Comment by throwup238 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwup238 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Based on my experience with doctors medicine is not one of those fields. Residency is the final gauntlet that matters and that’s the part that’s artificially restricted.

On the other hand, because of supply, finding a good lawyer just requires a bit of money, well within reach of the average person facing a criminal trial or some civil dispute. Finding a good doctor requires sitting on waitlists for months (if you’re lucky enough to find one taking new patients) unless you have enough money to afford a concierge service, which the vast majority of people cannot afford. I’ve had bad concierge doctors but I’ve never had a shitty lawyer paying that kind of money.

I mean really, where do we stop? There’s many more English literature graduates than jobs. Same with ____ studies and just about every other humanities degree. Do we restrict those too? How about higher education altogether?

There’s an important debate to be had about government financing and the non-dischargeability of loans and all its effects, but restricting education based on job supply is just harmful to societies on so many levels.

This is a two way street. Everybody needs medical care. Almost everyone is going to need legal advice in their lives. Depriving them of competent care and representation does far more harm than limiting supply would save. Failed medical students don’t die from the ordeal, but patients do.

The washout rate for A&P aircraft mechanics is on the order of 75%. Imagine if healthcare were as reliable as airplanes (though there’s a shortage there too).

> Based on my experience with doctors medicine is not one of those fields. Residency is the final gauntlet that matters and that’s the part that’s artificially restricted.

You're getting the basic facts wrong. As least in the US, the restriction is acceptance to medical school. Part of the reasoning is they don't want to accept anyone who they think will fail years down the line, because that's bad for everyone (you, me, the failed student, and the teachers who aren't in it for the $$$). There's a surplus of residency slots (overall), because otherwise no foreign-trained doctors would ever be able to practice here.

Lots of foreign-trained doctors practice here.

My position is they need to increase medical school admissions (and residency slots), but not throw the doors wide open to all comers. The slots need to be managed such that anyone who gets can complete the program and will have a job waiting for them that pays commensurate with the amount of training they receive, but probably much less than many doctors get now.

> I mean really, where do we stop? There’s many more English literature graduates than jobs. Same with ____ studies and just about every other humanities degree.

Yes. What's happening with English literature graduates (at least on the PhD level) is an exploitative travesty.

> ...but restricting education based on job supply is just harmful to societies on so many levels.

I disagree. It's harmful to string people along with false hope, only to slam the door in their face at the end. It's harmful for society for people to waste time on a job training program (which is what medical education really is) for a job they'll never get.

There needs to be a distinction made between general education and job training. Unless you're independently wealthy, specialized formal education needs to perform both functions.

> The washout rate for A&P aircraft mechanics is on the order of 75%.

Aircraft mechanic school is about 18-24 months (https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/finding-a-job/how-long-...), and costs a few tens of thousands of dollars. That's not comparable, at all.

> Imagine if healthcare were as reliable as airplanes (though there’s a shortage there too).

Sure imagine that, but people aren't manufactured products. Not a valid comparison.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com