Should URM classification be continued?

SDN Members don't see this ad. (About Ads)

Originally Posted by whatbout2morrow

Apples to oranges indeed. I am South Asian and I agree with what you say. However, though maybe not as significant as URMs, Asians also have their battles. If not for certain aspects of Asian culture, values, ambition, etc, the battles that Asians have in life may have been much similar to those faced by URMs. How else would you explain the fact that many Asians who came to this country with little education, lack of proficiency in English, and with not much more than the clothes on their back ended up surviving and prospering in the US?

Yeah, many people of my race are doctors and nurses. There was a need in this country, and they were brought in to fill it. But thanks to them, the rest of us who are not so well off still get included in the overrepresented minority category.

To suggest that Asians/Indians are exempt from the effects of racism/discrimination is absurd. As a child I was showered with plenty of slurs day after day. My effort to fight back got me my brush with the juvenile justice system. Even today, I continue to receive my share of hate because the color of my skin is brown. Resumes with black sounding names being tossed? You think my Indian name leaves me much better off? If there weren't legal ramifications involved, do you think my resume wouldn't be tossed in favor of a less qualified white applicant?

I'm not against AA. But I will be the first to say that it is not enough. Those who have prospered because of AA need to give back need to become the role models many URM kids are looking for. They need to lead a fight against the destructive culture that keeps others of their race from prospering. Pay it forward. Only then will there be the slightest chance that someday, a black/hispanic kid won't need something like AA to make something of him/herself.

I agree with everything you're saying. I was basically arguing with people who are against AA.

Originally Posted by flatearth22

How come when Asians outscore URM's at every income level and parental education level it has to mean that the societal structure is holding back one minority group but not the other?

Conversely, why should URM's have equal or higher scores as Asians at every income level and parent education level? Why not accept that people are different and not insult the less successful minority group(s) by giving them a handicap and saying it's society's fault they don't have as high success as the other minority group(s)?

What's going on w/ these SAT scores? The test was still two sections when I took it (like in '95) and a 650 - 1075 range of scores seems ... way off to me. Is this real?

Originally Posted by TriagePreMed

I already spelled it out for you multiple times: URM are subject to greater social and economic problems, so logically their grades are going to be a reflection of that struggle.

Again, you brush too broadly

Seriously, life is a little more nuanced then this, you know?

UR minorities are subject to greater social and economic problems, in general, than their ORM and white peers. Adding "in general" makes a big difference, versus making a blanket statement.

For example, I grew up in a not-so-great area that was predominantly URM and faced racism from URM peers, but also had URM friends. I grew up with many hardships, faced systemic and community-based racism. There are many debilitating factors (gangs, drugs, poverty) that affect all racial groups growing up in poverty, but we can't ignore cultural factors, individual will, intelligence, and/or drive, which we conveniently do on these forums. Instead, we make sweeping black and white statements without looking at the grey.

Also, if an URM applicant from a middle class home has the same stats and similar ECs as a white applicant from a working class home, how much does race play into the decision making process?

There is a lack of transparency here! How much consideration is given to socioeconomic factors? I know we are trying to increase the number of URM physicians, but is the manner in which we are trying to do this fair to applicants who are already socioeconomically disadvantaged? Is it fair if URM applicants who grew up socioeconomically advantaged are given greater weight due to their race? Also, disadvantaged is subjective. We like to laugh it off, but your appearance, height, manner of speech, etc. all affect your life chances in this country. We live in a country where the "standards" for beauty and American-ness are still white standards unfortunately, but nobody cares about these...

TriagePreMed...
I know how you are going to bring up the n=1 low-stat-ORM-friend-who-got-into-Dartmouth anecdote which can't be corroborated, but the exception doesn't disprove the rule regarding the med school process my friend. I guess I can throw back the n=1000 disadvantaged-low-stat-Asian-and-Caucasian-friends-who-didn't-get-in-anywhere anecdotes right back at ya.

And yes, racism by URM against ORM...it does happen. And in the example below, very little was done until brown hit the fan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZ8rVx8IBGk

P.S. Guess why this story barely hit the front page before disappearing into oblivion?

Originally Posted by TriagePreMed

Your comment is very intriguing to me as it is the most reasonably laid out one for ORM vs. URM. I'd argue that Asian people in this country are not even close to the experience of many blacks and hispanics, although I will readily admit that Asians are not exempt completely from hardship and racism.

Black people in this country have been historically been put down. They were slaves and then they had a hard time integrating with Caucasians. To this day the racist roots of America toward black people persist in a way that surmounts the difficulties faced by both Latinos and Asians. Latinos have suffered a different form of discrimination. Latinos have come to the United States mostly as illegal immigrants. They have been branded as being criminals for this, and living as an illegal immigrant in this country creates an entirely new host of problems. Asians have had illegal immigration too, but their illegal immigration is on par with that of people from other countries not bordering the United States: minimal.

The thing now is that when a black child is born in America, he carries the experiences of his ancestors and the socioeconomic problems associated. The same with Hispanic people. Asian people, as you have mentioned, have been very successful in this country and thus grow up in a much better situation than other minorities.

Lastly, I wanted to say thank you. You've given me the opportunity to clarify that I don't believe Asians have no problems at all or haven't had, but I do still believe that the experiences of blacks and Hispanics have been much rougher. Otherwise, is it a coincidence that black people, experiencing more negativity from society, are at the bottom? Then it's followed by Hispanics, then Asians and so on as viewed by society? I don't think so.

You are the king of blanket statements I suppose my friend who was shot in the chest for being Asian in a predominantly black neighborhood had it easier than most blacks and Hispanics? And the families of my Korean American friends who's liquor stores were robbed regularly had it easier than most blacks and Hispanic families? And my two Asian friends who were in fist fights every day against racists who called them chinks had it easier too? And the SE Asian communities living in poverty and overshadowed by the "model minority" myth have it easier than the vast majority of blacks and Hispanics? And my South Asian friend who was stabbed for being a "terrorist" by his Hispanic peers, I'm guessing he had it easier too?

And the saddest thing of all? These are not uncommon stories.

Asian Americans are the only racial group to have been banned from entry into the United States. You also make the HUGE mistake of "ranking" the races based on ONE KIND of perception in this country, because it is again, overly simplistic. Asian Americans have been in this country since the late 1700s, but are still considered "culturally/immutably foreign" (un-America). If you were to make a rank based on civic inclusion, blacks would be first, and Asians last. Also, in some cases, race perceptions are erroneously influenced by "country-of-origin". In other words, some people like to "rank" races based on how "well" their "native/home" countries are doing. It's very unfortunate, because it ignores imperialism, corporate influences, etc.

See the problem with your logic? It's overly simplistic, and it skews your world view You can't assume something about people you don't know. There are so many factors that affect a person's life, including race, class, religion, experiences, etc. In general, race and class intersect. I understand that. But I'm mature enough not to make so many blanket statements about race when arguing a point.

Originally Posted by meddi

I am against affirmative action for athletes, legacy children, etc. I think it's BS and a big problem in this country. I am more for intelligent, effective race-based AA that is TRANSPARENT.

Originally Posted by mipp0

Again, you brush too broadly

Seriously, life is a little more nuanced then this, you know?

UR minorities are subject to greater social and economic problems, in general, than their ORM and white peers. Adding "in general" makes a big difference, versus making a blanket statement.

For example, I grew up in a not-so-great area that was predominantly URM and faced racism from URM peers, but also had URM friends. I grew up with many hardships, faced systemic and community-based racism. There are many debilitating factors (gangs, drugs, poverty) that affect all racial groups growing up in poverty, but we can't ignore cultural factors, individual will, intelligence, and/or drive, which we conveniently do on these forums. Instead, we make sweeping black and white statements without looking at the grey.

Also, if an URM applicant from a middle class home has the same stats and similar ECs as a white applicant from a working class home, how much does race play into the decision making process?

There is a lack of transparency here! How much consideration is given to socioeconomic factors? I know we are trying to increase the number of URM physicians, but is the manner in which we are trying to do this fair to applicants who are already socioeconomically disadvantaged? Is it fair if URM applicants who grew up socioeconomically advantaged are given greater weight due to their race? Also, disadvantaged is subjective. We like to laugh it off, but your appearance, height, manner of speech, etc. all affect your life chances in this country. We live in a country where the "standards" for beauty and American-ness are still white standards unfortunately, but nobody cares about these...

TriagePreMed...
I know how you are going to bring up the n=1 low-stat-ORM-friend-who-got-into-Dartmouth anecdote which can't be corroborated, but the exception doesn't disprove the rule regarding the med school process my friend. I guess I can throw back the n=1000 disadvantaged-low-stat-Asian-and-Caucasian-friends-who-didn't-get-in-anywhere anecdotes right back at ya.

And yes, racism by URM against ORM...it does happen. And in the example below, very little was done until brown hit the fan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZ8rVx8IBGk

P.S. Guess why this story barely hit the front page before disappearing into oblivion?

You are beating a dead horse. We discussed all the reasons why socioeconomic class should not be used as a factor instead of race. Just because you don't see how a middle class black family face more barriers than a white family doesn't mean they aren't there. Also, I already, as I said before, ideally we should look at everything that makes your life more difficult, but realistically, we can only look at certain factors. Race is a big one with a lot of research to support it. Why not use it?

The white-guy-also-faces-racism-from-URM's is a terrible argument I would recommend you avoid saying that if you want to be taken seriously.

I guess I'll try and refocus this again. It is NOT about intelligence or hardships (though they may contribute).

It IS about providing care for a diverse patient population. While you may think that having the most intelligent doctors possible is ideal, that is not how most patients view it.

Originally Posted by Barcu

I guess I'll try and refocus this again. It is NOT about intelligence or hardships (though they may contribute).

It IS about providing care for a diverse patient population. While you may think that having the most intelligent doctors possible is ideal, that is not how most patients view it.

I completely agree with this. Some of the most intelligent people I've ever met have no business being next to anyone with a scalpel or a stethoscope. There is so much more that goes into being a physician.

Originally Posted by crmellon

I completely agree with this. Some of the most intelligent people I've ever met have no business being next to anyone with a scalpel or a stethoscope. There is so much more that goes into being a physician.

This is the irony of SDN. You're see threads on top of threads talking about how medical school admissions is not just a numbers game, how you have to jump through the hoops of volunteering, shadowing, research, extracurriculars, student leadership, etc to get in. Yet when it comes to the topic of URMs the focus narrows to... numbers.

Reposted from a thread in the med school forum. The article is ancient but gives an overview of the effects of prejudice and discrimination against women, ethnic minorities, and elderly persons. I first heard of these studies years ago. And I was left with the question "If this is the effect on a short term basis, what happens when a student is put under these pressures for 12+ years?"


http://www.thedailybeast.com/newswee...type-trap.html

The students had no idea of the real purpose of the study they had volunteered for--it is, after all, standard operating procedure in psychology to keep subjects in the dark on that little point. (If volunteers know they're being studied for, say, whether they will help a blind child cross a busy street, it tends to skew their behavior.) So when 40 black and 40 white Princeton undergraduates volunteered to play mini-golf, the psychologists dissembled a bit. This is a test of "natural ability," Jeff Stone and his colleagues informed some of the kids. This is a test of "the ability to think strategically," they told others. Then the students--nongolfers all--played the course, one at a time. Among those told the test measured natural ability, black students scored, on average, more than four strokes better than whites. In the group told the test gauged strategic savvy, the white kids scored four strokes better, the researchers reported last year. "When people are reminded of a negative stereotype about themselves--'white men can't jump' or 'black men can't think'--it can adversely affect performance," says Stone, now at the University of Arizona.

Another group of students, 46 Asian-American female undergrads at Harvard, thought they were taking a tough, 12-question math test. Before one group attacked the advanced algebra, they answered written questions emphasizing ethnicity ("How many generations of your family have lived in America?"). Another group's questionnaire subtly reminded them of their gender ("Do you live on a co-ed or single-sex dorm floor?"). Women who took the math test after being reminded of their Asian heritage--and thus, it seems, the stereotype that Asians excel at math--scored highest, getting 54 percent right. The women whose questionnaire implicitly reminded them of the stereotype that, for girls, "math is hard," as Barbie infamously said, scored lowest, answering 43 percent correctly.

The power of stereotypes, scientists had long figured, lay in their ability to change the behavior of the person holding the stereotype. If you think women are ninnies ruled by hormonal swings, you don't name them CEO; if you think gays are pedophiles, you don't tap them to lead your Boy Scout troop. But five years ago Stanford University psychologist Claude Steele showed something else: it is the targets of a stereotype whose behavior is most powerfully affected by it. A stereotype that pervades the culture the way "ditzy blondes" and "forgetful seniors" do makes people painfully aware of how society views them--so painfully aware, in fact, that knowledge of the stereotype can affect how well they do on intellectual and other tasks. Now, with half a decade of additional research under their belts, psychologists are discovering the power of stereotypes not only over blacks, but over women, members of ethnic minorities and the elderly, too. And the research is shedding light on such enduring mysteries as why black kids, even those from middle-class families and good schools, often score lower than white kids on standardized tests.

In their seminal 1995 study, Steele and Joshua Aronson, now at New York Uni- versity, focused on how the threat posed by stereotypes affects African-Americans. They reasoned that whenever black students take on an intellectual task, like an SAT, they face the prospect of confirming widely held suspicions about their brainpower. This threat, the psychologists suspected, might interfere with performance. To test this hunch, Steele and Aronson gave 44 Stanford undergrads questions from the verbal part of the tough Graduate Record Exam. One group was asked, right before the test, to indicate their year in school, age, major and other information. The other group answered all that, as well as one final question: what is your race? The results were sobering. "Just listing their race undermined the black students' performance," says Steele, making them score significantly worse than blacks who did not note their race, and significantly worse than all whites. But the performance of black Stanfordites who were not explicitly reminded of their race equaled that of whites, found the scientists.

You do not even have to believe a negative stereotype to be hurt by it, psychologists find. As long as you care about the ability you're being tested on, such as golfing or math, and are familiar with the stereotype ("girls can't do higher math"), it can sink you. What seems to happen is that as soon as you reach a tough par 3 or a difficult trig problem, the possibility of confirming, and being personally reduced to, a painful stereotype causes enough distress to impair performance. "If you are a white male and you find yourself having difficulty, you may begin to worry about failing the test," says psychologist Paul Davies of Stanford in an upcoming paper. But "if you are a black male... you begin to worry... about failing your race by confirming a negative stereotype." It's a sort of "oh God, they really are right about people like me" reaction.

You don't outgrow it, either. Becca Levy of Yale showed over-60 volunteers subliminal messages (through words flashed quickly on a monitor) and then tested them on memory. Seniors who saw words like "Alzheimer's," "senile" and "old" always scored worse than seniors who saw words like "wise" and "sage"--in some tests, 64 percent better. Does it matter? In a follow-up, Levy used the same subliminal priming. But this time she asked the volunteers whether they would accept life-prolonging medical intervention. Those seniors primed with positive stereotypes usually said yes; those reminded of senility and frailty said no. "What's so frightening," says Levy, "is that the stereotype, at least in the short run, overwhelms long-held beliefs."

Stereotypes seem to most affect the best and the brightest. Only if you're black and care about academics, or female and care about math, will you also care if society thinks you're bad at those things. A girl whose sense of self-worth is tied up in her poetry, for instance, is less likely to freeze up when her facility with calculus is belittled. To test the effect of the "bimbo" stereotype, scientists at the University of Waterloo in Ontario** showed men and women undergrads TV commercials with and without gender stereotypes. (In one, a student says her primary goal in college is to meet "cute guys.") Then the students, who all said they were good at math and that it mattered to them, took a standardized test. Women who saw the commercials with female stereotypes not only did worse on the math problems than did women who saw gender-neutral commercials, as well as worse than men: they actively avoided math problems in favor of verbal ones. But the effect of stereotypes didn't end there. Women who saw stereotyped ads expressed less interest in math-based careers like financial analysis and physics afterward, and more interest in math-free fields like writing. "Exposure to stereotypic commercials persuades women to withdraw" from fields like math and science where they are the targets of stereotypes, Davies says. Of course, if the stereotype is positive, it can induce you to persist in something you're supposed to be good at even if you're not. Steele admits sheepishly that he keeps playing sports (even though he's no Tiger Woods) because, as a black man, he's told by society that he's a natural.

The power of stereotypes may explain the persistent gap between black and white kids on standardized tests even when the black kids come from middle and upper socioeconomic classes. Tellingly, that gap widens with age. Little kids have comparable scores on standardized tests, but by sixth grade, black kids lag by two full grade levels in many districts. It is around sixth grade, Steele points out, that "race becomes a big factor in the social organization of school"--and hence a more powerful reminder of which group you belong to.

Can the pernicious effects of stereotypes be vanquished? If no one reminds you of a negative stereotype, your performance doesn't suffer. It can actually improve if instead you think of a positive stereotype--Steele recommends bellowing something like "You are Stanford students!" but clearly that has limited applicability. Deception helps, too: if women are told that a difficult math test reveals no gender differences, finds Stephen Spencer of Waterloo, they perform as well as men. Otherwise, women score much lower. While such manipulations may weaken the brutal power of stereotypes, at the end of the day they remain manipulations. But until stereotypes fade away, that may be the best we can hope for.

**For those unfamiliar with Canadian schools, Waterloo is the major math and engineering school. It's supposedly the only institution in the country where Bill Gates himself comes to recruit techies.

Thank you Miss Alyssa. Very well put

When I had a tummy ache my grandma gave me shots of pisco. When I had a cold I got brandy tea. If I had a headache my grandma would wrap beets and carrots on my head. My white friends were like wtf? When that fail and my mom took me to the doctor, doctor was like wtf too. Honestly she never really wanted to take me because the ignorant doctor didn't even know that!

POINT IS, we need doctors that patients can relate to.Having been raised in a Latino home, I would be a lot more understanding and better prepared to handle Latino patients home remedies and inform them. I feel like they would be more comfortable seeing a doctor whom can they can relate and don't want to avoid because of some doctor's condescending attitude and cultural differences. Hopefully it would increase the number of check ups and build a better relationship between doctor and patients to allow for preventative care.

Let me also point out that I don't believe URM should be allowed in over non URM for that reason alone. You should be qualified too.

Originally Posted by natorx

I'm taking my URM status to the bank if I can - through undergrad my URm status landed me grant funded research positions?

U mad?

"Live your mother****ing life. You gotta get your mother****ing hustle. Understand ****** is gonna hate you regardless, get that out of your head that fantasy world where ****** ain't hating on you. You gotta to be grateful, you need haters, wtf is you complaining about, wtf do you think a hater's job is?! If you got 14 hating on you, you need to figure out how the **** to get to 16 before the summer get here! If you got nobody to hate on, feel free to hate on me, say my hair ain't luxurious when you know it is bitch!"

Katt Williams

Originally Posted by marinera

"Live your mother****ing life. You gotta get your mother****ing hustle. Understand ****** is gonna hate you regardless, get that out of your head that fantasy world where ****** ain't hating on you. You gotta to be grateful, you need haters, wtf is you complaining about, wtf do you think a hater's job is?! If you got 14 hating on you, you need to figure out how the **** to get to 16 before the summer get here! If you got nobody to hate on, feel free to hate on me, say my hair ain't luxurious when you know it is bitch!"

Katt Williams

That would look great opening up a Personal Statement.

I don't see why it exists other than to admit under-qualified applicants. Not that I care, I'm just saying.

Ugh... Not this again

bleh

I'm not going to complain too much about it but I do think URM status is stupid. One of my best friends is black. He has more money then I do and im pretty sure the only hardship he faces is whether or not he wants a chicken bacon ranch sub from subway or buffalo chicken. Despite this, he has an advantage when applying to medical school.

As far as "ancestors having it hard". So? lol. Our ancestors probably bitched less then our current generation.

Hurdles minorities face...hm. I seriously don't see many significant hurdles. The last time me and my black friend hung out, white people didn't run away screaming at the sight of him. Omg it's a black person. Sure some minorities are economically disadvantaged, and thats worth being noted. But saying all are is profiling in itself and stupid. Having URM status is the equivalent of saying all black/hispanic people have it hard which is obviously not true.

These "studies' about black people getting profiled everywhere by name and stuff..give me a break. I would think corporations would WANT to hire successful minorities to satisfy government regulation so I find that study seriously hard to believe.

Simply put, have a box for economically disadvantaged and burn the race card. If we truly want a fair system we have to look beyond color and look at the individual, rather then "groups". All black people aren't the same, and all white people aren't the same, to assume and treat them as such is stupidity.

Originally Posted by ColeSmalls

I'm not going to complain too much about it but I do think URM status is stupid. One of my best friends is black. He has more money then I do and im pretty sure the only hardship he faces is whether or not he wants a chicken bacon ranch sub from subway or buffalo chicken. Despite this, he has an advantage when applying to medical school.

As far as "ancestors having it hard". So? lol. Our ancestors probably bitched less then our current generation.

Hurdles minorities face...hm. I seriously don't see many significant hurdles. The last time me and my black friend hung out, white people didn't run away screaming at the sight of him. Omg it's a black person. Sure some minorities are economically disadvantaged, and thats worth being noted. But saying all are is profiling in itself and stupid. Having URM status is the equivalent of saying all black/hispanic people have it hard which is obviously not true.

These "studies' about black people getting profiled everywhere by name and stuff..give me a break. I would think corporations would WANT to hire successful minorities to satisfy government regulation so I find that study seriously hard to believe.

Simply put, have a box for economically disadvantaged and burn the race card. If we truly want a fair system we have to look beyond color and look at the individual, rather then "groups". All black people aren't the same, and all white people aren't the same, to assume and treat them as such is stupidity.

Somebody doesn't like reading the thread before commenting.

Bolded is priceless.

Originally Posted by SunsFun

Somebody doesn't like reading the thread before commenting.

Bolded is priceless.

Haha agreed. Besides from the whole, "I don't think that study is valid, because *bad logic*"

Right because im going to read four pages of people arguing about a topic that's been argued countless times. Please explain how my logic is bad? I knew where I used to work they were required to have a set number of minorities.

Most of this argument is based on nothing but assumptions anyways. It's easy to question the validity of studies.

But id love to hear why you think URM status is completely necessary, so please fill this thread with your brilliance or lack of.

Originally Posted by ColeSmalls

Right because im going to read four pages of people arguing about a topic that's been argued countless times. Please explain how my logic is bad? I knew where I used to work they were required to have a set number of minorities.

Most of this argument is based on nothing but assumptions anyways. It's easy to question the validity of studies.

But id love to hear why you think URM status is completely necessary, so please fill this thread with your brilliance or lack of.

Because you invalidated numerous studies that showed having a "black" name increased bias towards that applicant based on your own anecdotal experience. You may have a great point, and a lot of corporations might seek to hire successful minorities. However, that doesn't eliminate the fact that there are significant biases out there.

Originally Posted by ColeSmalls

Right because im going to read four pages of people arguing about a topic that's been argued countless times. Please explain how my logic is bad? I knew where I used to work they were required to have a set number of minorities.

Most of this argument is based on nothing but assumptions anyways. It's easy to question the validity of studies.

But id love to hear why you think URM status is completely necessary, so please fill this thread with your brilliance or lack of.

Somebody doesn't like reading the thread before commenting.

Originally Posted by crmellon

Because you invalidated numerous studies that showed having a "black" name increased bias towards that applicant based on your own anecdotal experience. You may have a great point, and a lot of corporations might seek to hire successful minorities. However, that doesn't eliminate the fact that there are significant biases out there.

Ok, i can give you a good story about that. My friend is named josh jackson, he did not check his race on the MCAT. After he got a 29 he received several letters from harvard and a few other ivy league schools saying they were interested in him as an applicant and they welcome minorities and such. He's white. When he called harvard, that interest quickly vanished. They thought he was black because his last name was jackson. True story, btw.

The amount that a black person's name affects their future is probably higly trivial and insignificant. Honestly too, I live in the "ghetto" area and theres not even many black people that could have what's considered "black names". At least where I live anyways. I'm sure it may be different for other areas but im citing mine as an example.

Originally Posted by ColeSmalls

Ok, i can give you a good story about that. My friend is named josh jackson, he did not check his race on the MCAT. After he got a 29 he received several letters from harvard and a few other ivy league schools saying they were interested in him as an applicant and they welcome minorities and such. He's white. When he called harvard, that interest quickly vanished. They thought he was black because his last name was jackson. True story, btw.

The amount that a black person's name affects their future is probably higly trivial and insignificant. Honestly too, I live in the "ghetto" area and theres not even many black people that could have what's considered "black names". At least where I live anyways. I'm sure it may be different for other areas but im citing mine as an example.

Anecdotal evidence is a great rebuttal to university research. Solid argument dude. Now I am convinced that all those UChicago professors doing them were simply smoking crack.

Originally Posted by ColeSmalls

Ok, i can give you a good story about that. My friend is named josh jackson, he did not check his race on the MCAT. After he got a 29 he received several letters from harvard and a few other ivy league schools saying they were interested in him as an applicant and they welcome minorities and such. He's white. When he called harvard, that interest quickly vanished. They thought he was black because his last name was jackson. True story, btw.

The amount that a black person's name affects their future is probably higly trivial and insignificant. Honestly too, I live in the "ghetto" area and theres not even many black people that could have what's considered "black names". At least where I live anyways. I'm sure it may be different for other areas but im citing mine as an example.

This is what I'm talking about though. I believe that probably happened. However, one story is not indicitave of the whole. That's why they don't test a pill on one person before it goes out to market.

Science also disagrees with you

Originally Posted by SunsFun

Anecdotal evidence is a great rebuttal to university research. Solid argument dude. Now I am convinced that all those UChicago professors doing them were simply smoking crack.

Because every study is always right 100% of the time. One study can have its conclusion rebuked by another study.

You still have neglected to give any input on this rather then negativity towards my comments. Your opinion stays at "THE STUDY SAYS THE WORLD HATES BLACK PEOPLE".

Are you seriously going to link me to a study that was done in 2004?

So far I'm the only one that has shown anything, and you've mentioned a friend and a company you used to work for.

There were many more mentioned throughout this thread. Believe what you want.

Originally Posted by crmellon

So far I'm the only one that has shown anything, and you've mentioned a friend and a company you used to work for.

There were many more mentioned throughout this thread. Believe what you want.

I will give you credit for trying to provide evidence to your argument but providing evidence like that would be the equivalent of me posting a article written in the 70s to prove that disco is still in.

Originally Posted by ColeSmalls

Because every study is always right 100% of the time. One study can have its conclusion rebuked by another study.

You still have neglected to give any input on this rather then negativity towards my comments. Your opinion stays at "THE STUDY SAYS THE WORLD HATES BLACK PEOPLE".

Are you seriously going to link me to a study that was done in 2004?

A study done in 2004 is better than anecdotal evidence in 2012. Do some research to back up your claims, until then you really don't have much support.

Originally Posted by ColeSmalls

Because every study is always right 100% of the time. One study can have its conclusion rebuked by another study.

That's not what I am saying. Here:
University study>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anecdotal evidence
That dash in the middle splits data you can use to argue your position and still sound credible.

Originally Posted by ColeSmalls

You still have neglected to give any input on this rather then negativity towards my comments. Your opinion stays at "THE STUDY SAYS THE WORLD HATES BLACK PEOPLE".

That is not what I am saying. If you want to know my position and the evidence behind it, please read several pages of this thread. If something seems off, feel free to quote it and comment.

Originally Posted by ColeSmalls

Are you seriously going to link me to a study that was done in 2004?

Yeah because we all know it is surely different out there on the streets today.

Do you have any other objections to it besides that it is several years old or do we need to do a study like this every year for people like you who don't believe that racism still exists?

Originally Posted by sliceofbread136

A study done in 2004 is better than anecdotal evidence in 2012. \

That can be argued. I know my claim is correct, whether you do or don't doesn't matter to me. I also know that one or two things have changed since 2004.

Of course racism still exists, but people justify it for too many things is my point.

Originally Posted by ColeSmalls

That can be argued. I know my claim is correct, whether you do or don't doesn't matter to me. I also know that one or two things have changed since 2004.

Of course racism still exists, but people justify it for too many things is my point.

It doesn't matter if your story is true or not. Please take a statistics class. If you've already taken one, you obviously need to take it again.

Originally Posted by ColeSmalls

That can be argued. I know my claim is correct, whether you do or don't doesn't matter to me. I also know that one or two things have changed since 2004.

That is why I say we need to let the pharmaceutical companies sell whatever drug they want as long as some guy they know can say it was effective and safe for him in 2012. Who cares what the studies done before 2005 say. I know my claim is correct, whether you do or don't doesn't matter to me.

Originally Posted by sliceofbread136

It doesn't matter if your story is true or not. Please take a statistics class. If you've already taken one, you obviously need to take it again.

Took one already and got an A. Take a logic class, if you have already taken one, you need to take it again.

See I can do that too.

If im using a certain drug then I would hope the study that demonstrates its impact is at least somewhat up to date. I'm pretty sure people would not be ok with the idea of using a drug based on outdated studies, so there is flaw to your argument as much as you just want to point out the flaw to mine.

Originally Posted by ColeSmalls

Took one already and got an A. Take a logic class, if you have already taken one, you need to take it again.

See I can do that too.

Well you missed the point of the class. N=1 is not a study. It tells you nothing. Your "evidence" is not evidence at all. If a Hungarian got eaten by a dinosaur and emerged as megaman, does this mean that this happens to every Hungarian? No. Please go retake the class. If you want to enter a science field, you atleast need to know to back up your points with statistical evidence instead of bullcrap.

Edit: And 2004 is not that old, especially considering how timeless this issue has proven to be. Do you really think URMs have it so much better now than 8 years ago? If so, then maybe you should do a study to support that instead of just making a pretty baseless claim. Go do a study that supports your point, and then maybe your argument will have substance.

Originally Posted by ColeSmalls

If im using a certain drug then I would hope the study that demonstrates its impact is at least somewhat up to date. I'm pretty sure people would not be ok with the idea of using a drug based on outdated studies, so there is flaw to your argument as much as you just want to point out the flaw to mine.

The point, you missed it.

Originally Posted by sliceofbread136

Well you missed the point of the class. N=1 is not a study. It tells you nothing. Your "evidence" is not evidence at all. If a Hungarian got eaten by a dinosaur and emerged as megaman, does this mean that this happens to every Hungarian? Please go retake the class. If you want to enter a science field, you atleast need to know to back up your points with statistical evidence instead of bullcrap.

If one black guy is poor does that mean every black guy is poor? If one hispanic person is discriminated against does that mean every hispanic person is discriminated against?

Im curious though. Are you two minorities and can possibly give insight on how you were discriminated against?

Originally Posted by ColeSmalls

If one black guy is poor does that mean every black guy is poor? If one hispanic person is discriminated against does that mean every hispanic person is discriminated against?

Im curious though.Are you two minorities and can possibly give insight on how you were discriminated against?

I hope that you are trolling. If not, I hope that at least you're not trying to be a doctor.

Originally Posted by SunsFun

I hope that you are trolling. If not, I hope that at least you're not trying to be a doctor.

No, im trying to be an astronaut that's why I joined SDN.

Originally Posted by ColeSmalls

No, im trying to be an astronaut that's why I joined SDN.

That wouldn't surprise me at all to be honest.

Originally Posted by ColeSmalls

If one black guy is poor does that mean every black guy is poor? If one hispanic person is discriminated against does that mean every hispanic person is discriminated against?

Im curious though.Are you two minorities and can possibly give insight on how you were discriminated against?

We aren't basing it off of one person. We are basing it on STUDIES. That's why we have evidence and you do not.

I am white, and I think medical schools have AA because they value diversity for a variety of reasons. I think it actually has less to do with the hardships that URMs face. However, your argument is just completely baseless, as I've already pointed out. I've stopped caring now though, and you can continue on in your ignorance.

Originally Posted by SunsFun

That wouldn't surprise me at all to be honest.

When you run out of things to say, make snide comments and act superior to others.

Bread, the fact is there are arguments to both side. To say that one side is completely right is ignorance.

Originally Posted by ColeSmalls

When you run out of things to say, make snide comments and act superior to others.

Bread, the fact is there are arguments to both side. To say that one side is completely right is ignorance.

I'm not saying that there is only one side. There can infinite sides. But to argue one of those sides one needs evidence. Forgot statistics, you need to go relearn the scientific method. If the concept of statistical evidence is really that difficult for you PLEASE consider another career.

Originally Posted by sliceofbread136

I'm not saying that there is only one side. There can infinite sides. But to argue one of those sides one needs evidence. Forgot statistics, you need to go relearn the scientific method. If the concept of statistical evidence is really that difficult for you PLEASE consider another career.

Theres evidence for both sides. This can be argued to death. Im sure there is statistical evidence supporting your ideas but its not like the evidence solely points in your direction.

Originally Posted by ColeSmalls

Theres evidence for both sides. This can be argued to death. Im sure there is statistical evidence supporting your ideas but its not like the evidence solely points in your direction.

Then go find the evidence.... the burden of proof is on you...

and please, no more anecdotes...

Originally Posted by sliceofbread136

Then go find the evidence.... the burden of proof is on you...

and please, no more anecdotes...

It would be pointless because your opinion is already determined anyways and I seriously doubt anything would change it.

Originally Posted by ColeSmalls

It would be pointless because your opinion is already determined anyways and I seriously doubt anything would change it.

Then why did you post at all? It seemed you attempted to sway some people with some of your brilliant points earlier...

Originally Posted by ColeSmalls

It would be pointless because your opinion is already determined anyways and I seriously doubt anything would change it.

8/10

That was some decent trolling though. I was biting it for a while.