Read on Twitter
Ok #GCchat I'm going to explain my desire for nuance around the discussion of paid app review service. Many GCs currently rightfully demanding to be compensated for their time given for lectures, professional activities, etc. A trainee has started that early in their career (1/n)
I sincerely wish that we could just perfect-world this situation and mentor all potential students. Yet... GC JOBS ARE DEMANDING! Do we really think that the profession +/- faculty from GC programs can voluntarily support thousands of apps per year with current resources? (2/n)
I have huge concerns about how this service could set a terrible precedent that would increase disparities in program admissions, access, etc... There are REAL ethical issues worth discussing. But such services wouldn't be offered and utilized if there wasn't a market. (3/n)
Sidebar... why must we accept the high application fees for our programs but react with outrage at a service that actually costs LESS than the systemic barriers we already work within? Everyone recall our near unanimous agreement that it costs too much to even apply? (4/n)
My personal opinion - I would not recommend paying for this if a student asked me. But if we pushback against this type of service, do we stymie the progress our field is making at pushing back against the historical reliance on volunteerism without hope of compensation? (5/n)
As a profession, let's prioritize GC trainee pipelines in underrepresented communities, mentorship by @minoritygenetic and @GeneticCouns for all students, and oversight of GC admissions. I want to aim to cure the cause of disease in our system before hating on its symptoms. (6/6)
