The first article you posted indeed deals with an upcoming shortage of doctors. Mainly, as the article addresses, this is due to the Obama Healthcare Plan depositing a few million new patients into the system. Kind of hard to prepare for a few million more people without much advance notice. Also take note that the shortage mainly consists of Primary-Care Physicians who are paid far less than specialty doctors. Note the article does touch on a shortage all around but focuses on the need for primary-care physicians. Part of the problem, as stated in the article, is that specialty doctors are lobbying for primary-care physicians to not receive more compensation. So not really seeing the problem of a lack of interest in medicine or lack of qualified applicants.
So you say the article acknowledges a shortage all-around
but then you go on to say there's not?
Let's not forget the fact that many pre-existing doctors are aging and are set to retire en masse in the next ten years.
Second article actually states right at the beginning how more spots in medical school are opening and more people are entering.
But apparently this still happens anyway:
The U.S. has 352,908 primary-care doctors now, and the college association estimates that 45,000 more will be needed by 2020. But the number of medical-school students entering family medicine fell more than a quarter between 2002 and 2007.
This means that there will be doctors with no jobs! Why no jobs someone might ask and then conclude that religion is somehow to blame.
...Nobody here is concluding religion is curtailing the number of people who become a doctor.
Sadly no, that reason lies with the government cutting medical residency programs which doctors need to earn the ability to actually practice medicine.
Yes, I don't disagree with this. But this "great bottleneck" doesn't mean we have an abundance of qualified doctors sitting around now.
Which we don't. It's completely hypothetical. The numbers, the projections, all hypothetical. Meaning they're not real. Meaning we still have a shortage.
Meanwhile, a number of new medical schools have opened around the country recently. As of last October, four new medical schools enrolled a total of about 190 students, and 12 medical schools raised the enrollment of first-year students by a total of 150 slots, according to the AAMC. Some 18,000 students entered U.S. medical schools in the fall of 2009, the AAMC says.
An upturn in numbers =/= abundance, as I've already said exhaustively. It's an increase that is relative to previous years and in no way states that it is meeting our present needs. Because it's not. And hasn't been, even pre-healthcare bill.
At the end of the article they talk and talk more about increasing admissions size for medical schools and for graduates to get more clinical training, in essence to give them something to do while waiting for a residency spot to open.
Increasing admissions size =/= those slots will be filled =/= an abundance now =/= overall popularity or prevalence.
I guess these three were made in response to my typo, but I am not really seeing that you put much effort or reading into this research. So mind if I ask if you actually read what you put up? Doesn’t seem like your articles are actually saying what you claim they are stating.
It seems to me like you're skimming over the parts of the article you don't like.
You say there isn't a shortage of doctors. I say you're wrong, there is. I do the research. Research says:The officials said they were particularly concerned about shortages of primary care providers who are the main source of health care for most Americans. The need for more doctors comes up at almost every Congressional hearing and White House forum on health care. “We’re not producing enough primary care physicians,” Mr. Obama said at one forum. “The costs of medical education are so high that people feel that they’ve got to specialize.” New doctors typically owe more than $140,000 in loans when they graduate. Lawmakers from both parties say the shortage of health care professionals is already having serious consequences. “We don’t have enough doctors in primary care or in any specialty,” said Representative Shelley Berkley, Democrat of Nevada.But Mary K. Wakefield, the new administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration, said many clinics were having difficulty finding doctors and nurses to fill vacancies.
I don't really know what more you want to hear. Suddenly when I come up with articles that show a shortage of doctors, they're not the right kind of doctors for you despite the fact that they are apparently the main source of healthcare for most Americans
. Okay, fine. If we're gonna keep moving the goalpost, I'll go a step further.Shortage of surgeons
It's a problem rooted in the 1980s and 1990s, when U.S. medical schools put a cap on enrollments, believing that managed health care, among other factors, would create a glut of doctors.
They were wrong. And now the impact of a national shortage of surgeons and family practice doctors is echoing across the country.
From the late 1970s to the mid-1990s, several national advisory groups, including the Institute of Medicine and the Council on Graduate Medical Education, issued reports forecasting a surplus of physicians. As a result, medical schools voluntarily held enrollment relatively constant at about 16,000 new students a year. From 1980 to 2005, enrollment was flat while the U.S. population grew by more than 70 million, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC).
As the 79 million baby boomers begin entering retirement age, so are their doctors. From 1985 to 2006, the percentage of doctors 55 and older rose from 27% to 34%, and the AAMC predicted in a 2006 report that members of this group — roughly 250,000 active physicians — will retire by 2020.Shortage of radiologists
If you are a radiologist practicing in the U.S., you most likely know how it feels to be in demand. Of course, with the physician shortage hitting this specialty particularly hard, you may also know the feeling of being overworked.
Healthcare facilities in the U.S. have been battling a severe shortage of radiologists for more than a decade now. While the staffing crisis of the early 2000s seems to have leveled off a bit, demand for radiology services is likely to outpace physician supply for years to come.
Providing services about 40 weeks annually, Dr. Chaffin has found that in recent years there has been a marked increase in the need for locum tenens radiologists, especially in small and medium-sized townsShortage of cardiologistsShortage of anesthesiologistsShortage of oncologists
This math article you really didn’t read. I know this because at the end of the article it discusses how there are more people enrolling in advanced math, an indicator for more advanced degrees coming. Also the article makes note that the declining degrees in “pure math” are misleading because students that would major in math are going into other quantified fields such as computer science. One of the people interviewed even says they were not surprised by the decline because other fields utilize math. So promising math students move off into other fields that interest them and still utilize their math skills. Sorry, this article essentially says that math is boring and students take their math skills elsewhere.
If it said the same thing of medical degrees, I know you'd be singing a different tune. "Medicine is boring, they're going elsewhere". Yes, I'm sure. It's pretty similar to the primary care physicians, if yo uask me...They're qualified, but underpaid and underappreciated. Their specialization is hardly glamorous, so fewer people take interest.
But hey, let's take a look at some others:Computer science down10 hardest jobs to fill in America
- If you'll notice, math/science takes quite a few slots.
Why are engineers so hard to find? "We have whole generations of people loving liberal arts, not going into science and math," says Larry Jacobson, executive director of the National Society of Professional Engineers.
"Companies are looking to replace more than half of their engineers over the next eight years, because baby boomers are retiring," Jacobson says. "When you have 80,000 engineers working for you, as Lockheed Martin does, that's a lot of jobs." He says that even if every single seat in the nation's engineering schools is filled, that's only 75,000 engineers being trained annually. That won't come close to making up the shortage. Engineering is a field that requires years of experience before you take on major responsibility.More on a shortage of STEM students
The downward trend in college graduates with STEM [science, technology, engineering and maths] majors is particularly pronounced in Computer Science (CS). While computers and internet connectivity become daily fixtures in the lives of Americans, we are steadily losing the engineering talent to project these systems.
Verbal reports from industry partners, as well as the presence of constant job openings, indicate industry is having difficulty finding software engineering talent to develop and maintain their software systems.
So, did you read these articles or just google them until you found a sensational title with a reputable source?
Even if this were true, it's still more research than you've shown in all of your posts combined on this thread. I believe the massive wall of text I've just provided you should sufficiently answer your question. Or maybe not.
Oh, the article did state that enrollment in math courses is up by 9%.
Increase =/= abundance =/= the shortage is over, etc etc, repeat repeat
Oh and the quote is a little misleading. What the quote doesn’t say is that people are enrolling in physics programs across the United States at higher rates, but not finishing. Why? The article says that students feel physics is not cool. An example of a more cool study, biological science.
Except the whole part where your conclusion is proving my point.
Yes, Pumpkin Seeds, science must be so interesting
and so prevalent
as you continually claim
that students are dropping out
and not finishing.
Your conclusions are smug, but they're really just incomplete. There are more people going to biology (including medical school dropouts), yes. But you're acting like this number is comparative overall to every other field out there. I'll elaborate on this in a moment.
For my backing I will use a link as well with data from the National Center for Education Statistics which is derived from the U.S Department of Education. (http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=37). Since the title isn’t as flashy or catchy, I will highlight a couple of areas of interest. These are for the years 07-08. Biology up 30 percent, Physical sciences up 22 percent, health professions up 56 percent (go me!), and engineering up 8 percent.
Let's give that a bigger outlook, shall we?Source
This article praises math and science-based jobs as being the highest in demand. Let's delve a little deeper.
"Math is at the crux of who gets paid," said Ed Koc, director of research at NACE. "If you have those skills, you are an extremely valuable asset. We don't generate enough people like that in this country."
Specifically, engineering diplomas account for 12 of the 15 the top-paying majors. NACE collects its data by surveying 200 college career center
Wow, yes, that sounds like a high percentage, right? Let's make this relevant to the article you provided.
What happened to well-rounded? There are far fewer people graduating with math-based majors, compared to their liberal-arts counterparts, which is why they are paid at such a premium. The fields of engineering and computer science each make up about 4% of all college graduates, while social science and history each comprise 16%, Koc noted.
As a result, salaries for graduates who studied fields like social work command tiny paychecks, somewhere in the vicinity of $29,000. English, foreign language and communications majors make about $35,000, Koc said.
"It's a supply and demand issue," he added. "So few grads offer math skills, and those who can are rewarded."
I will start by saying that television reflects a distinct interest in the population and culture.
Television is part of popular culture and so is a very good indicator for what the population is interested in seeing.
I'm quoting these because it's important later.
Animal Planet – You don’t watch but disregarded. Guess Jane Goodall was just sitting in a jungle staring at chimps for nothing. What science could there possible be in watching animals?
Actually, if you listened to me, I mentioned that I wasn't sure what kind of programming this channel provided. You can provide shows about animals without actually giving any meaningful content pertaining to actual science. I'll even requote myself for clarity.
Animal Planet - Do they have informative, science-based programming or is it more nature-based documentary? How informative/serious is this channel in bringing current, relevant, and accurate science news? The last time I watched this channel (and it's been awhile), it really had nothing of real substance for a viewer with higher education in a science or math-related field.
Those weren't just rhetorical questions. I really don't know, but from my own recollections, it seemed doubtful.
Discovery Channel – A good amount of reality shows about crab fishermen and building stuff. I think Myth Busters is on there too along with some other programming that seems to look at engineering and nature. No science there either I guess.
I mentioned Mythbusters. If you've watched said reality shows, you'd know that there is nothing of scientific relevance there. From what I've seen of Discovery, especially during the daytime, I would not count it as a channel that has any real abundance of solid science.
Discovery Health – A show dedicated to health sciences and the people working in those fields. Complete with news segments and shows about revolutions in medicine. You highlighted this one but didn’t talk about or count.
I missed this, it was late when I was replying, but okay, let's count this one.
Discovery Kids – This one was highlighted too but you failed to mentioned it later. While I guess this wouldn’t hold interest for adults but certainly for children. Influencing them to enjoy science with cartoons and children shows. This isn’t “sciencey” enough?
Same for this one.
National Geographic – Wow, thanks for the slap in the face to social sciences. Note at the beginning you used the word sciencey and now are looking for “serious science news.”
We're not talking about social sciences and never have been. Our discussion prior to now has been related to the health field, math, biology, physics, chemistry...
Planet Green – I guess the interest in green technologies, alternative energy and learning to live with the environment aren’t much for science either.
Or is it a channel that is playing on a current trend to be green? How much of this channel is devoted to serious science? Let's look at their website
to see just how interested they are in the science of "going green". I've bolded headlines that go to science-related articles.
Feed 8 Friends for Under $100 with this Green Frugal Feast: A Poolside Party
Can Bee Venom Improve Brain Function? (x)
Pesticide Lobby Blames Organics for Americans Not Eating More Veggies
Sweat Shop Free Clothing That's Fiscally Responsible: Maggie's Organics Certified Fair Labor Apparel
Organic, High Quality, and Local: Wine Coolers Are All Grown Up
Bike-Sharing is Coming to London!
"The Coal War" Shows Alternatives to Mountaintop Removal - But Needs Help on Kickstarter (I checked the actual article because the title seemed iffy -- it has a trailer to a documentary, but nothing informational.)
Congress Acts to Stop Conflict Mineral Trade While it Cleans Up Wall Street
Grow Carrots in Containers
Straight From the Garden: Homemade Pasta with Zucchini
Lettuce Lady Takes on Meat in Kenya
Reduce Your Back Pain with Better Posture
Start Planning for Your Fall Garden Now
Psychic Octopus Retires (Video News)
New Coal Plants in China, India Built Under UN Clean Development Mechanism
Hydroponics: Not Just For Grow-Ops Any More
Freecycle@Work Brings the Benefits of Freecycle to Your Office
Ghosts, Goths And Galas At The Fabulous Beekman Boys Farm
No, with this, I have concluded that I would not consider this channel a great source of science news and information.
I think you are being a little over eager to think that any show type would beat out sports and movie channels.
Just to be clear, I'm going to quote you again.
I will start by saying that television reflects a distinct interest in the population and culture.
Television is part of popular culture and so is a very good indicator for what the population is interested in seeing.
And judging from the number of science-related networks (and I even provided you a figure in my original response that did include the shows I didn't count. It's still extremely dismal, which doesn't account for their viewership, which I'm too tired to go look for now, but I'd be willing to make a bet that their viewership is nothing in comparison to other channels, not to mention the demographics being just as telling of who exactly is watching to begin with...) in comparison to all others, using your own standards here, I would say that the public is not that interested
That being said --
Though I do think that is a nice amount of shows for science. Since this conversation is about religion and science, let me see how well religion is doing. Hey, got one there, Christian Television Network.
You're right. There aren't a lot of shows for religion, and yet somehow most of the nation still manages to be Christian, and as statistics that have been exhausted here over and over have said, Christians still manage to distrust science.
I am going to address this part at the end because this also applies to the top portion. Nice of you to admit that you put words in my mouth and went off about something I did not say. Been better if you had not done that, but I will take what points I can.
I'll be honest with you here, your condescending tone is getting kind of tiresome.
I also pointed out that if a school simply needed a textbook and a teacher, no matter how many students she had in the classroom or how little education she was given or updated on or assisted in class, but the textbook had everything in it then funding really wouldn’t be a problem.
Funding is an issue for schools. Funding affects the pay they can offer their teachers. Funding affects the new materials the school can purchase. Funding does not change what is already available to them. Funding typically does not change the length of a semester (to my knowledge -- schools have requirements for time, as far as i'm aware). I'm not really sure what kind of correlation you're making. Of course a school needs more than just a textbook and a teacher, but funding does not affect the kind of knowledge a science teacher should have, and that includes evolution. I think it's absolutely absurd to write off the fact that they could be avoiding teaching evolution due to controversy. It's like you're pretending it doesn't happen or that it's a completely unrealistic idea.
Thus far your inferring has been real bad.
Or your points have just been unclear and/or convoluted. Dialogue does require more than one person, after all. But it really only seems to count if I admit something I've done wrong, so why not? Yes, it must be all my fault, and I must not have made one single intelligent point ever. Let's just go with that, it seems easier.
Alright, as for my statement about math and science failing not being the reason for budget movement. That line you quoted sounds just like you said doesn’t it? Sounds like I am saying failing is not a big deal and that are kids are doing fine. Except, I didn’t say that nor anything similar. I simply stated that the reason more money is being moved into the sciences is because more science and math are needed in our society. Which, you even pointed out later about increased government funding cause of need. So wait a minute, the government is funding something cause it needs it instead of because the scores are low? Well, I mean if the government is moving funds from one school area to another because of failing grades than it stands to reason that the others are alright. Except, they aren’t.
You failed to infer
my meaning. I said it was a combination of failing test scores AND need. That's all I'm saying on that, because you're misreading my statements.
I could go into the narrow minded view you seem to have about education and its need to focus solely on math and science.
You could, but then you'd be getting into the same "putting words into your mouth" thing you chastised me for that I actually admitted to doing and corrected myself on. But you're actually kind of doing it anyway. Hmmm.
Yes, I'm so narrow-minded that I decided to attend a private liberal arts college and obtained a degree in French and visual arts. I must only care about math and science. That must be it.
How subjects like philosophy encourage critical thinking and abstract thought, how creative writing teaches better use of words and expression along with communication of ideas, about how music teachers children discipline and focus along with instilling pride, and how language is of growing importance the world over as we become a closer knit global society. Math and science are getting more money and yet still we are falling lower. We might want to look a little deeper than shifting money around. That would be off topic though, much like your rant here.
But these subjects do not improve health, lengthen your lifespan, provide you with modern conveniences, innovate new technologies, or keep your basic everyday life running
. Math and science are getting money because
we are falling lower, and the statistics that you, yourself
have provided previously prove that although our demands are still not met, there are signs of improvement. I'm not even really sure what you would suggest even if getting more money WAS causing it to still fall lower (which, as I just said, it isn't) -- giving something less attention doesn't make the problem go away.
As I stated before, I have a liberal arts education. I enjoy writing, I enjoy foreign languages, I live and love art, I have a few talents in music under my belt, I enjoy sociology, I have studied philosophy, I am annoyed that there isn't more funding allotted to the arts, I'm absolutely terrible at math, and I have a relatively practical, but un-advanced knowledge of science (though I am interested in learning more anyway) but relatively speaking, trying to compare someone who plays an instrument or writes poetry or studies Kierkegaard or speaks Arabic is not comparable to someone who is saving lives, designing and maintaining the very infrastructure of your country, or helping you live longer.
I believe math and science serves a much more practical purpose in our world, and still maintain my own career making art because in spite of this belief, I am not writing off the importance of the liberal arts, either.
I think both have their niche, and while I'm at it, I think I'll just go ahead and tie this into the debate at hand. Math/science and religion both have a niche in peoples lives much as math/science and art does. I don't consider them equal, but I recognize their importance in their own domains. If I'm worried about cancer, I don't want to talk to God or Picasso, I want to talk to a doctor. Science sustains us, you could say, and for some, things like religion and art become reasons to keep sustaining.