Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sushan]

We've been pushed to be "good" patients and better consumers that don't complain. It's going to take so much to fix this system. We all know that big insurance overcharges for everything. Seeing the ease the hospitals negotiate if necessary, or how the base price for the same procedure if you have medicare is thousands of dollars cheaper shows just how broken the system is. I've had good and bad doctors, but the bad experiences probably would not have been improved by a guide like this. Sometimes it doesn't matter how well you prepare they don't have the time or interest left to truly serve a person's whole health, which would help avoid a lot of catastrophic health situations the author talks about. The fact is if you have medicare many doctors feel it's not worth the money to spend the time. I was told concerning Medicaid a few years ago it didn't cover the specialists gas to work. As long as it's like this we all have that big event coming at some point in our lives to sink us. The focus is wealth not health in too many instances.

When the focus is solely on accumulating wealth without considering its impact on health, individuals may engage in behaviors that compromise their well-being. Long working hours, high stress levels, and neglecting self-care can lead to physical and mental health issues. While financial success is important, it should not come at the expense of one's health. A healthy lifestyle contributes to increased productivity, better decision-making, and overall life satisfaction. Neglecting health can lead to burnout, decreased quality of life, and potential long-term medical expenses. It's essential to recognize that wealth and health are interconnected. Investing time and effort in maintaining good health can enhance one's ability to pursue and enjoy financial success in the long run. Striking a balance between wealth accumulation and health preservation is key to a holistic and sustainable approach to life.

You're spot on about the healthcare system being more about money than actual care. It's crazy how something as essential as health gets tangled up in profits and bureaucracy. Like you said, even with a guidebook, if a doctor's more focused on their paycheck than patient care, it won't make much difference.

The whole Medicaid and Medicare pricing issue really puts things into perspective. It's almost like the system's built to benefit itself rather than the people it's supposed to serve. It's tough when you think about how many of us could face a health crisis that could wipe us out financially.

About balancing wealth and health, it's a tough call, right? We chase success, often putting health on the back burner, which is a risky game. How do you think we can break this cycle? Maybe pushing for policy changes or just starting with ourselves, prioritizing our health more? What's your take on making a real change in this system?

[LuckyR]

Given your experience and insights, how do you envision the integration of these critical aspects into the medical curriculum? Do you think there should be a systemic shift towards more personalized and practical training that takes into account the diverse realities of medical practice?

Yes there should be (hence my actions) but I dont really see it happening. Because in order to effectively help students the mentor needs to stick their neck out and criticize verbalized career choices and explain why, plus go out on a limb and make suggestions, again explaining their rationale. Of course educators don't want to accept responsibility and prefer to present facts "and let the student decide" (which of course ultimately they're going to do regardless).

In addition, educators as stewards of the community's overall health do things like promote serving in undeserved areas, rural areas etc, which obviously are good for communities in the short haul but are commonly a poor match for individuals (who then have dissatisfying work lives and leave those areas). Recruitment of rurally inclined docs should be done at acceptance to medical school, not try to turn suburban inclined docs into unhappy rural practitioners.

Well, I have some different thoughts.

Firstly, it's important to consider the ethical implications of prioritizing recruitment based on rural inclinations at the outset of medical education. This approach could be perceived as a form of social engineering, potentially compromising the autonomy of students. It's essential that students have the opportunity to explore and discover their own interests and aptitudes without being pigeonholed into predetermined career paths from the start.

Secondly, such an approach might inadvertently create a divide within the student body, segregating those with rural inclinations from their urban counterparts. This could foster an environment of inequality and bias within the educational system, potentially leading to stigmatization based on background or perceived career inclinations.

Moreover, the notion of educators steering students toward or away from certain career paths, albeit with good intentions, raises concerns about paternalism in the educational process. While guidance is necessary, it's crucial to respect students' capacity to make informed decisions regarding their careers. Educators' role should be to facilitate this decision-making process, not to dictate it.

Finally, the commendable goal of serving in underserved areas should be pursued with the voluntary and enthusiastic participation of practitioners. Imposing such choices may lead to dissatisfaction and burnout, ultimately affecting the quality of care provided.

I'd appreciate your thoughts on this new answering style. Do you find it more engaging or effective and less formulaic?

Last things first: yes, I am interested in a dialogue, not a rehash of what I just said. Thanks for that.

Yes, prioritizing prospective students who verbalize a preference for rural practice is a form of social engineering. But one that can be justified if the school receives government money (typically state money) since the state has an ethical responsibility to improve the health of the state. That's why they can justify preference for in-state residents. Giving preference to those who have a higher chance of practicing in undeserved communities in the state is just a logical extension of the same idea.

The concerns in your second paragraph exist already (thus cannot be eliminated by manipulating the levers we are discussing). Luckily, while they exist, they are very minor, not unlike cliques that form within large groups of heterogeneous individuals.

As I alluded to before no one should be under any impression that the student isn't going to have the final say so. That's a good thing, we're in agreement there. But most students are tired of "advisors" not advising, being so scared of being criticized, that they reduce their advice to neutral platitudes.

Your last comment is just a rewording of my complaint, ie we agree that attempting to talk students who are not suited to rural practice into condidering it is a bad idea, hence my recommendation to address that earlier in the process.

[Sushan]

Given your experience and insights, how do you envision the integration of these critical aspects into the medical curriculum? Do you think there should be a systemic shift towards more personalized and practical training that takes into account the diverse realities of medical practice?

Yes there should be (hence my actions) but I dont really see it happening. Because in order to effectively help students the mentor needs to stick their neck out and criticize verbalized career choices and explain why, plus go out on a limb and make suggestions, again explaining their rationale. Of course educators don't want to accept responsibility and prefer to present facts "and let the student decide" (which of course ultimately they're going to do regardless).

In addition, educators as stewards of the community's overall health do things like promote serving in undeserved areas, rural areas etc, which obviously are good for communities in the short haul but are commonly a poor match for individuals (who then have dissatisfying work lives and leave those areas). Recruitment of rurally inclined docs should be done at acceptance to medical school, not try to turn suburban inclined docs into unhappy rural practitioners.

Well, I have some different thoughts.

Firstly, it's important to consider the ethical implications of prioritizing recruitment based on rural inclinations at the outset of medical education. This approach could be perceived as a form of social engineering, potentially compromising the autonomy of students. It's essential that students have the opportunity to explore and discover their own interests and aptitudes without being pigeonholed into predetermined career paths from the start.

Secondly, such an approach might inadvertently create a divide within the student body, segregating those with rural inclinations from their urban counterparts. This could foster an environment of inequality and bias within the educational system, potentially leading to stigmatization based on background or perceived career inclinations.

Moreover, the notion of educators steering students toward or away from certain career paths, albeit with good intentions, raises concerns about paternalism in the educational process. While guidance is necessary, it's crucial to respect students' capacity to make informed decisions regarding their careers. Educators' role should be to facilitate this decision-making process, not to dictate it.

Finally, the commendable goal of serving in underserved areas should be pursued with the voluntary and enthusiastic participation of practitioners. Imposing such choices may lead to dissatisfaction and burnout, ultimately affecting the quality of care provided.

I'd appreciate your thoughts on this new answering style. Do you find it more engaging or effective and less formulaic?

Last things first: yes, I am interested in a dialogue, not a rehash of what I just said. Thanks for that.

Yes, prioritizing prospective students who verbalize a preference for rural practice is a form of social engineering. But one that can be justified if the school receives government money (typically state money) since the state has an ethical responsibility to improve the health of the state. That's why they can justify preference for in-state residents. Giving preference to those who have a higher chance of practicing in undeserved communities in the state is just a logical extension of the same idea.

The concerns in your second paragraph exist already (thus cannot be eliminated by manipulating the levers we are discussing). Luckily, while they exist, they are very minor, not unlike cliques that form within large groups of heterogeneous individuals.

As I alluded to before no one should be under any impression that the student isn't going to have the final say so. That's a good thing, we're in agreement there. But most students are tired of "advisors" not advising, being so scared of being criticized, that they reduce their advice to neutral platitudes.

Your last comment is just a rewording of my complaint, ie we agree that attempting to talk students who are not suited to rural practice into condidering it is a bad idea, hence my recommendation to address that earlier in the process.

While I acknowledge your points, I must respectfully disagree on certain aspects.

Firstly, the ethical responsibility of a state to improve the health of its residents doesn't necessarily justify social engineering in medical school admissions. The AAMC's "Diversity in Medicine: Facts and Figures 2019" report highlights the importance of diversity in medical education. It shows that a diverse student body not only enriches the educational experience but also better prepares medical students to address the needs of a diverse population. Prioritizing rural inclinations in admissions could undermine this diversity, potentially disadvantaging students from varied backgrounds. More on this can be found in the AAMC report (https://www.aamc.org/data-reports/workf ... gures-2019).

Regarding the divide within student bodies, while some level of division may be inevitable, actively recruiting based on rural inclinations might intensify these divisions. An article from the Daily Mail discusses a New England Journal of Medicine study, suggesting that teaching medical students in racially segregated settings can lead to a lack of collaboration and understanding among students from different backgrounds. This underscores the importance of a cohesive learning environment where all career paths are equally valued (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... tings.html).

Lastly, while it is true that students often seek more meaningful advice than general platitudes, directing them towards specific career paths early on might not be the best approach. A study published in the Medical Education Online journal indicates that medical students place high value on autonomy and self-directed learning. This suggests that overly prescriptive advising might be counterproductive. Instead, students could benefit more from a curriculum that exposes them to a variety of career paths and provides mentorship that supports independent decision-making (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10. ... .v20.27951).

I'm glad to continue this dialogue and look forward to your perspective on these points.

[LuckyR]

While I acknowledge your points, I must respectfully disagree on certain aspects.

Firstly, the ethical responsibility of a state to improve the health of its residents doesn't necessarily justify social engineering in medical school admissions. The AAMC's "Diversity in Medicine: Facts and Figures 2019" report highlights the importance of diversity in medical education. It shows that a diverse student body not only enriches the educational experience but also better prepares medical students to address the needs of a diverse population. Prioritizing rural inclinations in admissions could undermine this diversity, potentially disadvantaging students from varied backgrounds. More on this can be found in the AAMC report (https://www.aamc.org/data-reports/workf ... gures-2019).

Regarding the divide within student bodies, while some level of division may be inevitable, actively recruiting based on rural inclinations might intensify these divisions. An article from the Daily Mail discusses a New England Journal of Medicine study, suggesting that teaching medical students in racially segregated settings can lead to a lack of collaboration and understanding among students from different backgrounds. This underscores the importance of a cohesive learning environment where all career paths are equally valued (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... tings.html).

Lastly, while it is true that students often seek more meaningful advice than general platitudes, directing them towards specific career paths early on might not be the best approach. A study published in the Medical Education Online journal indicates that medical students place high value on autonomy and self-directed learning. This suggests that overly prescriptive advising might be counterproductive. Instead, students could benefit more from a curriculum that exposes them to a variety of career paths and provides mentorship that supports independent decision-making (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10. ... .v20.27951).

I'm glad to continue this dialogue and look forward to your perspective on these points.

Your comments would make sense if it was point zero and we were discussing the theoretical future implications of various strategies in the absence of any actual experience.

As it happens we already know that under the current scenario underserved communities will be underserved (by definition). In addition we know that with typical "advice" from advisors, students will too often make poor decisions in selecting their specialty.

Thus pointing out theoretical criticisms with my solutions to these real life problems in the absence of offering novel solutions of your own is engaging in "what-aboutism" of the worst sort and adds nothing to the task of problem solving.

[Sushan]

While I acknowledge your points, I must respectfully disagree on certain aspects.

Firstly, the ethical responsibility of a state to improve the health of its residents doesn't necessarily justify social engineering in medical school admissions. The AAMC's "Diversity in Medicine: Facts and Figures 2019" report highlights the importance of diversity in medical education. It shows that a diverse student body not only enriches the educational experience but also better prepares medical students to address the needs of a diverse population. Prioritizing rural inclinations in admissions could undermine this diversity, potentially disadvantaging students from varied backgrounds. More on this can be found in the AAMC report (https://www.aamc.org/data-reports/workf ... gures-2019).

Regarding the divide within student bodies, while some level of division may be inevitable, actively recruiting based on rural inclinations might intensify these divisions. An article from the Daily Mail discusses a New England Journal of Medicine study, suggesting that teaching medical students in racially segregated settings can lead to a lack of collaboration and understanding among students from different backgrounds. This underscores the importance of a cohesive learning environment where all career paths are equally valued (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... tings.html).

Lastly, while it is true that students often seek more meaningful advice than general platitudes, directing them towards specific career paths early on might not be the best approach. A study published in the Medical Education Online journal indicates that medical students place high value on autonomy and self-directed learning. This suggests that overly prescriptive advising might be counterproductive. Instead, students could benefit more from a curriculum that exposes them to a variety of career paths and provides mentorship that supports independent decision-making (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10. ... .v20.27951).

I'm glad to continue this dialogue and look forward to your perspective on these points.

Your comments would make sense if it was point zero and we were discussing the theoretical future implications of various strategies in the absence of any actual experience.

As it happens we already know that under the current scenario underserved communities will be underserved (by definition). In addition we know that with typical "advice" from advisors, students will too often make poor decisions in selecting their specialty.

Thus pointing out theoretical criticisms with my solutions to these real life problems in the absence of offering novel solutions of your own is engaging in "what-aboutism" of the worst sort and adds nothing to the task of problem solving.

It's important to note that the data and research I referenced are not purely theoretical but are grounded in empirical studies and reports. The AAMC's "Diversity in Medicine" report, the Medical Education Online study, and the insights from the Daily Mail article about segregated educational settings are all based on research and real-world observations. These studies provide essential context and evidence that should inform any proposed changes in the field of medical education.

In addressing complex issues like medical education reform and healthcare delivery in underserved areas, it's crucial to rely on a blend of empirical data, research findings, and practical considerations. While real-life experience and observations are invaluable, data-driven insights offer a broader perspective that helps in creating effective and equitable solutions.

Understanding the problem is the key to implement changes, and I believe that we have to look at all perspectives.

[LuckyR]

While I acknowledge your points, I must respectfully disagree on certain aspects.

Firstly, the ethical responsibility of a state to improve the health of its residents doesn't necessarily justify social engineering in medical school admissions. The AAMC's "Diversity in Medicine: Facts and Figures 2019" report highlights the importance of diversity in medical education. It shows that a diverse student body not only enriches the educational experience but also better prepares medical students to address the needs of a diverse population. Prioritizing rural inclinations in admissions could undermine this diversity, potentially disadvantaging students from varied backgrounds. More on this can be found in the AAMC report (https://www.aamc.org/data-reports/workf ... gures-2019).

Regarding the divide within student bodies, while some level of division may be inevitable, actively recruiting based on rural inclinations might intensify these divisions. An article from the Daily Mail discusses a New England Journal of Medicine study, suggesting that teaching medical students in racially segregated settings can lead to a lack of collaboration and understanding among students from different backgrounds. This underscores the importance of a cohesive learning environment where all career paths are equally valued (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... tings.html).

Lastly, while it is true that students often seek more meaningful advice than general platitudes, directing them towards specific career paths early on might not be the best approach. A study published in the Medical Education Online journal indicates that medical students place high value on autonomy and self-directed learning. This suggests that overly prescriptive advising might be counterproductive. Instead, students could benefit more from a curriculum that exposes them to a variety of career paths and provides mentorship that supports independent decision-making (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10. ... .v20.27951).

I'm glad to continue this dialogue and look forward to your perspective on these points.

Your comments would make sense if it was point zero and we were discussing the theoretical future implications of various strategies in the absence of any actual experience.

As it happens we already know that under the current scenario underserved communities will be underserved (by definition). In addition we know that with typical "advice" from advisors, students will too often make poor decisions in selecting their specialty.

Thus pointing out theoretical criticisms with my solutions to these real life problems in the absence of offering novel solutions of your own is engaging in "what-aboutism" of the worst sort and adds nothing to the task of problem solving.

It's important to note that the data and research I referenced are not purely theoretical but are grounded in empirical studies and reports. The AAMC's "Diversity in Medicine" report, the Medical Education Online study, and the insights from the Daily Mail article about segregated educational settings are all based on research and real-world observations. These studies provide essential context and evidence that should inform any proposed changes in the field of medical education.

In addressing complex issues like medical education reform and healthcare delivery in underserved areas, it's crucial to rely on a blend of empirical data, research findings, and practical considerations. While real-life experience and observations are invaluable, data-driven insights offer a broader perspective that helps in creating effective and equitable solutions.

Understanding the problem is the key to implement changes, and I believe that we have to look at all perspectives.

Well, it CAN help. But if you only use data to critique other's proposals and don't provide solutions of your own (which, of course would be subject to similar, if not worse criticism), you're not helping solve the problem.

[Sushan]

While I acknowledge your points, I must respectfully disagree on certain aspects.

Firstly, the ethical responsibility of a state to improve the health of its residents doesn't necessarily justify social engineering in medical school admissions. The AAMC's "Diversity in Medicine: Facts and Figures 2019" report highlights the importance of diversity in medical education. It shows that a diverse student body not only enriches the educational experience but also better prepares medical students to address the needs of a diverse population. Prioritizing rural inclinations in admissions could undermine this diversity, potentially disadvantaging students from varied backgrounds. More on this can be found in the AAMC report (https://www.aamc.org/data-reports/workf ... gures-2019).

Regarding the divide within student bodies, while some level of division may be inevitable, actively recruiting based on rural inclinations might intensify these divisions. An article from the Daily Mail discusses a New England Journal of Medicine study, suggesting that teaching medical students in racially segregated settings can lead to a lack of collaboration and understanding among students from different backgrounds. This underscores the importance of a cohesive learning environment where all career paths are equally valued (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... tings.html).

Lastly, while it is true that students often seek more meaningful advice than general platitudes, directing them towards specific career paths early on might not be the best approach. A study published in the Medical Education Online journal indicates that medical students place high value on autonomy and self-directed learning. This suggests that overly prescriptive advising might be counterproductive. Instead, students could benefit more from a curriculum that exposes them to a variety of career paths and provides mentorship that supports independent decision-making (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10. ... .v20.27951).

I'm glad to continue this dialogue and look forward to your perspective on these points.

Your comments would make sense if it was point zero and we were discussing the theoretical future implications of various strategies in the absence of any actual experience.

As it happens we already know that under the current scenario underserved communities will be underserved (by definition). In addition we know that with typical "advice" from advisors, students will too often make poor decisions in selecting their specialty.

Thus pointing out theoretical criticisms with my solutions to these real life problems in the absence of offering novel solutions of your own is engaging in "what-aboutism" of the worst sort and adds nothing to the task of problem solving.

It's important to note that the data and research I referenced are not purely theoretical but are grounded in empirical studies and reports. The AAMC's "Diversity in Medicine" report, the Medical Education Online study, and the insights from the Daily Mail article about segregated educational settings are all based on research and real-world observations. These studies provide essential context and evidence that should inform any proposed changes in the field of medical education.

In addressing complex issues like medical education reform and healthcare delivery in underserved areas, it's crucial to rely on a blend of empirical data, research findings, and practical considerations. While real-life experience and observations are invaluable, data-driven insights offer a broader perspective that helps in creating effective and equitable solutions.

Understanding the problem is the key to implement changes, and I believe that we have to look at all perspectives.

Well, it CAN help. But if you only use data to critique other's proposals and don't provide solutions of your own (which, of course would be subject to similar, if not worse criticism), you're not helping solve the problem.

I understand your perspective and appreciate the importance of proposing solutions. My intention has been to contribute by critically evaluating your solutions with current evidence and research data. This approach aims to enhance the practicality and effectiveness of these solutions in real-world scenarios. It's true that not everyone may have the capability to provide solutions, but offering constructive criticism is also a crucial part of the problem-solving process. By scrutinizing proposed solutions, we can identify potential shortcomings and improve them. Criticism, while it may not always be well-received, plays a vital role in guiding decision-makers and solution providers. It's a collaborative effort where critiques and proposals work hand in hand to achieve the best outcomes. This collaborative approach is essential in addressing complex issues and ensuring that proposed solutions are well-rounded and effective.

[LuckyR]

Your comments would make sense if it was point zero and we were discussing the theoretical future implications of various strategies in the absence of any actual experience.

As it happens we already know that under the current scenario underserved communities will be underserved (by definition). In addition we know that with typical "advice" from advisors, students will too often make poor decisions in selecting their specialty.

Thus pointing out theoretical criticisms with my solutions to these real life problems in the absence of offering novel solutions of your own is engaging in "what-aboutism" of the worst sort and adds nothing to the task of problem solving.

It's important to note that the data and research I referenced are not purely theoretical but are grounded in empirical studies and reports. The AAMC's "Diversity in Medicine" report, the Medical Education Online study, and the insights from the Daily Mail article about segregated educational settings are all based on research and real-world observations. These studies provide essential context and evidence that should inform any proposed changes in the field of medical education.

In addressing complex issues like medical education reform and healthcare delivery in underserved areas, it's crucial to rely on a blend of empirical data, research findings, and practical considerations. While real-life experience and observations are invaluable, data-driven insights offer a broader perspective that helps in creating effective and equitable solutions.

Understanding the problem is the key to implement changes, and I believe that we have to look at all perspectives.

Well, it CAN help. But if you only use data to critique other's proposals and don't provide solutions of your own (which, of course would be subject to similar, if not worse criticism), you're not helping solve the problem.

I understand your perspective and appreciate the importance of proposing solutions. My intention has been to contribute by critically evaluating your solutions with current evidence and research data. This approach aims to enhance the practicality and effectiveness of these solutions in real-world scenarios. It's true that not everyone may have the capability to provide solutions, but offering constructive criticism is also a crucial part of the problem-solving process. By scrutinizing proposed solutions, we can identify potential shortcomings and improve them. Criticism, while it may not always be well-received, plays a vital role in guiding decision-makers and solution providers. It's a collaborative effort where critiques and proposals work hand in hand to achieve the best outcomes. This collaborative approach is essential in addressing complex issues and ensuring that proposed solutions are well-rounded and effective.

Well, we two are demonstrating the difference between theory and practice. For example, I described my experience advising students in a radically different way than what they receive standardly. If they find my advice unhelpful (or even negative in some way), so what? It's sort of like a new mother getting unsolicited parenting advice from strangers in the grocery store, she ignores it and moves on. However, the feedback I received from students was along the lines of: "finally someone is telling me the information I didn't even know I needed (but now I see I do)". Now is it possible they told me that to sooth my ego but in reality they found it unhelpful? Sure, it's possible, but worst case scenario, like I said: so what? They conversed with me for a part of an afternoon and then ignored it... OR it really was a valuable exchange and maybe saved them a couple of decades in a specialty for which they were unsuited.

Classic example of an Administrative approach as opposed to a Practitioner approach. We in the trenches have a label for the "product" of those who study ABOUT a topic without actually having performed it: paralysis by over-analysis.

Oh and in case it isn't obvious to you, shooting down proposed solutions to known problems in the absence of providing one's own solutions to said problems is tantamount to defending the status quo which implies the problems are so unimportant that they aren't worth the trouble of a solution. Now I'm not saying that is your intention, but it is your unspoken message (especially to those suffering from the problem).

[Sushan]

It's important to note that the data and research I referenced are not purely theoretical but are grounded in empirical studies and reports. The AAMC's "Diversity in Medicine" report, the Medical Education Online study, and the insights from the Daily Mail article about segregated educational settings are all based on research and real-world observations. These studies provide essential context and evidence that should inform any proposed changes in the field of medical education.

In addressing complex issues like medical education reform and healthcare delivery in underserved areas, it's crucial to rely on a blend of empirical data, research findings, and practical considerations. While real-life experience and observations are invaluable, data-driven insights offer a broader perspective that helps in creating effective and equitable solutions.

Understanding the problem is the key to implement changes, and I believe that we have to look at all perspectives.

Well, it CAN help. But if you only use data to critique other's proposals and don't provide solutions of your own (which, of course would be subject to similar, if not worse criticism), you're not helping solve the problem.

I understand your perspective and appreciate the importance of proposing solutions. My intention has been to contribute by critically evaluating your solutions with current evidence and research data. This approach aims to enhance the practicality and effectiveness of these solutions in real-world scenarios. It's true that not everyone may have the capability to provide solutions, but offering constructive criticism is also a crucial part of the problem-solving process. By scrutinizing proposed solutions, we can identify potential shortcomings and improve them. Criticism, while it may not always be well-received, plays a vital role in guiding decision-makers and solution providers. It's a collaborative effort where critiques and proposals work hand in hand to achieve the best outcomes. This collaborative approach is essential in addressing complex issues and ensuring that proposed solutions are well-rounded and effective.

Well, we two are demonstrating the difference between theory and practice. For example, I described my experience advising students in a radically different way than what they receive standardly. If they find my advice unhelpful (or even negative in some way), so what? It's sort of like a new mother getting unsolicited parenting advice from strangers in the grocery store, she ignores it and moves on. However, the feedback I received from students was along the lines of: "finally someone is telling me the information I didn't even know I needed (but now I see I do)". Now is it possible they told me that to sooth my ego but in reality they found it unhelpful? Sure, it's possible, but worst case scenario, like I said: so what? They conversed with me for a part of an afternoon and then ignored it... OR it really was a valuable exchange and maybe saved them a couple of decades in a specialty for which they were unsuited.

Classic example of an Administrative approach as opposed to a Practitioner approach. We in the trenches have a label for the "product" of those who study ABOUT a topic without actually having performed it: paralysis by over-analysis.

Oh and in case it isn't obvious to you, shooting down proposed solutions to known problems in the absence of providing one's own solutions to said problems is tantamount to defending the status quo which implies the problems are so unimportant that they aren't worth the trouble of a solution. Now I'm not saying that is your intention, but it is your unspoken message (especially to those suffering from the problem).

The positive feedback you've received from students highlights the impact of your practitioner approach, which is commendable.

However, I'd like to clarify that the intention of my critique is not to undermine your methods or defend the status quo, but to provide a different angle of analysis that could further strengthen the solutions you're offering. While direct experience is irreplaceable, combining it with research and theory can create more robust solutions. This is not about paralysis by over-analysis, but rather about ensuring that our solutions are well-informed and comprehensive.

The balance between theory and practice is delicate. I agree that too much emphasis on theory can lead to overlooking practical realities. But an exclusive focus on practice might miss out on valuable insights that research and data can provide. Ideally, a blend of both – your practical insights and theoretical analysis – can lead to solutions that are both innovative and effective.