specific rules related to foreign lobbying, and whether he was allowed to offer his expertise (US cultivated tradecraft) to a foreign country. I'd say it's a coin toss on whether this guy actually sees the inside of a cell.

23