Re: Exclusive: Black and Asian doctors are up to 30 times less likely to be offered medical training posts in some specialties, data show

Agreement: I Agree Body: Dear Editor "Good on paper and then found out at interview"[1] was the most informative phrase in the commentary on job prospects in specialty training[1]. I make this assertion with the benefit of having read Chapter 24, entitled "Structure of hiring" in the book dealing with the intrusion of "noise" in decision making in all areas of human affairs[2]. A metric that deals with the role of noise is so-called "Percent Concordance"(PC) which answers the specific question "What is the probability that the candidate who scored higher in the interview will perform better on the job?". If the probability is tantamount to the probability that can be generated by spinning a coin, PC would amount to 50%. The alternative metric is correlation coefficient, whereby the correlation between two variables is derived from their shared determinants. In an earlier chapter of the same book (on page 108) the authors have tabulated the relationship between PC and correlation, exemplified by a correlation of 0.20 which equates with a PC of 56%, and a correlation of 0.30 which equates with a PC of 60%. Typical correlations between interview ratings and job performance range from 0.20 to 0.30 which equate with PCs in the range 56% to 60%.[2]. The metric for job performance can vary from supervisor ratings to length of employment, thereby generating correlations in the range 0.22 to 0.33. In other words, if you are prepared to ignore the candidate's curriculum vitae (ie how good that candidate is "on paper"), and all you know is that one candidate performed better in the interview than his rival, the chances that the candidate who interviewed well will turn out to be a better employee are of the order of 56% to 61%.[2] An informative anecdote in that book is the account of an interview conducted by one of the authors. During the interview he asked the candidate why he had left his previous position after only a few months. The candidate explained that the reason was a "strategic disagreement with the CEO". A colleague who asked the same question got the same answer. In the debrief that followed, one interviewer perceived the candidate's decision to leave the company as a sign of integrity and courage. The other construed the same fact as a sign of inflexibility, perhaps even immaturity[2]. Caveat The ultimate caveat is that the above observations apply only in the context of "all things being equal". That is not necessarily the case in the multiethnic context References [1} Moore A. Exclusive: Black and Asian doctors are up to 30 times less likely to be offered medical training posts in some specialties, data show. BMJ 2026;394:e100228 [2] Kahneman D., Sibony O., Sunstein CR. Noise. A flaw in human judgment. William Collins 2021 No competing Interests: Yes The following competing Interests: Electronic Publication Date: Friday, July 17, 2026 - 12:58 AI use: No, I have not used AI Highwire Comment Subject: Exclusive: Black and Asian doctors are up to 30 times less likely to be offered medical training posts in some specialties, data show Workflow State: Released Full Title: Re: Exclusive: Black and Asian doctors are up to 30 times less likely to be offered medical training posts in some specialties, data show Highwire Comment Response to: Exclusive: Black and Asian doctors are up to 30 times less likely to be offered medical training posts in some specialties, data show Check this box if you would like your letter to appear anonymously:: Last Name: Jolobe First name and middle initial: Oscar M Email: jolobeo@gmail.com Address: Manchester Occupation: retired geriatrician Affiliation: British Medical Association BMJ: Additional Article Info: Rapid response

Rapid Response: Re: Exclusive: Black and Asian doctors are up to 30 times less likely to be offered medical training posts in some specialties, data show Dear Editor "Good on paper and then found out at interview"[1] was the most informative phrase in the commentary on job prospects in specialty training[1]. I make this assertion with the benefit of having read Chapter 24, entitled "Structure of hiring" in the book dealing with the intrusion of "noise" in decision making in all areas of human affairs[2]. A metric that deals with the role of noise is so-called "Percent Concordance"(PC) which answers the specific question "What is the probability that the candidate who scored higher in the interview will perform better on the job?".

If the probability is tantamount to the probability that can be generated by spinning a coin, PC would amount to 50%. The alternative metric is correlation coefficient, whereby the correlation between two variables is derived from their shared determinants. In an earlier chapter of the same book (on page 108) the