Quote:
Originally Posted by StudentDentist
Looking at how you're able to assess the meaning of stats, I'm sure you understand then that the information you posted is pretty much meaningless, at least enough to not warrant naming the thread "the myth behind the impact on ds admissions." Every stat available in every field anyone's ever seen pretty much suggest that URM's are, on average, entering with lower numbers.
And that wasn't the document I'm talking about. The one I'm referring to has the DAT/GPA of dental school matriculants, organized by race amongst other things.
|
No argument about the info being meaningless. Ah!, if this were the only post to fit that description.
Quote:
Originally Posted by StudentDentist
If you're from Tejas, it's not hard to see what ethnic group you belong to. You can do your own research, but I'm not convinced you'd understand what it means.  jk. What's there to buy? URM's do poorer on every standardized exam out there. SAT, MCAT,....etc. It's become common knowledge at this point. It's like saying men do better in perceptual reasoning than women, caucasions do better on reading comprehension than asians, women do better on reading than men, or men do better in math than women. We've all seen stats to support this, and it just doesn't need much more verification at this point. |
The assertion that there is a difference in how males, females and various ethnic groups fare in standardized test is not likely to make it to TIME's top 10 list of outstanding revelations of the 21th Century. We are going to be hard pressed to find someone that will argue otherwise and there is a pretty good chance that if each of the group was further sub grouped based on the socio-economic background we would find a significant difference between the means for those in the higher and lower groups. The post was less about the whether or not there are "minorities" with lower stats that are accepted in U.S. ds and more about the real or imagined impact that those admissions have on the admissions process
vis a vis the more qualified "other" applicants. Speaking of Texas, it is interesting to note that from 2007 to 2008 Baylor increased it's "minority" enrollment from 25 to 44 yet, surprisingly the science gpa, overall gpa and AA scores showed an increase rather than a decrease. SA with a decrease in "minorities" from 15 to 8 shows an actual decrease in gpa and a slight increase in the AA. The low range of gpa scores for both Hou and SA are not exactly in the same league of those seen with Meharry, Howard and PR. Painstaking analysis of the number of minorities enrolled, the mean and range of scores can give us, at least, some clues whether or not the socio-economic "minorities" accepted came from Ivy League schools or "Minority College".
Code:
Baylor Baylor Hou Hou SA SA
2007 2008 2007 2008 2007 2008
Afr/Am 10 13 4 1 3 1
Hisp 12 30 14 14 12 7
NatAm 3 1 0 1 0 0
T Min 25 44 18 16 15 8
Gpa S 3.44 3.47 3.52 3.61 3.6 3.59
Gpa Ran 2.73-4.00 3.23-4.00 3.08-4.00
Gpa O 3.51 3.54 3.59 3.66 3.74 3.67
Gpa Ran 2.96-3.90 3.22-3.98 3.25-4.00
AA 19.5 19.5 19.19 19.7 19 20
AA Rang 14-21.2 15-22 15-23
Code:
Total Af/Am Hisp AA Mean GPA-S Mean Gpa AA
Alab 60 2 2 18-24 19.8 3.01-3.96 3.58
AZ 60 0 6 14-22 18.4 2.67-3.94 3.36 * *
LL 95 6 5 15-23.8 19.3 2.78-3.96 3.4 *
UCLA 88 4 11 17-25 22 2.89-4.00 3.58
UCSF 85 1 3 17-23 21.6 3.14-4.00 3.67
UOP 141 3 16 17-23 20.6 2.64-3.95 3.29 *
USC 144 5 5 15.4-22 19.2 2.85-3.91 3.39 *
Colo 50 0 2 15-23.6 N/A 3.06-3.97 N/A *
Conn 39 1 0 16-21 20.6 3.00-4.00 3.56
Howard 82 40 4 12-20.9 17 2.55-3.68 3.06 * *
Nova 93 2 9 15-23 19.7 2.99-4.08 3.56 *
Flor 83 7 13 N/A 19.5 N/A 3.54
Geo 63 3 3 15-23 19.2 3.09-3.99 3.54 *
S Ill 50 3 3 16-23 18.5 3.16-4.00 3.55 *
U Ill 68 7 5 14.1-22 20 2.68-4.00 3.45 * *
Ind 101 1 0 17-24 19.1 2.91-4.00 3.5
Iowa 80 2 6 16-22 19.4 3.16-4.00 3.64 *
Kent 56 6 1 15-24 18.2 2.40-4.00 3.37 * *
Louiv 84 8 1 13-21.8 17.4 2.73-3.93 3.28 *
Louis 60 1 0 16-22 19.6 2.97-4.00 3.5 *
Md 130 9 3 17-25 20.2 2.82-3.91 3.39
Boston 115 3 11 15-23 19.9 2.66-3.85 3.31 * *
Harv 35 1 1 17-24.6 22.7 3.43-4.11 3.75
Tufts 166 14 3 16-22 19.2 2.76-3.85 3.33 *
Mercy 78 4 3 15-23.1 19.7 3.11-3.97 3.62 *
Mich 105 10 6 15.5-23 20 2.83-4.01 3.4 *
Minn 96 1 6 16-23 19.7 2.94-3.98 3.53 *
Miss 35 5 0 16-21 18.2 2.70-4.00 3.59 * *
Missou 104 2 3 16-22.1 18.3 3.00-4.00 3.6 *
Creigh 85 1 6 17-22.7 19.1 2.98-3.98 3.46
Neb 45 0 3 15-22.7 18.7 3.23-4.11 3.8 *
Nev 78 0 4 15-22 19.6 2.77-3.92 3.35 *
UMDNJ 87 5 3 14-21.6 19.5 2.89-3.96 3.47 *
Colum 77 5 3 15-22.6 22.3 2.92-4.09 3.54 *
NY 228 3 13 15-23 19.8 2.91-3.93 3.37 *
SB 39 0 1 16-22 21.6 3.07-4.00 3.62 *
Buf 88 0 1 16-23.6 19.6 3.15-3.99 3.58 *
UNC 76 10 2 15-24 20.1 2.97-4.16 3.55 *
Case 85 0 2 16.3-23 19.7 3.10-3.93 3.45 *
Ohio 103 3 3 16-23 19.5 2.85-4.00 3.51 *
Ok 58 0 2 15-25 19.6 2.63-3.95 3.54 * *
Ore 75 0 0 17-24 19.57 3.10-4.00 3.64
Penn 115 4 7 N/A 20.7 3.39-4.00 3.71
Pitt 78 1 8 16-22.1 19.9 2.80-4.00 3.43 *
Temple 125 4 14 16-22 19.1 2.82-3.82 3.27 *
PR 42 0 42 12.-20 15.3 2.68-3.94 3.2 *
SC 56 2 1 17-23.1 18.9 2.92-4.00 3.49
Meh 51 48 0 14-20 15.8 2.09-3.69 2.85 *
Tenn 80 10 0 N/A 18.3 2.82-3.94 3.45
Baylor 95 13 30 14-21.2 19.5 2.73-4.00 3.47 *
Hou 84 1 14 15-22 19.7 3.23-4.00 3.61 *
SA 94 1 7 15-23 20 3.08-4.00 3.59 *
VA 90 2 5 15-23 19.1 2.70-3.95 3.4 * *
Wash 55 1 4 14-23 20.7 2.72-3.98 3.51 *
WVA 51 2 4 13-21.4 17 2.67-3.88 3.37 * *
Marq 80 0 5 14.8-22 18.9 2.79-3.99 3.5 *
4666 267 315
4666 267 315