i wonder if anyone notice the trend in rising
minority admissions to pharmacy school. schools
that only admit a few (very few) minority every
school year in the past are now quadrupling their
admission rate. it makes it very noticeable that
there were definitely bias involved in their selection
process in the past. im thinking its the obama thing,
but then the trend began the year before he presided.
any thoughts. o_o?

This is not a new trend. It has always been happening and its called reverse discrimination.

This is not a new trend. It has always been happening and its called reverse discrimination.

Sorry guys, my first post and it double posted

I donno, let's look at UCSF for example real quick.

47.54% Asian / Asian-American
15.52% Caucasian
10.66% Underrepresented minorities (including African American, Chicano / Latino, Filipino, American Indian)
04.92% Unknown
21.31% Other

for fall 2008.

And that's in California, a pretty diverse state. 10% URMs vs 47.5% Asian and 15.5% Caucasian. From the looks of it, whities at UCSF are right there with URMs.

i wonder if anyone notice the trend in rising
minority admissions to pharmacy school. schools
that only admit a few (very few) minority every
school year in the past are now quadrupling their
admission rate. it makes it very noticeable that
there were definitely bias involved in their selection
process in the past. im thinking its the obama thing,
but then the trend began the year before he presided.
any thoughts. o_o?

So which racial group are you referring to? Are you just saying that more non-white racial groups are represented in pharmacy in general? In that case, I agree not because of Admission bias. There has been a shift in career preferences among Whites, Asians, Latinos, Black, etc. Asians proliferate the pharmacy profession because a lot of them are interested in it...and have grades and test scores to put them in. No bias involved imo.

It could be that minorities are making up a bigger percentage of the population overall and a bigger percentage of the applicant pool. It would follow that minorities would get a larger percentage of the spots. What I find interesting is that people quick to scream reverse discrimination because admissions aren't following traditional rates of acceptance, don't seem to be willing to admit that the reason why the traditional rates of acceptance of white males was so high in the first place was because there was discrimination going on against women and minorities. If you make the playing field level, the rates aren't going to be so out of whack.

I donno, let's look at UCSF for example real quick.

47.54% Asian / Asian-American
15.52% Caucasian
10.66% Underrepresented minorities (including African American, Chicano / Latino, Filipino, American Indian)
04.92% Unknown
21.31% Other

for fall 2008.

And that's in California, a pretty diverse state. 10% URMs vs 47.5% Asian and 15.5% Caucasian. From the looks of it, whities at UCSF are right there with URMs.

Do you have the gender stats as well?

Do you have the gender stats as well?

Yeah, 76.xx% female and 23.xx% male.

Hope my interview goes well.

:p

It could be that minorities are making up a bigger percentage of the population overall and a bigger percentage of the applicant pool. It would follow that minorities would get a larger percentage of the spots.

I agree. This is not a bias favoring a particular ethnic group.

The majority of the pharmacy school applicants are female, so you'll see more female classmates in pharmacy school.

In selected regions, this is the same case for minorities. For example, I know a lot of Asian students apply to pharmacy schools in California. As a result, large portion of the public and especially the private California pharmacy school populations consist of Asian students.

I agree. This is not a bias favoring a particular ethnic group.

The majority of the pharmacy school applicants are female, so you'll see more female classmates in pharmacy school.

In selected regions, this is the same case for minorities. For example, I know a lot of Asian students apply to pharmacy schools in California. As a result, large portion of the public and especially the private California pharmacy school populations consist of Asian students.

You've got that right.

However, the only problem I've got with the "Well, minorities are making up more population thus they're getting more acceptances" is that, even in San Francisco, caucasians are still more abundant in number than, say, Asians, yet you have a huge disparity in acceptance (50% vs 15%?).

I don't at all think it's a problem like OP is suggesting, but there must be something else at work here besides a simply larger population pool.

i wonder if anyone notice the trend in rising
minority admissions to pharmacy school. schools
that only admit a few (very few) minority every
school year in the past are now quadrupling their
admission rate. it makes it very noticeable that
there were definitely bias involved in their selection
process in the past. im thinking its the obama thing,
but then the trend began the year before he presided.
any thoughts. o_o?

If you actually believe that, then you are mentally inept.

You've got that right.

However, the only problem I've got with the "Well, minorities are making up more population thus they're getting more acceptances" is that, even in San Francisco, caucasians are still more abundant in number than, say, Asians, yet you have a huge disparity in acceptance (50% vs 15%?).

I don't at all think it's a problem like OP is suggesting, but there must be something else at work here besides a simply larger population pool.

Note: UCSF draws from a much broader pool that just San Francisco (Socal + OOS). The school welcomes anybody in which they are qualified. If you want to look at the general case, typically the most impacted demographics for the pharmacy profession would be Vietnamese females (although I hate to generalize this case so much). This is not to say that one school is favoring one ethnicity over another, but rather the applicant pool is staggered as such and thus, the matriculating class reflects that applicant pool.

I donno, let's look at UCSF for example real quick.

47.54% Asian / Asian-American
15.52% Caucasian
10.66% Underrepresented minorities (including African American, Chicano / Latino, Filipino, American Indian)
04.92% Unknown
21.31% Other

for fall 2008.

And that's in California, a pretty diverse state. 10% URMs vs 47.5% Asian and 15.5% Caucasian. From the looks of it, whities at UCSF are right there with URMs.

:)

Note: UCSF draws from a much broader pool that just San Francisco (Socal + OOS). The school welcomes anybody in which they are qualified. If you want to look at the general case, typically the most impacted demographics for the pharmacy profession would be Vietnamese females (although I hate to generalize this case so much). This is not to say that one school is favoring one ethnicity over another, but rather the applicant pool is staggered as such and thus, the matriculating class reflects that applicant pool.

I really don't think there is anywhere in California, except for maybe certain blocks of certain cities, where you could find a 50% vs. 15% disparity in asian vs. caucasian, but we're arguing about trivial things here since I don't disagree with anyone. LOL.

As I said before there is far more working here than simply a large population of asians, so yea, like everyone else in this thread, I totally agree that we are not seeing a distinct bias.

yea i also dont think its all because of population size,
but it is an indirect cause. after seeing a growing number
of ppl going to the pharmacy speaking other than english,
they realize they need more of those health professionals
from that ethnic group to better serve them. is it not nicer
to hire a bilingual pharmacist to reach out to more customers
for the same pay? then again my opinion of course. but the
trend is there. more and more schools are quadrupling their
admissions of minority students to have a more diverse atm.

yea i also dont think its all because of population size,
but it is an indirect cause. after seeing a growing number
of ppl going to the pharmacy speaking other than english,
they realize they need more of those health professionals
from that ethnic group to better serve them. is it not nicer
to hire a bilingual pharmacist to reach out to more customers
for the same pay? then again my opinion of course. but the
trend is there. more and more schools are quadrupling their
admissions of minority students to have a more diverse atm.

1). Stop writing in weird paragraphs. It's annoying.

2). Bilingual pharmacists are definitely a bonus. HOWEVER...more important is a pharmacist that has a FIRM grasp of English and is easily understood.

3). I don't think that a significant portion of minority students are bilingual, especially blacks. While many Asian students may speak a different language at home, I don't know ANY blacks that do.

Basically, I don't think that bias has ANYTHING to do with minority admissions. I think it is much more that more minorities are in a position to, and are interested in, applying to professional schools like pharmacy school. I think it has a lot more to do with the fact that whites are statistically more likely to receive a better education and therefore more likely to get admitted to pharmacy school, but as that disparity is being addressed through funding for lower-income area students, more minority students are in a position to actually gain admittance on a merit basis to pharmacy school. I imagine that a significant number of minority pharmacy admissions, especially in the 90's, were due to affirmative action, especially for California schools (which are notorious for refusing to abide by anti-discrimination laws).

Stop trying to play the race card and insist you're being discriminated against. It's foolish and it trivializes the actual struggles some people deal with due to racism or sexism.

1). Stop writing in weird paragraphs. It's annoying.

2). Bilingual pharmacists are definitely a bonus. HOWEVER...more important is a pharmacist that has a FIRM grasp of English and is easily understood.

3). I don't think that a significant portion of minority students are bilingual, especially blacks. While many Asian students may speak a different language at home, I don't know ANY blacks that do.

Basically, I don't think that bias has ANYTHING to do with minority admissions. I think it is much more that more minorities are in a position to, and are interested in, applying to professional schools like pharmacy school. I think it has a lot more to do with the fact that whites are statistically more likely to receive a better education and therefore more likely to get admitted to pharmacy school, but as that disparity is being addressed through funding for lower-income area students, more minority students are in a position to actually gain admittance on a merit basis to pharmacy school. I imagine that a significant number of minority pharmacy admissions, especially in the 90's, were due to affirmative action, especially for California schools (which are notorious for refusing to abide by anti-discrimination laws).

Stop trying to play the race card and insist you're being discriminated against. It's foolish and it trivializes the actual struggles some people deal with due to racism or sexism.





Like everyone said there is no distinct reason to say that this is reverse discrimination, however, looking at stats one wouldn't question how different the profession is becoming. Areas within the Midwest are starting to see the same changes (we are always the last to change :) ) but universities around here have gotten in trouble for having lower minority acceptance rates. Universities often time lose some funding if the minority group is not well represented. At my undergrad school (which was 96% white) minorities were sent many emails asking to pose in pamphlets to show that there was diversity. Being honest I would sometimes feel better checking the non-white box. It definitely doesn't hurt your chances.

Checking your race should not be a part of any admissions form, there's no reason to give a certain group preferential treatment just because they are 'underserved'. Everyone should be on the same playing field and judged by all the traditional stuff - PCATs, GPA , LOR, etc.

Checking your race should not be a part of any admissions form, there's no reason to give a certain group preferential treatment just because they are 'underserved'. Everyone should be on the same playing field and judged by all the traditional stuff - PCATs, GPA , LOR, etc.

Not everyone is on an even playing field. I used to teach in an inner city school and I can tell you that the education a bright student receives there is not remotely the same education one gets in a middle or upper middle class neighborhood. These same kids would shine if they had a better environment. Instead, they start college with a serious deficit through no fault of their own. It doesn't mean that they can't catch up and be great pharmacists but they start out with a less solid foundation to draw on which often results in lower GPAs or test scores. Unfortunately, certain minority groups are disproportionately affected by poor schools. I think this is a class issue more than a race issue but certain races are penalized more than others just because more come from impoverished neighborhoods. You can talk about competing on an even playing field but be aware that depending on the neighborhood you were raised in, you may have been given a huge head start.

You can talk about competing on an even playing field but be aware that depending on the neighborhood you were raised in, you may have been given a huge head start.

It's true. However, the focus should be of the financial state of the applicant, rather than their race. If it's simply based on race, then there's nothing stopping someone from a well-to-do minority family getting preferential treatment.

It's true. However, the focus should be of the financial state of the applicant, rather than their race. If it's simply based on race, then there's nothing stopping someone from a well-to-do minority family getting preferential treatment.

Right, exactly. And obviously there are under-privileged white people too, so they may get screwed.

Not everyone is on an even playing field. I used to teach in an inner city school and I can tell you that the education a bright student receives there is not remotely the same education one gets in a middle or upper middle class neighborhood. These same kids would shine if they had a better environment. Instead, they start college with a serious deficit through no fault of their own. It doesn't mean that they can't catch up and be great pharmacists but they start out with a less solid foundation to draw on which often results in lower GPAs or test scores. Unfortunately, certain minority groups are disproportionately affected by poor schools. I think this is a class issue more than a race issue but certain races are penalized more than others just because more come from impoverished neighborhoods. You can talk about competing on an even playing field but be aware that depending on the neighborhood you were raised in, you may have been given a huge head start.
That becomes a fishy issue then though, how do you determine who came from a poor schooling system. As things stand currently it doesn't matter what system you came from as long as you are a minority you WILL get the preferential treatment. I've seen it several times in college admissions that a better qualified white person is ousted by a less qualified minority counterpart.

That becomes a fishy issue then though, how do you determine who came from a poor schooling system. As things stand currently it doesn't matter what system you came from as long as you are a minority you WILL get the preferential treatment. I've seen it several times in college admissions that a better qualified white person is ousted by a less qualified minority counterpart.

The worst part about this is that it's NOT HELPFUL. Black law students admitted to affirmative action schools are two and a half times as likely to fail out of law school, four times as likely to not pass the bar on their first try and six times as likely to NEVER pass the bar as their white classmates. Interestingly, it has also been shown that black students admitted based only on merit have NOT had these stats - it's just the ones who were admitted based on AA.

Yeah, 76.xx% female and 23.xx% male.

Hope my interview goes well.

:p

Us males are so lucky that pharmacy schools have a high ratio of female-male nowadays.

Not everyone is on an even playing field. I used to teach in an inner city school and I can tell you that the education a bright student receives there is not remotely the same education one gets in a middle or upper middle class neighborhood. These same kids would shine if they had a better environment. Instead, they start college with a serious deficit through no fault of their own. It doesn't mean that they can't catch up and be great pharmacists but they start out with a less solid foundation to draw on which often results in lower GPAs or test scores. Unfortunately, certain minority groups are disproportionately affected by poor schools. I think this is a class issue more than a race issue but certain races are penalized more than others just because more come from impoverished neighborhoods. You can talk about competing on an even playing field but be aware that depending on the neighborhood you were raised in, you may have been given a huge head start.

Especially since the kids in the poorer neighborhoods have to deal with **** that their counterparts in the rich neighborhoods don't deal with. (Like, possibly getting shot, robbed, mugged on the way to school.) What's the worst that rich kids have to go through, worry about mommy's Cadillac Escalade getting into an accident because mommy was too busy putting on makeup while driving?

I carried weapons with me when I was in high school. Two pocket knives (one at the belt, one on a leg strap near the socks.) and a small bottle of deodorant spray to go with a zippo (home made flamethrower), and a nice 4 foot long keychain with a lot of keys at the end as a long range weapon to fend off multiple attackers.

If you actually believe that, then you are mentally inept.


That's all I want to say. Obama has nothing to do with Pharmacy...how are the two even correlated with each other? If an African American person, Latino person, green person is qualified than you a person who happens to be white then they were MORE QUALIFIED. END OF STORY. same goes for me, a black female.

If an African American person, Latino person, green person is qualified than you a person who happens to be white then they were MORE QUALIFIED.

:smack:

That's all I want to say. Obama has nothing to do with Pharmacy...how are the two even correlated with each other? If an African American person, Latino person, green person is qualified than you a person who happens to be white then they were MORE QUALIFIED. END OF STORY. same goes for me, a black female.

He is pushing for Affirmative Action, something that should be outlaw a million years ago.

College applications, Pharmacy school applications, ALL applications should only include 4 things. GPA, Test Scores, Ex Activities, and SS#. Race and gender shouldn't even matter.

It's true. However, the focus should be of the financial state of the applicant, rather than their race. If it's simply based on race, then there's nothing stopping someone from a well-to-do minority family getting preferential treatment.

This actually doesn't happen. Most times, race on an application are for tracking and statistic purposes, not admission. Not to mention, the transcripts of said applicant are often a tell-tale sign of their economic status, and thus the quality of their primary education.

He is pushing for Affirmative Action, something that should be outlaw a million years ago.

College applications, Pharmacy school applications, ALL applications should only include 4 things. GPA, Test Scores, Ex Activities, and SS#. Race and gender shouldn't even matter.

It amazes me how ignorant people are about affirmative action.

Affirmative Action does NOT equal quotas. AffAm does NOT imply preferential treatment of an unqualified candidate over a qualified candidate. Not to mention the practices that made the polices necessary should never have been implemented...but that's another thread.

I do agree, however, agree that (at this stage of progression) an economicly based system to level out the playing field would be best, but there was DEFINITELY a time when affirmative action (and heck, even quotas at one point) were absolutely needed in this country.

It amazes me how ignorant people are about affirmative action.

Affirmative Action does NOT equal quotas. AffAm does NOT imply preferential treatment of an unqualified candidate over a qualified candidate. Not to mention the practices that made the polices necessary should never have been implemented...but that's another thread.

I do agree, however, agree that (at this stage of progression) an economicly based system to level out the playing field would be best, but there was DEFINITELY a time when affirmative action (and heck, even quotas at one point) were absolutely needed in this country.

I am ignorant b/c I think a person should be accepted solely on merit and not race/gender? I wonder where you get your reasoning from. :rolleyes:

This actually doesn't happen. Most times, race on an application are for tracking and statistic purposes, not admission. Not to mention, the transcripts of said applicant are often a tell-tale sign of their economic status, and thus the quality of their primary education.

I would have to disagree that the transcripts can tell you the economic status. I was raised in a poor family but was able to go to a private middle school and high school (high school was about 10k a year) thanks to financial aid.

Um, this article should clarify things.

Shelby Steele wrote:

America's war over affirmative action has gone on longer than any of the country's military conflicts, and over the decades each side of this debate has spawned a vast literature of argument. So I feel some dread in seeing the debate newly enlivened today. Yet the Sotomayor nomination (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/26/AR2009052600889.html), the Supreme Court's decision (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-1428.pdf) in the Ricci case (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/29/AR2009062901608.html) and the election of our first black president make it inevitable.

What is the future of group preferences in America? Doesn't a black president render them obsolete? Or does an incident like the arrest (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/20/AR2009072001358.html) of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates -- with its implication of racial profiling -- point to the continuing need for affirmative action?
Unfortunately, this preoccupation with preferences may be a fool's errand. With black youths performing worse on the SAT in 2000 than in 1990, the obsession with affirmative action may only help us avoid the more troubling reality: the ongoing underdevelopment that keeps so many blacks non-competitive.




It is important to remember that the original goal of affirmative action was to achieve two redemptions simultaneously. As society gave a preference to its former victims in employment and education, it hoped to redeem both those victims and itself. When America -- the world's oldest and most unequivocal democracy -- finally acknowledged in the 1960s its heartless betrayal of democracy where blacks were concerned, the loss of moral authority was profound. In their monochrome whiteness, the institutions of this society -- universities, government agencies, corporations -- became emblems of the very evil America had just acknowledged.
Affirmative action has always been more about the restoration of legitimacy to American institutions than the uplift of blacks and other minorities. For 30 years after its inception, no one even bothered to measure its effectiveness in minority progress. Advocates of racial preferences tried to prove that these policies actually helped minorities only after 1996, when California's Proposition 209 banned racial preferences in all state institutions, scaring supporters across the country.
But the research following from this scare has been politicized and discredited. Most important, it has completely failed to show that affirmative action ever closes the academic gap between minorities and whites. And failing in this, affirmative action also fails to help blacks achieve true equality with whites -- the ultimate measure of which is parity in skills and individual competence. Without this underlying parity there can never be true equality in employment, income levels, rates of home ownership, educational achievement and the rest.
But affirmative action has been quite effective in its actual, if unacknowledged, purpose. It has restored moral authority and legitimacy to American institutions. When the Supreme Court seemed ready to nullify the idea of racial preferences in the 2003 University of Michigan affirmative action cases, more than 100 amicus briefs -- more than for any other case in U.S. history -- were submitted to the court by American institutions in support of group preferences. Yet there was no march on Washington by tens of thousands of blacks demanding affirmative action, not even a threat of such a move from a people who had "marched" their way to freedom in the '60s. In 2003, the possible end of racial preferences did not panic minorities; it panicked institutional America.
So the question that followed from the Michigan cases -- how long will minorities need some form of racial preferences? -- is the wrong question. A better question is: How long it will take American institutions to feel legitimate without granting racial preferences? After the Michigan cases, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor famously surmised that blacks would need preferences for 25 more years. Sadly, it will probably take blacks longer than that to completely overcome nearly four centuries of oppression. But O'Connor was probably calibrating institutional America's timeline to retrieve legitimacy. She wasn't measuring the achievement of true equality.
How will the law continue to define and uphold group preferences?
We are headed now, it seems, into a legal thicket created by the incompatibility of two notions of equality: "disparate impact" and "equal protection under the law." The former is a legalism evolved from judicial interpretations of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act; the latter is a constitutional guarantee. Disparate impact lets you presume that an entire class of people has been discriminated against if it has been disproportionately affected by some policy. If no blacks do well enough on a firefighters promotion exam to win advancement while many whites do (Ricci v. DeStefano (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/29/AR2009062901608.html)), then this constitutes discrimination against blacks.
Disparate impact has two inherent corruptions: It allows discrimination to be established by mere presumption, and it makes victimization collective. By disparate impact, all blacks in the New Haven, Conn., fire department were presumed victims of discrimination without any evidence that the city actually discriminated against any of them. And the city threw out the test because it knew that a failure to promote blacks (while whites were being promoted) would automatically make the city guilty of and liable for discrimination. The Ricci case illustrates the irrationality of disparate impact. As New Haven threw out the firefighter's test because of its disparate impact on blacks, it created a disparate impact on whites.
Racial preferences only extend the misguided logic of disparate impact. They, too, presume discrimination without evidence. All blacks, even President Obama's children, are eligible for the redress of a racial preference. We must presume that, even in the Sidwell Friends School by day and the White House by night, the president's daughters -- as blacks -- encounter a racial animus that so predictably disadvantages them that the automatic redress of a racial preference is required. Obama himself has pointed out the absurdity of this, and yet privileged blacks such as his daughters remain the most sought-after minorities by admissions officers seeking "diversity."



Disparate impact and racial preferences represent the law and policymaking of a guilty America, an America lacking the moral authority to live by the rigors of the Constitution's "equal protection" -- a guarantee that sees victims as individuals and requires hard evidence to prove discrimination. They are "white guilt" legalisms created after the '60s as fast tracks to moral authority. They apologize for presumed white wrongdoing and offer recompense to minorities before any actual discrimination has been documented. Yet these legalisms are much with us now. And it will no doubt take the courts a generation or more to disentangle all this apology from the law.

But fortunately race relations in America are not much driven by the courts. We argue over affirmative action and disparate impact because we don't know how to talk about our most profound racial problem: the lack of developmental parity between blacks and whites. Today a certain contradiction runs through black American life. As many of us still suffer from deprivations caused by historical racism, we also live in a society where racism is simply no longer a significant barrier to black advancement -- a society so sensitized that even the implication of racism, as in the Henry Louis Gates case, triggers a national discussion.

We blacks know oppression well, but today it is our inexperience with freedom that holds us back almost as relentlessly as oppression once did. Out of this inexperience, for example, we miss the fact that racial preferences and disparate impact can only help us -- even if they were effective -- with a problem we no longer have. The problem that black firefighters had in New Haven was not discrimination; it was the fact that not a single black did well enough on the exam to gain promotion.
Today's "black" problem is underdevelopment, not discrimination. Success in modernity will demand profound cultural changes -- changes in child-rearing, a restoration of marriage and family, a focus on academic rigor, a greater appreciation of entrepreneurialism and an embrace of individual development as the best road to group development.




Whites are embarrassed to speak forthrightly about black underdevelopment, and blacks are too proud to openly explore it for all to see. So, by unspoken agreement, we discuss black underdevelopment in a language of discrimination and injustice. We rejoin the exhausted affirmative action debate as if it really mattered, and we do not acknowledge that this underdevelopment is primarily a black responsibility. And yet it is -- as historically unfair as it may be, as much as it seems to blame the victim. In human affairs we are responsible not just for our "just" fate, but also for our existential fate.
But continuing black underdevelopment will flush both races out of their postures and make most discussions of race in America, outside a context of development, irrelevant.

Shelby Steele is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and the author of "White Guilt: How Blacks and Whites Together Destroyed the Promise of the Civil Rights Era."

I am ignorant b/c I think a person should be accepted solely on merit and not race/gender? I wonder where you get your reasoning from. :rolleyes:

My reasoning is based on logic. Read the rest of my post.

There is no way Aff Am could have been taken out of the equation sooner, based on the history of our country. Your lack of reasoning in your first statement was what I was referring to.

The history of our country is a reality that cannot just be wiped away. And if you continue to read my post (rather than stopping at a statement you just don't like), you'll see further reasoning.

I would have to disagree that the transcripts can tell you the economic status. I was raised in a poor family but was able to go to a private middle school and high school (high school was about 10k a year) thanks to financial aid.

And you are not the demographic to which the post was directed. If you are wealthy, you go to a good school, and get a good background education and the quality of the school can be ascertained from your transcripts. Admitting universities are fully aware of the nature of the schools from which their students are applying.

The statement did not remotely apply to you. It was about upper class blacks that an earlier post said would get an additional unfair advantage. Again, does not apply to you.

Us males are so lucky that pharmacy schools have a high ratio of female-male nowadays.

Giggity.

This actually doesn't happen. Most times, race on an application are for tracking and statistic purposes, not admission. Not to mention, the transcripts of said applicant are often a tell-tale sign of their economic status, and thus the quality of their primary education.

I know Affirmative Action is no longer enforced in California, and I'm not saying that it's a common problem, I'm simply countering the idea that it's required. I'll even concede that it may have been necessary at some point, however, I do not think it is necessary now, and that if anyone DOES think it should be in place because of the advantages based on wealth, that the criteria should be wealth rather than race.

I know Affirmative Action is no longer enforced in California, and I'm not saying that it's a common problem, I'm simply countering the idea that it's required. I'll even concede that it may have been necessary at some point, however, I do not think it is necessary now, and that if anyone DOES think it should be in place because of the advantages based on wealth, that the criteria should be wealth rather than race.

Agreed!

I really don't think there is anywhere in California, except for maybe certain blocks of certain cities, where you could find a 50% vs. 15% disparity in asian vs. caucasian, but we're arguing about trivial things here since I don't disagree with anyone. LOL.

As I said before there is far more working here than simply a large population of asians, so yea, like everyone else in this thread, I totally agree that we are not seeing a distinct bias.

Population does not equal applicant pool. If you look at UCSF's APPLICANT POOL (as in people who APPLIED to UCSF), I bet it was around 50% Asian and 15% white.

Population does not equal applicant pool. If you look at UCSF's APPLICANT POOL (as in people who APPLIED to UCSF), I bet it was around 50% Asian and 15% white.

Can you show me something in writing or is this statement based completely on your gut feeling (i.e. worthless)?

This topic is a little too controversial for me. However, I do agree with a lot of the arguments that were listed above. I do believe that you should be accepted based on your qualifications and not on your gender and/or race. I also agree that it is extremely hard for someone coming from an inner city school to be successful as opposed to someone coming from a middle classed or upper/private school system. With that said, it is not impossible to be successful under those conditions. I am from a third world country, moved to the States when I was about to turn 17 yo. I have always aspired to be successful in life and even after moving here, I never lost sight of that. My family is my inspiration for success because I refuse to go through life under those harsh conditions that they endured.

With all that said, acceptance should be based on qualifications but knowledge is key and it is always best to not be ignorant to experiences, whether good or bad, that others may face or have faced. Just my $0.02

Population does not equal applicant pool. If you look at UCSF's APPLICANT POOL (as in people who APPLIED to UCSF), I bet it was around 50% Asian and 15% white.

I would take that bet.:D

i wonder if anyone notice the trend in rising
minority admissions to pharmacy school. schools
that only admit a few (very few) minority every
school year in the past are now quadrupling their
admission rate. it makes it very noticeable that
there were definitely bias involved in their selection
process in the past. im thinking its the obama thing,
but then the trend began the year before he presided.
any thoughts. o_o?


what exactly do you mean by "the obama thing"??

Haha, I bet this person is long gone by now. I'm curious as well.

what exactly do you mean by "the obama thing"??

Black power, obviously.

The increase in diversity (to put it in a better word) is happening everywhere in the health field now. Look at the stats of medical and dental schools. Their non-white admission rate is increasing as well.

It is definately not due to the bias of the school admissions, but it is simply because of the increasing number of non-white applicants. As more Asians, African Americans, and Hispanics are getting higher education nowadays (disappearance of racism in school systems), they tend to pick more secure jobs, such as jobs in the health field.

As time passes, more qualified non-whites are getting accepted to the pharm schools. It is just what happens when you live in 21st century.:rolleyes:

Black power, obviously.


Of course...weren't you guys paying attention? lol :rolleyes:

He is pushing for Affirmative Action, something that should be outlaw a million years ago.

College applications, Pharmacy school applications, ALL applications should only include 4 things. GPA, Test Scores, Ex Activities, and SS#. Race and gender shouldn't even matter.


I disagree...Four centuries of oppression is hard to just whisk away. Also to say that it's fair footing because a lot of where you go to college is determined by your high school scores. Well naturally a suburban white kid is going to do better than a minority in a school that doesn't have books for every student. So the suburban kid NATURALLY goes to a better school...I think looking at the factors of socioeconomical background as opposed to race would be a better way of looking at Affirmative Action.

I disagree...Four centuries of oppression is hard to just whisk away. Also to say that it's fair footing because a lot of where you go to college is determined by your high school scores. Well naturally a suburban white kid is going to do better than a minority in a school that doesn't have books for every student. So the suburban kid NATURALLY goes to a better school...I think looking at the factors of socioeconomical background as opposed to race would be a better way of looking at Affirmative Action.



Good point.:thumbup:

Can you show me something in writing or is this statement based completely on your gut feeling (i.e. worthless)?

Based on logic, sir. Why is UCSF 50% asian 15% white?


Either:

A) UCSF is biased against white students.

B) Applicant pool has a similar ratio.

C) Asians perform better than whites.

I say B, but considering your replies, I think you'd say A, although you'll never admit it.

oops

Based on logic, sir. Why is UCSF 50% asian 15% white?


Either:

A) UCSF is biased against white students.

B) Applicant pool has a similar ratio.

C) Asians perform better than whites.

I say B, but considering your replies, I think you'd say A, although you'll never admit it.

You're both wrong it's C)

Definitely C. Although in retrospect, C should be A, since A is the grade the asians get, and C is what us caucasians get. Get it? Asian, Caucasian? Man I should go into stand-up comedy.

And don't call me sir. I work for a living.

Based on logic, sir. Why is UCSF 50% asian 15% white?


Either:

A) UCSF is biased against white students.

B) Applicant pool has a similar ratio.

C) Asians perform better than whites.

I say B, but considering your replies, I think you'd say A, although you'll never admit it.



C has a lot to do with standardized testing bias...which exists actually. I know it does in the SATs.

Definitely C. Although in retrospect, C should be A, since A is the grade the asians get, and C is what us caucasians get. Get it? Asian, Caucasian? Man I should go into stand-up comedy.

And don't call me sir. I work for a living.


That is definitely the best joke on this board in a while. lol

C has a lot to do with standardized testing bias...which exists actually. I know it does in the SATs.

How are standardized tests biased? How are the SATs biased?

UCSF doesn't base admissions off of any standardized tests so I don't see how that's relevant either.

How are standardized tests biased? How are the SATs biased?

UCSF doesn't base admissions off of any standardized tests so I don't see how that's relevant either.

Standardizing test bias runs in several veins and its impact is more or less hard to determine, long term, but this USA Today article can shed a little light on the subject.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2004-06-28-standardized-tests_x.htm

Here's one example from the study conducted on standardized testing and how it can be biased against people of non-WASP backgrounds.

I remember one question that showed a picture of a couch on a porch and asked, 'What doesn't fit?' " she says. "I started laughing," she says. "The way I grew up, everyone had a couch outside.

But, you're right, this subject is not cogent to UCSF's admissions, since they don't use any standardized tests, like the PCAT as a metric for its admissions.

I'm convinced the verbal part of the PCAT had socio-economic bias. If I had more money to go out to restaurants more often, I might have known the greek food items on the exam. And the Italian pastas.

C has a lot to do with standardized testing bias...which exists actually. I know it does in the SATs.

Wouldn't the bias favor Causasians?

Wouldn't the bias favor Causasians?


See I've seen research that says Asians are the standard...not that I buy into it. lol

How are standardized tests biased? How are the SATs biased?

UCSF doesn't base admissions off of any standardized tests so I don't see how that's relevant either.

I wasn't talking about UCSF, I was talking about admission criteria and the bias that possibly exist, the opening topic of the board. Although some of the students and alumni might not agree, UCSF is NOT the only school with enough merit to discuss.

See I've seen research that says Asians are the standard...not that I buy into it. lol

So let me get this straight, "C) Asians perform better than whites" because standardized tests have some questions that only Asians would know. :confused:

Tests like the SATs are under extreme scrutiny to be fair and unbiased. If it was biased, why would this country use it for so long. And even if it was biased, why would they give Asians the advantage?

Furthermore Passion4Sci, the point of that article is that MOST standardized tests are unbiased, however there can be few mistakes. The article brings up one biased question from some obscure standardized test in Iowa called "Iowa Tests for Basic Skills." This is not only weak support for the "standardized bias" claim, but also irrelevant because any credible school would never use a test that is known to be biased for admissions criteria.

The bottom line is, don't discredit an entire population of hard-working students by saying they had some advantage when it came to standardized testing, because they didn't.

The bottom line is, don't discredit an entire population of hard-working students by saying they had some advantage when it came to standardized testing, because they didn't.

You're talking about whities here, right?

If anything, there is reverse discrimination against Asians, more so than whites. There is data out there that shows that Asians with higher academics are refused entry to colleges of their choices more often than whites and there are four dental schools in the U.S. that will not even accept Asians. If anyone requires a source, I will be happy to look up the information again although I request you do your own research first.

See I've seen research that says Asians are the standard...not that I buy into it. lol


Really?? I didn't know that! I guess you learn something everyday. I always figured that standardize exams favors whites b/c they are the majority. Asians are the smallest minority group, so I figure they are the ones left in the cold. I am Asian and I always feel the math sections on any American standardize exams were too easy maybe thats what the research means? :laugh: The SAT Math section was a joke.

If anything, there is reverse discrimination against Asians, more so than whites. There is data out there that shows that Asians with higher academics are refused entry to colleges of their choices more often than whites and there are four dental schools in the U.S. that will not even accept Asians. If anyone requires a source, I will be happy to look up the information again although I request you do your own research first.

Really? When I was in dental school half of my class was Asian. :)

If anything, there is reverse discrimination against Asians, more so than whites. There is data out there that shows that Asians with higher academics are refused entry to colleges of their choices more often than whites and there are four dental schools in the U.S. that will not even accept Asians. If anyone requires a source, I will be happy to look up the information again although I request you do your own research first.
is that even legal?

So let me get this straight, "C) Asians perform better than whites" because standardized tests have some questions that only Asians would know. :confused:

Tests like the SATs are under extreme scrutiny to be fair and unbiased. If it was biased, why would this country use it for so long. And even if it was biased, why would they give Asians the advantage?

Furthermore Passion4Sci, the point of that article is that MOST standardized tests are unbiased, however there can be few mistakes. The article brings up one biased question from some obscure standardized test in Iowa called "Iowa Tests for Basic Skills." This is not only weak support for the "standardized bias" claim, but also irrelevant because any credible school would never use a test that is known to be biased for admissions criteria.

The bottom line is, don't discredit an entire population of hard-working students by saying they had some advantage when it came to standardized testing, because they didn't.


No. Not at all..See when I said Asians I meant Asians and whites. I apologize for the lack of clarifications. Practice questions on the SATs if more black people get the answer correct than usual, then the question is not used on the next version of the test. However, if more Asians and white answer it correctly then it is used.

However, a test is just that a TEST. You study and do your personal best, not ethnically best. :rolleyes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vC_zK16sosw
this short video sums it up the best!!

You're talking about whities here, right?

you sounds like an idiot

is that even legal?

it does happen I watched a documentry about it back in high school about cali schools

The bottom line is, don't discredit an entire population of hard-working students by saying they had some advantage when it came to standardized testing, because they didn't.

How do you know? The thing about cultural bias is that the people who write the exams aren't doing it on purpose. They just assume that what is their normal is normal for everyone and they have no idea that some people think it is normal to put your couch on the porch or that a kid from the inner city might have more trouble answering an analogy with sailing terms in it. They try to minimize the problem but you have to recognize it before you can fix it.

No. Not at all..See when I said Asians I meant Asians and whites. I apologize for the lack of clarifications. Practice questions on the SATs if more black people get the answer correct than usual, then the question is not used on the next version of the test. However, if more Asians and white answer it correctly then it is used.

However, a test is just that a TEST. You study and do your personal best, not ethnically best. :rolleyes:

R you sure?? how do you know? I really don't think there is any bias, either you know it or you don't. I took Kaplan for all my standardize exams and it work like a charm every single time. Don't really know what you mean by bias.

R you sure?? how do you know? I really don't think there is any bias, either you know it or you don't. I took Kaplan for all my standardize exams and it work like a charm every single time. Don't really know what you mean by bias.

They are talking about cultural bias. Traditionally the WASPy people who wrote the tests just assumed that students know about elements common to their world that might not be the reality for people not raised that way. For example, I believe they used to have questions with sailing terms. Sailboat:regatta as ______________. A student who is lower on the socio-economic scale would have a tougher time answering that question because sailing isn't a part of their world. Imagine the difficulty that you would have if you had to answer an analogy about churros, if you have never even seen one. (On my PCAT, I had one about Greek food.) Certain segments of the population would have a natural advantage with that question. When an advantage is given to students based on their upbringing and not their skills, that is the bias they are talking about.

They are talking about cultural bias. Traditionally the WASPy people who wrote the tests just assumed that students know about elements common to their world that might not be the reality for people not raised that way. For example, I believe they used to have questions with sailing terms. Sailboat:regatta as ______________. A student who is lower on the socio-economic scale would have a tougher time answering that question because sailing isn't a part of their world. Imagine the difficulty that you would have if you had to answer an analogy about churros, if you have never even seen one. (On my PCAT, I had one about Greek food.) Certain segments of the population would have a natural advantage with that question. When an advantage is given to students based on their upbringing and not their skills, that is the bias they are talking about.

Yeah I heard some people say that before, but that isn't the main reason for poor test results. The main reason for poor test results on verbal reasoning and reading skills is NOT reading! :laugh:

If you read all your life you will do well on the verbal reasoning and reading sections. (Verbal SAT) The key to doing VERY WELL on the verbal sections on the SAT is by reading when you are a very little kid. It has nothing to do with any "bias". The younger your age is when you start reading the smarter you will be. No joke. All of the most intelligent people in the world have one thing in common, they started reading when they were very little kids.

For example, my sister and I both came to the USA in 1993, neither one of us can speak any English back then. However my younger sister have always LOVE to read. She started reading when she was 4 years old. By age 8 she has her own library in the house! She reads everytime she has a chance and she loves doing crossword puzzles etc. Me on the other hand, hate to read, I hated school (even in high school I never studied b/c I hate it) When I was a kid I just watch TV or go take ballet lessons, I NEVER read anything, and my parents would yell at me but I don't care.

My verbal SAT was a 520, My sister's was a perfect 800. (Her GRE Verbal was also a perfect score and her LSAT score is almost perfect) We grew up in the same enviroment, had the same parents, went to the same high school, parents were always fair, etc. But her score was perfect and my was poor. Why? B/c I was LAZY. No other reason. If I started reading when I was 4 years old like my sister did then I would not have done so poorly. :(

Poor test results have less to do with "bias" than it does with a person simply NOT reading when they were kids.

Yeah I heard some people say that before, but that isn't the main reason for poor test results. The main reason for poor test results on verbal reasoning and reading skills is NOT reading! :laugh:

If you read all your life you will do well on the verbal reasoning and reading sections. (Verbal SAT) The key to doing VERY WELL on the verbal sections on the SAT is by reading when you are a very little kid. It has nothing to do with any "bias". The younger your age is when you start reading the smarter you will be. No joke. All of the most intelligent people in the world have one thing in common, they started reading when they were very little kids.

For example, my sister and I both came to the USA in 1993, neither one of us can speak any English back then. However my younger sister have always LOVE to read. She started reading when she was 4 years old. By age 8 she has her own library in the house! She reads everytime she has a chance and she loves doing crossword puzzles etc. Me on the other hand, hate to read, I hated school (even in high school I never studied b/c I hate it) When I was a kid I just watch TV or go take ballet lessons, I NEVER read anything, and my parents would yell at me but I don't care.

My verbal SAT was a 520, My sister's was a perfect 800. (Her GRE Verbal was also a perfect score and her LSAT score is almost perfect) We grew up in the same enviroment, had the same parents, went to the same high school, parents were always fair, etc. But her score was perfect and my was poor. Why? B/c I was LAZY. No other reason. If I started reading when I was 4 years old like my sister did then I would not have done so poorly. :(

Poor test results have less to do with "bias" than it does with a person simply NOT reading when they were kids.

I'm not claiming that it accounts for huge differences but I think some does exist. An individual certainly can affect their scores with extra effort. However, when school systems and even whole states celebrate a rise of two points from one school year to the next, cultural bias carries greater weight from that perspective.