Should URM classification be continued?

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

Originally Posted by SunsFun

I hope this is some sort of lame trolling attempt. If you actually believe that white people are smarter than black people I officially hate you.

People who get incredibly emotional and hateful when people disagree with them are one of the reasons why it's so hard to have any serious discussion on the matter. I'm not just talking about race and intelligence, I'm talking about any matter where people tend to get emotional (religion, politics, etc). I get you "officially hate" me, but this is a pretty bad quality a lot of people have that you should try to get rid of.

I think Asians are smarter than blacks, and I think blacks are more athletic than Asians even if you can't quantify exactly what "intelligence" and "athleticism" are. It doesn't mean racism doesn't exist. It doesn't mean every black guy is awesome at sports and every Asian guy awesome at math.

It simply means groups are different and when one group is over represented in a career or field it doesn't necessarily mean something is wrong.

Ok, you're clearly trolling. Good one though. You had it going strong for a while.

Originally Posted by StBernardsRule

I don't think we're going to agree then, because when I read a post like this all I see is "You can't define intelligence" or "You can't define race" as an excuse to largely sidestep the issue. I think it can be measured reasonably well, though not perfectly. Just because we don't have a "mechanism for how exactly race affects these different forms of intelligence" (which still seems like you're missing the point, race and intelligence can be correlated without one being the cause of the other) doesn't mean we can't use statistical methods to analyze data and try to make reasonable conclusions.

I think saying "I have this laundry list of impossible standards you need to fulfill before I'll acknowledge race and intelligence exist and may be correlated" is pretty ridiculous. The reason why I care is because policies are often designed with the idea that "all races and both sexes are equal, and if something isn't equal there must be something wrong." I don't think there's anything wrong with 25% of med school students being Asian and 90% of the NBA being black. I don't think one racial group deserves a boost just because they are underrepresented.

Lastly, no one is saying one's environment doesn't have a huge impact in intelligence and that intelligence is only genetic. Many people, myself included, are saying it is largely genetic though (the same way I think athleticism etc is).

A laundry list of impossible standards? In science, being able to define your problem/idea, having a mechanism for it if applicable and being able to replicate your study are actually pretty standard requirements if you want people to believe anything you say.

Originally Posted by PancakeSorting

A laundry list of impossible standards? In science, being able to define your problem/idea, having a mechanism for it if applicable and being able to replicate your study are actually pretty standard requirements if you want people to believe anything you say.

"2. elucidate a mechanism for how exactly race affects these different forms of intelligence"

You don't see how silly this is? You expect there to be a mechanism for how someone's race affects their intelligence?

I'm fine with disagreeing with you. I just noticed a lot of people making a lot of sense and immediately being jumped on and told "no science supports what you say" and "everyone who knows anything about this says how silly it is" when that isn't the truth. People can feel free to go research the topic themselves and make their own decisions.

of course it should continue.


I used to be against it, but I've come to a sort of realization that it is pretty necessary.

Originally Posted by StBernardsRule

"2. elucidate a mechanism for how exactly race affects these different forms of intelligence"

You don't see how silly this is? You expect there to be a mechanism for how someone's race affects their intelligence?

I'm fine with disagreeing with you. I just noticed a lot of people making a lot of sense and immediately being jumped on and told "no science supports what you say" and "everyone who knows anything about this says how silly it is" when that isn't the truth. People can feel free to go research the topic themselves and make their own decisions.

You don't see how silly it would be to not have a mechanism? Without a mechanism, you are essentially proposing that not only are Asians more intelligent than blacks, but that they are more intelligent by "magic." Scientists hate magic.

Perhaps you don't understand what I mean be mechanism. If someone were to propose a mechanism for this, perhaps it would be that there is some Gene X that is highly conserved in Asian populations but only sporadically present in African-American populations. Then perhaps they would propose that this gene is linked to enhanced intelligence under certain conditions blah blah. This is ridiculous of course, but it's just an example.

So yes. If someone wants to propose something like this then they would need to come up with a mechanism for how they think it occurs. Otherwise, it's all just a bunch of hand-waving, essentially.

And people do have strong opinions about race. It's to be expected. Slavery wasn't abolished that long ago, after all. And unfortunately racial discrimination is still alive and well in the U.S.

On an interesting note, something to think about as far as the NBA goes- is it really that blacks are more athletic than whites? How do you explain the almost nonexistence of blacks in baseball? What about hockey? What about soccer?

Things really just aren't as simple as you seem to make them out to be. And no, I don't think people should be attacked for having a "different" POV than someone else, but it is important- especially if you have a controversial POV- to be able to back up your claims. Otherwise, you will be ripped apart. 'Tis the nature of science. Although, if you think this forum is harsh, you should see some of the comments from people who try to get their research into respectable journals...

"This paper is desperate. Please reject it completely and then block the author’s email ID so they can’t use the online system in future."

Originally Posted by PancakeSorting

You don't see how silly it would be to not have a mechanism? Without a mechanism, you are essentially proposing that not only are Asians more intelligent than blacks, but that they are more intelligent by "magic." Scientists hate magic.

Just because you don't completely understand how a mechanism works does not mean you can't use statistics to draw conclusions. For example, aluminum and copper don't have the same specific heat. I can tell they don't have the same specific heat by conducting some test, then seeing they heat at different rates. We can make this conclusion well before we understand exactly why they have specific heats (way before we understand how orbitals and subatomic particles etc work).

The same can happen in biology. We can tell there is a difference before we understand how everything works. I don't think you meant what you originally said with a "mechanism for how someone's race affects intelligence" (correlation does not imply causation etc) so I'll just let that one go.

And lastly, it might be blacks are taller than Asians (they are) so they are super well suited for basketball. Basketball is also much cheaper to play than baseball and hockey, and much easier since less organization is needed. This makes it easier to overcome an economic disadvantage, which would be much harder to do in hockey. I actually just looked up soccer out of curiosity, and blacks are very over-represented in soccer as well (though not to the magnitude of basketball or football).

Originally Posted by PancakeSorting

You don't see how silly it would be to not have a mechanism? Without a mechanism, you are essentially proposing that not only are Asians more intelligent than blacks, but that they are more intelligent by "magic." Scientists hate magic.

Perhaps you don't understand what I mean be mechanism. If someone were to propose a mechanism for this, perhaps it would be that there is some Gene X that is highly conserved in Asian populations but only sporadically present in African-American populations. Then perhaps they would propose that this gene is linked to enhanced intelligence under certain conditions blah blah. This is ridiculous of course, but it's just an example.

So yes. If someone wants to propose something like this then they would need to come up with a mechanism for how they think it occurs. Otherwise, it's all just a bunch of hand-waving, essentially.

And people do have strong opinions about race. It's to be expected. Slavery wasn't abolished that long ago, after all. And unfortunately racial discrimination is still alive and well in the U.S.

On an interesting note, something to think about as far as the NBA goes- is it really that blacks are more athletic than whites? How do you explain the almost nonexistence of blacks in baseball? What about hockey? What about soccer?

Things really just aren't as simple as you seem to make them out to be. And no, I don't think people should be attacked for having a "different" POV than someone else, but it is important- especially if you have a controversial POV- to be able to back up your claims. Otherwise, you will be ripped apart. 'Tis the nature of science. Although, if you think this forum is harsh, you should see some of the comments from people who try to get their research into respectable journals...

"This paper is desperate. Please reject it completely and then block the author’s email ID so they can’t use the online system in future."

Plus, asian's aren't smarter. If they were, china/japan/others would be the bastion of intellectual and scientific finds. We'd be looking to them for answers, but the reality is that most science they produce is total crap (compared to US and UK). Asians typically work more on school and socialize less. How many pre-med asians played football/basketball/baseball in highschool? Its easy to do well in school when its the only thing you do.

Originally Posted by StBernardsRule

Just because you don't completely understand how a mechanism works does not mean you can't use statistics to draw conclusions. For example, aluminum and copper don't have the same specific heat. I can tell they don't have the same specific heat by conducting some test, then seeing they heat at different rates. We can make this conclusion well before we understand exactly why they have specific heats (way before we understand how orbitals and subatomic particles etc work).

The same can happen in biology. We can tell there is a difference before we understand how everything works. I don't think you meant what you originally said with a "mechanism for how someone's race affects intelligence" (correlation does not imply causation etc) so I'll just let that one go.

And lastly, it might be blacks are taller than Asians (they are) so they are super well suited for basketball. Basketball is also much cheaper to play than baseball and hockey, and much easier since less organization is needed. This makes it easier to overcome an economic disadvantage, which would be much harder to do in hockey. I actually just looked up soccer out of curiosity, and blacks are very over-represented in soccer as well (though not to the magnitude of basketball or football).

Eh, no, if someone were to find some Gene X and prove it affected intelligence and prove it wasn't prevalent in the black population, then that would be causation, not correlation. And it would be a reasonable mechanism for how race could affect intelligence. It could be an example of gene linkage, where the genes that make a person "Asian" are linked to some intelligence Gene X. However, even linked genes recombine occasionally so it could possibly even explain why some people who don't look Asian can still be intelligent. I was trying to give an example though, not actually propose a scientific mechanism...

I considered the economic factors, but it doesn't explain everything. For example, football is very expensive to play, actually. The equipment costs for even participating in a high school team are pretty ridiculous. If anything, you could look at it as a cultural difference. And what stats were you looking at? I think the US team has what, 2 or 3 black players? That's not particularly overrepresented to me. Perhaps the roster changed, though.

And sure, you can draw conclusions about something before you understand how it works, but the problem with that is that it's very easy to draw the wrong conclusion. This has been repeated throughout history. For instance, people used to think that genetics were inherited as a sort of "blending" of inheritance, where traits from each parent are averaged together. Why? Because they looked at two parents and the kid and noticed that the kid usually looked like a mixture of the parents. They made an observation and drew a reasonable conclusion based upon their observation, but it was the wrong one. Since they didn't understand the mechanism behind meiosis, gametes, etc then they didn't really understand the phenomenon they were observing. Even Mendel, a methodological genius in creating careful experiments and one of the first to propose the idea behind genes, didn't get the idea of inheritance completely right since he also didn't understand the mechanism by which inheritance was acting. Ultimately, observations mean little unless we understand what's going on. A mechanism is crucial. Until then, we're just talking in circles.

That's why the goal of science is always to answer not just "What?" but "How?" and "Why?"

This whole debate about intelligence is pretty pointless.

The simple fact is that minority students are more likely to work in minority communities. Not always true, but definitely more likely (especially if they are from those communities).

You guys also seem to always forget about the patients as well. There are many minority patients who want a doctor that is their race. We can't judge if this is right or wrong. We need to do our best to accommodate this. That is good patient care (which is our ultimate goal).

And don't give me that "well they should only care about the quality" or "if I was the patient, I would want the best doctor possible." Because you know what, many patients don't think that way. (And if you would say those things, I'm guessing you're white).

Also, stop blaming others for your own shortcomings. URMs are NOT the reason you were rejected. You are.

Originally Posted by Holy FranZ

Plus, asian's aren't smarter. If they were, china/japan/others would be the bastion of intellectual and scientific finds. We'd be looking to them for answers, but the reality is that most science they produce is total crap (compared to US and UK). Asians typically work more on school and socialize less. How many pre-med asians played football/basketball/baseball in highschool? Its easy to do well in school when its the only thing you do.

No. We actually just take the smart people from other countries. You do know that the majority of science Phds in the US are not American, right?

Originally Posted by Barcu

This whole debate about intelligence is pretty pointless.

The simple fact is that minority students are more likely to work in minority communities. Not always true, but definitely more likely (especially if they are from those communities).

You guys also seem to always forget about the patients as well. There are many minority patients who want a doctor that is their race. We can't judge if this is right or wrong. We need to do our best to accommodate this. That is good patient care (which is our ultimate goal).

I see the point in this.

Originally Posted by Barcu

Also, stop blaming others for your own shortcomings. URMs are NOT the reason you were rejected. You are.

How do you explain what the URM status is supposed to do then? If two applicants, one URM, one white, had similar stats, who would they choose? I guess this isn't a huge thing and won't make a big difference, but I don't consider your claim that "every person who was rejected was rejected because of them and that no one was negatively affected by the URM thing" fair.

If some applicant was tipped over because of their URM status, some person didn't make it because they lacked URM.


In general, I don't really find the URM thing fair, even though it might be "necessary" to preserve diversity in the medical field.. Sunsfun said something about, if a URM and a white had equal backgrounds, the URM would find it harder to make their way through the world.

What about ORM (Asians)? Do you think they have it just as easy as whites? Asians encounter a lot of those problems that URM's encounter because they are BOTH M's (minorities). The thing is that, culturally, Asians work harder to get to where they are (I'm not going to pull the intelligence gene on this right now). Why should a single individual Asian be held accountable for the culture of their race?

Again, ORM's face a lot of the problems URM's face too, yet they are at a DISADVANTAGE when it comes to this admissions game.

Originally Posted by PancakeSorting

Eh, no, if someone were to find some Gene X and prove it affected intelligence and prove it wasn't prevalent in the black population, then that would be causation, not correlation. And it would be a reasonable mechanism for how race could affect intelligence. It could be an example of gene linkage, where the genes that make a person "Asian" are linked to some intelligence Gene X. However, even linked genes recombine occasionally so it could possibly even explain why some people who don't look Asian can still be intelligent. I was trying to give an example though, not actually propose a scientific mechanism...

It doesn't have to be a genetic basis though. It could be that just being lower socioeconomic status and/or having a weaker education leads to a lower permanent IQ.

Originally Posted by Aerus

Again, ORM's face a lot of the problems URM's face too, yet they are at a DISADVANTAGE when it comes to this admissions game.

No. They face problems but to compare the two is pretty silly and pointless.

Originally Posted by Aerus

I see the point in this.




How do you explain what the URM status is supposed to do then? If two applicants, one URM, one white, had similar stats, who would they choose? I guess this isn't a huge thing and won't make a big difference, but I don't consider your claim that "every person who was rejected was rejected because of them and that no one was negatively affected by the URM thing" fair.

If some applicant was tipped over because of their URM status, some person didn't make it because they lacked URM.


In general, I don't really find the URM thing fair, even though it might be "necessary" to preserve diversity in the medical field.. Sunsfun said something about, if a URM and a white had equal backgrounds, the URM would find it harder to make their way through the world.

What about ORM (Asians)? Do you think they have it just as easy as whites? Asians encounter a lot of those problems that URM's encounter because they are BOTH M's (minorities). The thing is that, culturally, Asians work harder to get to where they are (I'm not going to pull the intelligence gene on this right now). Why should a single individual Asian be held accountable for the culture of their race?

Again, ORM's face a lot of the problems URM's face too, yet they are at a DISADVANTAGE when it comes to this admissions game.

If you are trying to compare how an Asian person is treated in this country compared to Blacks and Hispanics, that is ridiculous. URMs deal with things on an every day basis that a white, asian, etc will never have to. URMs finally get a little preferential treatment for once in their lives and right after getting accepted to med school, they are at the bottom of the race pool again. Black/Hispanic physicians will have to work twice as hard to get the same amount of respect in the medical field as their white colleagues, so all the complaining about how unfair it is is a waste of time. Fix your application, get accepted, and keep it moving. I've said this before and I will say it again...the day they remove race as a factor in admissions and go solely based on stats will be the day when white people will be starting the same threads complaining about how med schools should consider more than stats because Asians and Indians are taking all the med school spots. I'm sure med schools could care less about people who feel like they are being slighted when the positive effects of diversity in a med school class far outweigh the negatives of allowing URMs with great potential to enter a class despite sub-par stats. They obviously know what they are doing considering it's not as if these URMs are failing out of school.

.

.

Originally Posted by SunsFun

No. They face problems but to compare the two is pretty silly and pointless.

If they face problems, why put them at a DISADVANTAGE?

Originally Posted by weezynation

If you are trying to compare how an Asian person is treated in this country compared to Blacks and Hispanics, that is ridiculous. URMs deal with things on an every day basis that a white, asian, etc will never have to. URMs finally get a little preferential treatment for once in their lives and right after getting accepted to med school, they are at the bottom of the race pool again. Black/Hispanic physicians will have to work twice as hard to get the same amount of respect in the medical field as their white colleagues, so all the complaining about how unfair it is is a waste of time. Fix your application, get accepted, and keep it moving. I've said this before and I will say it again...the day they remove race as a factor in admissions and go solely based on stats will be the day when white people will be starting the same threads complaining about how med schools should consider more than stats because Asians and Indians are taking all the med school spots. I'm sure med schools could care less about people who feel like they are being slighted when the positive effects of diversity in a med school class far outweigh the negatives of allowing URMs with great potential to enter a class despite sub-par stats. They obviously know what they are doing considering it's not as if these URMs are failing out of school.

If it was based on merit, why would whites be complaining? It's ALL their responsibility after that. Right now, the game is still tipped in favor of a certain group over another. Do they want the scale to be tipped in THEIR favor?

It's not like medical schools purposely accept more Asians. They just work harder to get their scores. If you want to be like them, work harder than them. The same cannot be said pefectly with URM.

If there MUST be a background disadvantage, use socioeconomic terms. URM is just silly.

Originally Posted by DanGee777

+1. I'm a white applicant, but if we removed URM preferences, med school matriculant statistics could very well look something like this: 50% white 47% Asian 3% URM (1.5% Hispanic 1.5% black) Lots of schools would have 0 URMs. Is that what people on here want? Do we want a future physician workforce with those demographics?

Ideally, yes. Race shouldn't matter, but rather, how much a person wants it and how much they're willing to put effort into it. My family physician is of a different race than what I am. Do I think of him differently when he treats me or prefer him to another? Not at all, assuming he's qualified, which he is.

To satisfy the dissatisfaction of being treated by a doctor of a different race is to strengthen the racial barriers this country suffers.

I agree this is a bit too idealistic, but when will things change if the changes never start?

.

Originally Posted by DanGee777

It's easy enough to preach the message of pulling
yourself up by your bootstraps, but what if you can't even afford a pair? Look at poverty rates by race.

How is having URM going to help more than having no URM in terms of poverty?

As long as there is a significant amount of rich URM's and a significant amount of poor Whites/ORM's, URM doesn't exactly make things more even.

What if a white/ORM can't afford a pair of bootstraps? They will have to live beyond the standards of their URM counterparts and their rich white/ORM counterparts.

Attempting to fix this poverty issue via URM is hurting others who might be in the same situation.

Two wrongs don't make a right, at least in my eyes. :/

Originally Posted by Barcu

This whole debate about intelligence is pretty pointless.

The simple fact is that minority students are more likely to work in minority communities. Not always true, but definitely more likely (especially if they are from those communities).

You guys also seem to always forget about the patients as well. There are many minority patients who want a doctor that is their race. We can't judge if this is right or wrong. We need to do our best to accommodate this. That is good patient care (which is our ultimate goal).

And don't give me that "well they should only care about the quality" or "if I was the patient, I would want the best doctor possible." Because you know what, many patients don't think that way. (And if you would say those things, I'm guessing you're white).

Also, stop blaming others for your own shortcomings. URMs are NOT the reason you were rejected. You are.



No. We actually just take the smart people from other countries. You do know that the majority of science Phds in the US are not American, right?

We don't necessarily take the best. We take whoever wants to come. Most PhD's are still US trained. A lot of PhD students are foreign.

Originally Posted by Aerus

How do you explain what the URM status is supposed to do then? If two applicants, one URM, one white, had similar stats, who would they choose? I guess this isn't a huge thing and won't make a big difference, but I don't consider your claim that "every person who was rejected was rejected because of them and that no one was negatively affected by the URM thing" fair.

If some applicant was tipped over because of their URM status, some person didn't make it because they lacked URM.


In general, I don't really find the URM thing fair, even though it might be "necessary" to preserve diversity in the medical field.. Sunsfun said something about, if a URM and a white had equal backgrounds, the URM would find it harder to make their way through the world.

What about ORM (Asians)? Do you think they have it just as easy as whites? Asians encounter a lot of those problems that URM's encounter because they are BOTH M's (minorities). The thing is that, culturally, Asians work harder to get to where they are (I'm not going to pull the intelligence gene on this right now). Why should a single individual Asian be held accountable for the culture of their race?

Again, ORM's face a lot of the problems URM's face too, yet they are at a DISADVANTAGE when it comes to this admissions game.

A couple things:

First, your argument is based on one URM taking one white person's place. However, how many people get accepted into med school in the United States? 15,000-20,000 right? That one applicant was beat out by a ton of people! Bottom line, is there is always something more that you can do. It's not just URMs are taking all these opportunities away. If you are on the fringe nationwide of being accepted, you think you automatically deserve to get in because your stats are marginally better? Even if we take it at an individual school level, you are being beat out by hundreds of others. You are a marginal candidate. Why this entitlement?

Second and more importantly, why are stats the way to determine the more qualified applicant. You said that my points made sense that URMs are more likely to work in communities that need docs, and they are better for minority patients. In that respect, that makes them more qualified than ORMs.

What people need to realize on this board is that stats are not nearly as important as you guys think. Their major advantage is that they show a level of competency and that they make dealing with a large load of applicants a bit easier. But no school lists people in order of good stats and then just accepts down the list in order. There are other factors at play too. Why do people with 4.0/40 MCATs get rejected from places? Because it's never just about stats. That's the same thing with URM status. That's not unfair. What, is it also unfair that someone is naturally more charismatic than you? Bottom line, these URMs have the stats that adcoms believe will allow them to be successful in med school (it's not like URMs are failing out in droves). Plus they have experiences and traits that will help them provide better patient care than a white applicant with similar (or even better) stats. Better stats or working hard can't be the only factors in admissions. Asians may suffer a disadvantage and may need to work harder. Still, medicine is not about rewarding the hardest working or smartest people. It's about providing quality healthcare.

tl;dr: What posters consider a "better" or "more deserving" applicant is totally warped on this forum.

Originally Posted by Holy FranZ

We don't necessarily take the best. We take whoever wants to come. Most PhD's are still US trained. A lot of PhD students are foreign.

Sorry. That's what I meant. More PhD students are foreign than American. Still, what's that going to do in the future? Many of them are returning to their countries of origin. I don't think the US higher ed/innovation will be threatened for a long time, but that doesn't mean things are beginning to change.

Originally Posted by Barcu

A couple things:
Why do people with 4.0/40 MCATs get rejected from places? Because it's never just about stats. That's the same thing with URM status. That's not unfair. What, is it also unfair that someone is naturally more charismatic than you? Bottom line, these URMs have the stats that adcoms believe will allow them to be successful in med school (it's not like URMs are failing out in droves). Plus they have experiences and traits that will help them provide better patient care than a white applicant with similar (or even better) stats.

In order for this argument to hold water, it would have to be true that, on average, URMs have better extracurriculars. I don't see any evidence for this anywhere.

Regarding drop out rates, blacks are about 9x as likely as whites to drop out of medical school. (For one source, see: https://www.aamc.org/download/102346...aibvol7no2.pdf) When you consider the financial costs and the fact that a person who does not finish medical school takes up a spot, this is something to seriously consider. I do not personally think it is because of something inherent in race. Rather, when you select lower caliber students, they will be more likely to struggle.

Originally Posted by sibitrum

In order for this argument to hold water, it would have to be true that, on average, URMs have better extracurriculars. I don't see any evidence for this anywhere.

Regarding drop out rates, blacks are about 9x as likely as whites to drop out of medical school. (For one source, see: https://www.aamc.org/download/102346...aibvol7no2.pdf) When you consider the financial costs and the fact that a person who does not finish medical school takes up a spot, this is something to seriously consider. I do not personally think it is because of something inherent in race. Rather, when you select lower caliber students, they will be more likely to struggle.

.

Originally Posted by DanGee777

The black attrition rate is 6.3%. So roughly 94% of the black matriculants complete the degree. Sounds pretty good to me, but what business is it of yours which applicants a med school chooses to admit? If I get admitted because I'm ten times as awesome as you are but my GPA is .2 points lower, so what? If disgruntled ORMs don't like the policies then there's always DO or Caribbean. Maybe you can be the next Robert Ross and open up a new Carib school so you can help other white and Asian privileges premeds victimized by our dramatically unfair system. Or better yet, these victimized souls could retake the MCAT and/or do a post-bac to improve their GPAs, like I am doing. Treat it as a character-building exercise.

P.S. - I'm white, and I have a 3.35 cGPA (3.65 BCPM) and hopefully ~35 MCAT. Would you consider me a "lower caliber" applicant? MCAT is the only standardized way to compare applicants, after all. This process is a crapshoot. Get used to it.

What do you mean by what business is it of mine? We're having a debate about what the ideal policy would be. I'm aware it's a crapshoot, but why make it worse by having AA policies? It's not about an individual case, where someone has really strong research, letters, extracurriculars, etc. to make up for a low gpa. There is a significant and systemic difference in the quality of URM vs. ORM applicants accepted at every tier of med schools.

Finally, it's about more than just whether someone gets accepted to med school. Affirmative action also applies to getting into top tier vs. mid tier schools and getting race-based merit scholarships.

Originally Posted by sibitrum

In order for this argument to hold water, it would have to be true that, on average, URMs have better extracurriculars. I don't see any evidence for this anywhere.

I said there were MANY factors at play. It's not just stats. And it's not just ECs. If you interview well, you might get in over a "more qualified" applicant. URMs bring different experiences to the table (and many times different ECs, much more likely to work with minority populations which is a big, big EC).

Plus, my biggest points still stand. URMs are more likely to work in poorer areas that need doctors (especially if they come from there). As well, many patients want a doctor who is the same race. They will specifically ask for a doctor of the same race. You can be the smartest doctor in the world, but you simply CANNOT help these patients. It is important to recruit doctors that can treat a diverse patient population.

Originally Posted by sibitrum

Regarding drop out rates, blacks are about 9x as likely as whites to drop out of medical school. (For one source, see: https://www.aamc.org/download/102346...aibvol7no2.pdf) When you consider the financial costs and the fact that a person who does not finish medical school takes up a spot, this is something to seriously consider. I do not personally think it is because of something inherent in race. Rather, when you select lower caliber students, they will be more likely to struggle.

The higher attrition rate is a problem, I admit. Still, the benefits of URMs outweighs the problem, and there should be more focus on helping URMs complete school than just throwing out the URM designation.

Overall, it's not a perfect system. But people on this board just are so ignorant about why this exists. It's not even about fixing past discrimination (though it relates). It's about PATIENT CARE. You know, the thing that everyone claims they support. Again, just because you have the stats doesn't mean you will be a great doctor. If the patient won't talk to you or won't trust you, how much you know is irrelevant. Taking "lower quality" candidates can significantly improve patient care.

Originally Posted by Barcu

Overall, it's not a perfect system. But people on this board just are so ignorant about why this exists. It's not even about fixing past discrimination (though it relates). It's about PATIENT CARE. You know, the thing that everyone claims they support. Again, just because you have the stats doesn't mean you will be a great doctor. If the patient won't talk to you or won't trust you, how much you know is irrelevant. Taking "lower quality" candidates can significantly improve patient care.

Originally Posted by sibitrum

It doesn't have to be a genetic basis though. It could be that just being lower socioeconomic status and/or having a weaker education leads to a lower permanent IQ.

No, StBernardRules said he thought it was possible that Asians are inherently more intelligent than whites and whites are inherently more intelligent than blacks. As in, in the course of evolution, Africans' survival depended more upon athleticism or something while Asians' survival depended more on intelligence, so Asians developed to be more intelligent.

What we were bickering about is that no one has proved this. If you wanted to prove this, you would need to control for factors like socioeconomic status and weaker education, because they would obviously be confounding factors in a study on intelligence.

The mechanism idea is that if you did conduct a study like this where you controlled for all the confounding factors and found a statistically relevant difference between the intelligence of blacks and Asians, then the next logical step is proposing a mechanism for why this is happening. I.e., what is it about being Asian that makes you smarter than black people? The gene thing was just an example of what could be causing the difference. Note that this all purely conjecture and I don't actually think only Asian people possess a "smart" gene

Originally Posted by Barcu

I said there were MANY factors at play. It's not just stats. And it's not just ECs. If you interview well, you might get in over a "more qualified" applicant. URMs bring different experiences to the table (and many times different ECs, much more likely to work with minority populations which is a big, big EC).

Plus, my biggest points still stand. URMs are more likely to work in poorer areas that need doctors (especially if they come from there). As well, many patients want a doctor who is the same race. They will specifically ask for a doctor of the same race. You can be the smartest doctor in the world, but you simply CANNOT help these patients. It is important to recruit doctors that can treat a diverse patient population.



The higher attrition rate is a problem, I admit. Still, the benefits of URMs outweighs the problem, and there should be more focus on helping URMs complete school than just throwing out the URM designation.

Overall, it's not a perfect system. But people on this board just are so ignorant about why this exists. It's not even about fixing past discrimination (though it relates). It's about PATIENT CARE. You know, the thing that everyone claims they support. Again, just because you have the stats doesn't mean you will be a great doctor. If the patient won't talk to you or won't trust you, how much you know is irrelevant. Taking "lower quality" candidates can significantly improve patient care.

I believe the majority of patients would rather have a physician who simply has the best chance of helping them, over someone of the same race.

Would you rather be sick, with a Dr of your race treating you, or healthy with another???

Originally Posted by LPpostbacc

I believe the majority of patients would rather have a physician who simply has the best chance of helping them, over someone of the same race.

Would you rather be sick, with a Dr of your race treating you, or healthy with another???

But what if just being of the same race actually makes you have the best chance of helping them?

Originally Posted by sibitrum

In order for this argument to hold water, it would have to be true that, on average, URMs have better extracurriculars. I don't see any evidence for this anywhere.

Regarding drop out rates, blacks are about 9x as likely as whites to drop out of medical school. (For one source, see: https://www.aamc.org/download/102346...aibvol7no2.pdf) When you consider the financial costs and the fact that a person who does not finish medical school takes up a spot, this is something to seriously consider. I do not personally think it is because of something inherent in race. Rather, when you select lower caliber students, they will be more likely to struggle.

This is a valid concern, I think. Just by interpreting the link above:

Less than 60% of Blacks complete medical school in four years, compared to >80% for Whites and Asians.

85% of Blacks graduate in seven years, compared to ~95% for Whites and Asians. Participation in an MD/PhD program might affect these numbers, IDK.

Also note that: <1% of Asians and Whites leave for academic reasons, compared to 6.7% of Blacks.

I'm wondering if there's USMLE scores broken down by race. The only study I can find is from 1994 and shows for USMLE Step 1, the mean score for Whites was 210, while for Blacks it was 187. I'm not a medical student so I can't interpret these numbers.

http://journals.lww.com/academicmedi..._grant.21.aspx

-----

Edit: U of Michigan study linked below. It applies only to their (very good) medical school. The last two sentences sum it up nicely:

"Scores for black students at the 75th percentile were roughly the same as the scores for Asians and white students at the 25th percentile. In other words, 75 percent of black students taking the test in 2003 scored lower than 75 percent of Asian and white students taking the test that year."

Originally Posted by LPpostbacc

I believe the majority of patients would rather have a physician who simply has the best chance of helping them, over someone of the same race.

Would you rather be sick, with a Dr of your race treating you, or healthy with another???

I can't believe this is still an argument after I have addressed this several times. This is simply not true. You personally may think this but not everyone does.

Patients specifically ask for doctors of their own race fairly frequently. Again, if a patient does not trust their doctor or won't open up (which happens with minority patients sometimes) then the smartest, white doctor in the world cannot help them. In these cases, a "worse" doctor (who happens to be a minority) may end up being the much better doctor in this situation.

maybe the world just needs more black/hispanic doctors and less asian/indian doctors... (white is proportional to population).




If I was asian/indian, I'd be blaming my "culture," more than the black people who get the spots for being a URM.




I'm sure if doctors were 80% white, then people would be calling for less white doctors to ensure diversity.

Originally Posted by Barcu

I can't believe this is still an argument after I have addressed this several times. This is simply not true. You personally may think this but not everyone does.

Patients specifically ask for doctors of their own race fairly frequently. Again, if a patient does not trust their doctor or won't open up (which happens with minority patients sometimes) then the smartest, white doctor in the world cannot help them. In these cases, a "worse" doctor (who happens to be a minority) may end up being the much better doctor in this situation.

First off, as a general rule, I don't think we should be setting up our medical education system around the desires of racists. This is the same reason that a business couldn't ban minorities from its salesforce because they "relate better" to their target clients, even if it resulted in greater profit.

Second, if you got rid of affirmative action, there would still be minority doctors around. If it's really important to a racist patient, then they can bare the extra 20 minute commute to get to a doctor with their skin color.

Originally Posted by sibitrum

First off, as a general rule, I don't think we should be setting up our medical education system around the desires of racists. This is the same reason that a business couldn't ban minorities from its salesforce because they "relate better" to their target clients, even if it resulted in greater profit.

Second, if you got rid of affirmative action, there would still be minority doctors around. If it's really important to a racist patient, then they can bare the extra 20 minute commute to get to a doctor with their skin color.

Originally Posted by Barcu

A couple things:

First, your argument is based on one URM taking one white person's place. However, how many people get accepted into med school in the United States? 15,000-20,000 right? That one applicant was beat out by a ton of people! Bottom line, is there is always something more that you can do. It's not just URMs are taking all these opportunities away. If you are on the fringe nationwide of being accepted, you think you automatically deserve to get in because your stats are marginally better? Even if we take it at an individual school level, you are being beat out by hundreds of others. You are a marginal candidate. Why this entitlement?

To address your first point, when it comes to medical school admissions, even the smallest factors matter. This isn't applying for undergraduate schools where you'll get in SOMEWHERE as long as you apply to safety schools.

In the medical school world, no school is a safety. The acceptance numbers are LOW. Someone said med admits are also a crap shoot. Every factor you get counts. If someone gets in with lower stats using URM status over an ORM, then that's one less school that accepts the ORM.

Regarding the "Why this entitlement?", the answer is because you are better than the other applicant and they get in because of their URM status. URM status does not do a fair job indicating why this URM with lower stats will be a better doctor. I'll explain this in the second part of my post.

Originally Posted by Barcu

Second and more importantly, why are stats the way to determine the more qualified applicant. You said that my points made sense that URMs are more likely to work in communities that need docs, and they are better for minority patients. In that respect, that makes them more qualified than ORMs.

What people need to realize on this board is that stats are not nearly as important as you guys think. Their major advantage is that they show a level of competency and that they make dealing with a large load of applicants a bit easier. But no school lists people in order of good stats and then just accepts down the list in order. There are other factors at play too. Why do people with 4.0/40 MCATs get rejected from places? Because it's never just about stats. That's the same thing with URM status. That's not unfair. What, is it also unfair that someone is naturally more charismatic than you? Bottom line, these URMs have the stats that adcoms believe will allow them to be successful in med school (it's not like URMs are failing out in droves). Plus they have experiences and traits that will help them provide better patient care than a white applicant with similar (or even better) stats. Better stats or working hard can't be the only factors in admissions. Asians may suffer a disadvantage and may need to work harder. Still, medicine is not about rewarding the hardest working or smartest people. It's about providing quality healthcare.

tl;dr: What posters consider a "better" or "more deserving" applicant is totally warped on this forum.

While I do agree that some patients don't open up as easily to people of a different race, how does the URM boost help solve this issue?

There is no indication that a person connects culturally at all to the patient they are treating. The applicant just checks a box and that's that. There is no way to ensure that these types of applicants given an advantage via URM status will actually be an advantage in the medical field. There is no personal statement requirement for URM saying "If accepted, how would you use your culture and experience to benefit the medical field?" or something along those lines.

You said in another post:

Plus, my biggest points still stand. URMs are more likely to work in poorer areas that need doctors (especially if they come from there). As well, many patients want a doctor who is the same race. They will specifically ask for a doctor of the same race. You can be the smartest doctor in the world, but you simply CANNOT help these patients. It is important to recruit doctors that can treat a diverse patient population.

How can we tell that these applicants will actually do that. Are we sure they will actually be that doctor that will be of better use than the smartest white doctor in the world? Checking a URM box doesn't really tell you much. Why does this applicant with lower stats get in over another with higher stats? What makes them more likely to help the patients of their same race or connect with those patients? Is it just because of their skin color? Is skin color the only thing that matters?

If patients simply want the doctor BECAUSE of their race and skin color (maybe not even skin color because 1/2 black could still look white), then they wouldn't mind waiting a little longer until a doctor of the same race as them opens up? This isn't a huge issue about health but more about racist patients.

This URM thing DOES put people who would otherwise be great doctors, at a disadvantage. I still believe that the URM doesn't make a difference in improving health care quality. If cultural identities are important among patients, make the URM more holistic towards culture and commitment to those communities and perhaps experience dealing with those communities, as that would make admissions more fair than to automatically give all URMs an advantage. Make it a better representation, rather than "check this box and you will receive an advantage over Whites and Asians when applying" Who knows? What if someone without URM status can actually connect with a certain group of people through their own cultural experience?

Originally Posted by sibitrum

First off, as a general rule, I don't think we should be setting up our medical education system around the desires of racists. This is the same reason that a business couldn't ban minorities from its salesforce because they "relate better" to their target clients, even if it resulted in greater profit.

Second, if you got rid of affirmative action, there would still be minority doctors around. If it's really important to a racist patient, then they can bare the extra 20 minute commute to get to a doctor with their skin color.

You're right. We shouldn't be basing our medical education on the needs and desires of PATIENTS. That would be ridiculous. We should base it on what a bunch of premeds think is fair.

Screw all those "racist" patients. They deserve worse healthcare! Any other groups of people you think deserve worse care?

I've said what I needed to on this thread.

Originally Posted by Barcu

You're right. We shouldn't be basing our medical education on the needs and desires of PATIENTS. That would be ridiculous. We should base it on what a bunch of premeds think is fair.

Screw all those "racist" patients. They deserve worse healthcare! Any other groups of people you think deserve worse care?

I've said what I needed to on this thread.

Like I said, they could still go to minority docs, they would just have a bit of a longer commute. It's ironic that the very people who are so sensitive to the effects of racism are so easy to embrace policies that are 1) discriminatory in nature and 2) targeted as a mere convenience to those with racist ideologies.

Ok, one more time..

Originally Posted by Aerus

To address your first point, when it comes to medical school admissions, even the smallest factors matter. This isn't applying for undergraduate schools where you'll get in SOMEWHERE as long as you apply to safety schools.

In the medical school world, no school is a safety. The acceptance numbers are LOW. Someone said med admits are also a crap shoot. Every factor you get counts.

Regarding the "Why this entitlement?", the answer is because you are better than the other applicant and they get in because of their URM status. URM status does not do a fair job indicating why this URM with lower stats will be a better doctor. I'll explain this in the second part of my post.

Again, you are throwing around this "better" adjective. What makes you better? Your stats are better? Well that doesn't always matter. On paper, one candidate may look better, but there are many factors at play and many of these factors are SUBJECTIVE. Even ignoring URM status, a "worse" candidate might get in due to a solid, engaging interview.

Bottom line, you are not in a position to evaluate who the better candidate is. The people on these boards always come up with the weirdest scenarios. "Well say two people are exactly the same and then..." NO two applicants are the same. You cannot say which candidate is better without evaluating all of the factors. And yes, URM status is one of those factors. You can't separate it out.

Originally Posted by Aerus

While I do agree that some patients don't open up as easily to people of a different race, how does the URM boost help solve this issue?

There is no indication that a person connects culturally at all to the patient they are treating. The applicant just checks a box and that's that. There is no way to ensure that these types of applicants given an advantage via URM status will actually be an advantage in the medical field. There is no personal statement requirement for URM saying "If accepted, how would you use your culture and experience to benefit the medical field?" or something along those lines.

You said in another post:

How can we tell that these applicants will actually do that. Are we sure they will actually be that doctor that will be of better use than the smartest white doctor in the world? Checking a URM box doesn't really tell you much? Why does this applicant with lower stats get in over another with higher stats? What makes them more likely to help the patients of their same race or connect with those patients? Is it just because of their skin color? Is skin color the only thing that matters?

If patients simply want the doctor BECAUSE of their race and skin color (maybe not even skin color because 1/2 black could still look white), then they wouldn't mind waiting a little longer until a doctor of the same race as them opens up? This isn't a huge issue about health but more about racist patients.

This URM thing DOES put people who would otherwise be great doctors, at a disadvantage. I still believe that the URM doesn't make a difference in improving health care quality. If cultural identities are important among patients, make the URM more holistic towards culture and commitment to those communities and perhaps experience dealing with those communities, as that would make admissions more fair than to automatically give all URMs an advantage. Make it a better representation, rather than "check this box and you will receive an advantage over Whites and Asians when applying" Who knows? What if someone without URM status can actually connect with a certain group of people through their own cultural experience?

You would be surprised how far just being of the same race or speaking the same language goes in making a connection. Especially if you are part of a minority group that has (and still may) face discrimination. Sure it's not a perfect system. There may be URMs who check the box and can't relate. But again, adcoms look at all the factors. They will see that a URM is from an area that needs doctors. They will see the ECs that this person has. It's a subjective system. It's not like a point system and URMs worth a certain amount that will automatically bump them up over all those more deserving candidates.

Let's also talk about preference. People preferring a doctor of their own race does not make them racist. Would a woman preferring a woman OB be sexist? Would an orthodox jew wanting a jewish doctor be prejudice? No. Hospitals cannot (and maybe should not) always offer everything the patient wants. But we provide healthcare to patients. When their needs can be met, we should try to accommodate them. Even if they're racist, they don't deserve worse care.

And finally, you say that many deserving people are shut out of medicine. You know what? That would still happen without URM status. There are too many qualified applicants for a limited number of spots. And there are so many factors that go into the application process that one factor should not be the reason you didn't make it. URMs are NOT stealing your spots. It is your own fault. If you have average numbers, decent ECs, and apply smart, you have a great shot of getting in somewhere. If you don't get in, YOU did something wrong. Improve and try again. Stop blaming others.

Originally Posted by sibitrum

It's ironic that the very people who are so sensitive to the effects of racism are so easy to embrace policies that are 1) discriminatory in nature and 2) targeted as a mere convenience to those with racist ideologies.

Very well put and this amazes me as well.

Originally Posted by Barcu

Even if they're racist, they don't deserve worse care.

If I refuse to open up or get help from a non-white doctor because I'm racist and that results in me getting worse care, then I definitely deserved worse care and it's no ones fault but my own.

Originally Posted by sibitrum

Like I said, they could still go to minority docs, they would just have a bit of a longer commute. It's ironic that the very people who are so sensitive to the effects of racism are so easy to embrace policies that are 1) discriminatory in nature and 2) targeted as a mere convenience to those with racist ideologies.

It's not discriminatory because it is a factor that improves patient care, which is kind of the entire purpose of medical school. Again, URM status is a little different than affirmative action. It isn't necessarily there to redress previous discrimination, it is there so that we can serve a diverse patient population.

And as I have said, having a preference does not make you racist. You want a doctor you are comfortable with. Every patient deserves that.

Come on guys, there are so many factors that go into the application process. If URM status was abolished, pretty much all the same people would be rejected anyway (URMs are called that because there aren't many of them). If you think URM status is keeping out a bunch of deserving applicants, you really don't know much about the application process.

Originally Posted by StBernardsRule

If I refuse to open up or get help from a non-white doctor because I'm racist and that results in me getting worse care, then I definitely deserved worse care and it's no ones fault but my own.

I'm really sensing the empathy here. Keep it up.

Originally Posted by Barcu

It's not discriminatory because it is a factor that improves patient care, which is kind of the entire purpose of medical school.

You don't understand what the word means. It is the very definition of discriminatory.

dis·crim·i·na·to·ry   [dih-skrim-uh-nuh-tawr-ee, -tohr-ee]
adjective

characterized by or showing prejudicial treatment, especially as an indication of racial, religious, or sexual bias:

Originally Posted by Barcu

Again, you are throwing around this "better" adjective. What makes you better? Your stats are better? Well that doesn't always matter. On paper, one candidate may look better, but there are many factors at play and many of these factors are SUBJECTIVE. Even ignoring URM status, a "worse" candidate might get in due to a solid, engaging interview.

Bottom line, you are not in a position to evaluate who the better candidate is. The people on these boards always come up with the weirdest scenarios. "Well say two people are exactly the same and then..." NO two applicants are the same. You cannot say which candidate is better without evaluating all of the factors. And yes, URM status is one of those factors. You can't separate it out.

But, without evaluating the premises and conditions of their URM status, that doesn't make the person with lower stats and EC's better. If an applicant with higher stats, better EC's, better everything doesn't get in over somebody based on their URM, then how is the URM better? They did not evaluate their URM at all. If the URM got in because they had something they could offer, then sure. But offering their skin color (the check box doesn't test for cultural/language connections), that doesn't make them a better applicant.

You say what makes the white/ORM a better applicant just because they have better stats. I ask what makes the URM with lower stats better just because of a check box.

I understand how other things, such as interview could give the edge over, but I'm not talking about the interview. I'm talking about the URM status independently. If that didn't do anything, my argument wouldn't exist.

Originally Posted by Barcu

You would be surprised how far just being of the same race or speaking the same language goes in making a connection. Especially if you are part of a minority group that has (and still may) face discrimination. Sure it's not a perfect system. There may be URMs who check the box and can't relate. But again, adcoms look at all the factors. They will see that a URM is from an area that needs doctors. They will see the ECs that this person has. It's a subjective system. It's not like a point system and URMs worth a certain amount that will automatically bump them up over all those more deserving candidates.

Let's also talk about preference. People preferring a doctor of their own race does not make them racist. Would a woman preferring a woman OB be sexist? Would an orthodox jew wanting a jewish doctor be prejudice? No. Hospitals cannot (and maybe should not) always offer everything the patient wants. But we provide healthcare to patients. When their needs can be met, we should try to accommodate them. Even if they're racist, they don't deserve worse care.

And finally, you say that many deserving people are shut out of medicine. You know what? That would still happen without URM status. There are too many qualified applicants for a limited number of spots. And there are so many factors that go into the application process that one factor should not be the reason you didn't make it. URMs are NOT stealing your spots. It is your own fault. If you have average numbers, decent ECs, and apply smart, you have a great shot of getting in somewhere. If you don't get in, YOU did something wrong. Improve and try again. Stop blaming others.

I bolded a sentence. Can you please explain this? That's what URM status basically does. Or else it wouldn't do anything at all. I understand it's not exactly an automatic, but that's what it essentially does.

If it were a cultural thing, then no, it wouldn't be racist. I'm talking about based solely on the premise of their race. SOLELY on the race, since that's what URM status does in applicants. It looks for their race. No cultural/language/societal struggle issues associated with this. Just a check box.

If URM's weren't taking the spot of others, why have it? Why should it exist if it does absolutely nothing? If a URM gets in over a ORM because of the check box, in which case otherwise, the ORM would have gotten in, then they did steal a spot. Or else, URM status wouldn't do anything. Its effect is to put a slight preference towards them, which would place them over ORM's. I understand other applicants were also accepted, not just the URM. But they got in based on their stats and achievements. The ORM that didn't get in would have gotten in based on stats and achievements too, but didn't because of this policy.

This policy would be pointless and ineffective if it didn't make it unfair and "steal spots" from others.

It's all relative, you see. You can't say "YOU did something wrong" and also say "URM's are preferred". ORM's have to get higher stats because of this policy. I see no fault in the ORM.

Originally Posted by Aerus

But, without evaluating the premises and conditions of their URM status, that doesn't make the person with lower stats and EC's better. If an applicant with higher stats, better EC's, better everything doesn't get in over somebody based on their URM, then how is the URM better? They did not evaluate their URM at all. If the URM got in because they had something they could offer, then sure. But offering their skin color (the check box doesn't test for cultural/language connections), that doesn't make them a better applicant.

You say what makes the white/ORM a better applicant just because they have better stats. I ask what makes the URM with lower stats better just because of a check box.

I understand how other things, such as interview could give the edge over, but I'm not talking about the interview. I'm talking about the URM status independently. If that didn't do anything, my argument wouldn't exist.



I bolded a sentence. Can you please explain this? That's what URM status basically does. Or else it wouldn't do anything at all. I understand it's not exactly an automatic, but that's what it essentially does.

If it were a cultural thing, then no, it wouldn't be racist. I'm talking about based solely on the premise of their race. SOLELY on the race, since that's what URM status does in applicants. It looks for their race. No cultural/language/societal struggle issues associated with this. Just a check box.

If URM's weren't taking the spot of others, why have it? Why should it exist if it does absolutely nothing? If a URM gets in over a ORM because of the check box, in which case otherwise, the ORM would have gotten in, then they did steal a spot. Or else, URM status wouldn't do anything. It's effect is to put a slight preference towards them, which would place them over whites/ORM's. I understand other applicants were also accepted, not just the URM. But they got in based on their stats and achievements. The White/ORM that didn't get in would have gotten in based on stats and achievements too, but didn't because of this policy.

This policy would be pointless and ineffective if it didn't make it unfair and "steal spots" from others.

It's all relative, you see. You can't say "YOU did something wrong" and also say "URM's are preferred". ORM's/Whites have to get higher stats because of this policy. I see no fault in the White/ORM.

What I meant is that adcoms don't just see the box checked URM and then automatically accept someone.

They still look at the whole application. If the applicant is URM and from an area that has few doctors, an adcom will see that as a positive. If the URM has ECs working within underserved communities, that will be a positive. If a URM has those, they will serve a greater good than someone with better stats.

As I have said many times, the application is not in a vacuum. All factors come into play. Someone who checks URM and gets in over someone who seems like a better candidate would be likely to have a background and ECs that show that they will be more willing to serve underserved populations.

And you said it again. ORMs need to get higher stats with this policy. Stop talking about stats! It's a whole application with many factors, including stats! With any factor, there are some people who will naturally have an advantage over others. An example I keep bringing up is a solid interview can push you into a place where you did not expect. Is that unfair? Of course not. Yet somehow when we talk about race as a factor (which improves patient care just like being a relatable, charismatic person does), then everyone freaks out.

Originally Posted by Barcu

Yet somehow when we talk about race as a factor (which improves patient care just like being a relatable, charismatic person does), then everyone freaks out.

Some people still dislike the idea of treating others differently based on the color of their skin I guess.

StBernardsRule, you are either trolling hard or you are prejudiced, and I can't believe you haven't been BANNED yet. Positing the ridiculous and discredited theory that blacks are less intelligent than whites? Disgusting. I don't believe it has ANY place on here.

Yes, I looked back in the thread. Blacks score worse on standardized tests and do worse in schools than whites do because they are many times more likely to grow up in poverty. When you control for income and for households in which there are two parents, academic results for black and white students are virtually indistinguishable.

Originally Posted by StBernardsRule

You don't understand what the word means. It is the very definition of discriminatory.

dis·crim·i·na·to·ry   [dih-skrim-uh-nuh-tawr-ee, -tohr-ee]
adjective

characterized by or showing prejudicial treatment, especially as an indication of racial, religious, or sexual bias:

Acknowledging the fact that URMs provide better care to a diverse population is not showing "prejudicial treatment." Prejudicial usually implies hostile or unreasonable preconceived notions about a race, religious group, or sex.

That's not really what is going on here.

Originally Posted by DanGee777

StBernardsRule, you are either trolling hard or you are prejudiced, and I can't believe you haven't been BANNED yet. Positing the ridiculous and discredited theory that blacks are less intelligent than whites? Disgusting. I don't believe it has ANY place on here.

Yes, I looked back in the thread. Blacks score worse on standardized tests and do worse in schools than whites do because they are many times more likely to grow up in poverty. When you control for income and for households in which there are two parents, academic results for black and white students are virtually indistinguishable.

There's no reason I should be banned. I'm making perfect sense, I just believe evidence strongly supports something that many people get offended by.

Also, blacks do not do nearly as well on standardized test compared to whites when they have the same background. That was already posted earlier in this thread and I've provided links as well. Here is a picture posted earlier in this thread (wasn't posted by me). Can you please post your sources that say black and white test scores are virtually indistinguishable?

[/QUOTE]