"Affirmative Action"-The Myth Behind the Impact on ds Admission.

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

Nothing contributes more to global warming that a discussion on affirmative action and ds admission. As with most passionate exchanges, they are usually long on conjecture and short on statistical evidence to support their claim.

This post is not about whether affirmative action is right or wrong, legal or illegal, fair or unfair, just or unjust, good or bad. It is more about how the ds admission process appears to be dealing with diversities of students that apply and get accepted. Judging the wisdom of Howard adcoms on the acceptance of a student with an AA of 12 may be premature, at least, until all the vital statistics of the student in question are brought into focus. With 127 years of experience for Howard and 132 years for Meharry, one would expect there is enough tradition at the two institutions to have acquired reasonable experience to choose the best candidates to meet the school’s criteria. The true measure of whether or not the choices adcoms make are wise does not lie in the absolute values of the mean or range of gpa/dat scores but rather on the retention rate of enrollees and the number of years of practice the graduates of the institution provide the community. The degree of competency of the practitioner is not a function of how “good” a dentist he or she may be, but rather on whether they are able to meet the needs of the immediate community that they serve.

ADEA provides statistical information on gender, age, and ethnic background (White, African American, Hispanic/Latino, Native America/Alaskan Native. Asian/, Pacific Islander, Other, and Not Reported). It also provides information on academic background in terms of pre dental education and mean gpa and DAT scores.

It should be understood, that while statistical information for individual school is provided, it is a great deal more difficult to make generalization regarding particular school because each applicant applies, on the average, to 10 ds.

In order to assess the impact of “affirmative action” on the chances of admission for either the minority or the majority it is necessary to review to available statistical evidence.

Dental schools have an interest in having a heterogeneous group of students. The diversity of the student body extends to sex, ethnic and socio-economic background as well as academic background. The exception to the diversity of the students in terms ethnic background applies to a limited extent to schools such as Meharry, Howard and Puerto Rico. On a national basis, it is no coincidence that the distribution of various groups in the applicant and enrollees pools parallel one another. As can be seen from the table, 55 % of the applicants and 56.6% of the enrollees are males. A similar trend is seen between the applicants/enrollees pool in the ethnic background as well as undergraduate majors. For example, 12.2% of the applicants and 13.2% of the enrollees are chemistry/physics majors. The need for diversity including educational background may explain why in some cases a "less qualified" was accepted over a "more qualified" applicant. A ds whose top 100 applicants are all white or any ethnic group, all males or all females with a degree in electrical engineering are unlikely to be all accepted inspite of their credentials.

The national average of African Americans is roughly 5/ds, which drops to less than 4 when we exclude Mehhary and Howard. The averages, however, are somewhat misleading considering the fact that for 2007 there were 11 ds with zero, 11 with one and 7 with two Affrican American enrolles. Thus, more than half of the ds in the nation had less than two Affrican American per school. Hispanics fared slightly better with 5/school. In this case, as well, there 7 schools with zero, 6 with one, 5 with two, and 11 with three Hispanics/school. As with African Americans, more than half of the schools in the nation had less than 3. For the majority of schools, the numbers appear to suggest that "affirmative action" does not have a significant negative impact on admission nor does it support the notion that those with “more competitive” stats are being displaced by the "less qualified" minorities.

Statistical data was obtained from the 2008 ADEA Official Guide to Dental Schools.

https://access.adea.org/adeassa/ecss...d=&p_price_cd=

	2008 ADEA Official Guide to DS				
	Appl	Enrol	App/Enr	% of App% of Enr

Total	12010	4599	2.6		
Male	6604	2603	2.5	55.0	56.6
Female	5404	1995	2.7	45.0	43.3
White	6835	2736	2.5	57.0	59.5
Afr/Am	704	284	2.5	5.9	6.2
His/Lat	679	286	2.4	5.7	6.2
Nat Am	84	35	2.4	0.7	0.7
Asian	2704	937	2.9	22.5	20.4
Other	677	210	3.2	5.6	4.6
N/R	327	111	2.9	2.7	2.4

Undergraduate Majors of DS App/enroll.		

Major		% Appl	% Enroll

Bio		52.6	56.6
Chem/Phy	12.2	13.2
Eng		2.4	3.0
Math/Cs		1.2	1.3
SS		1.3	1.0
Bus		3.7	3.7
Ed		0.6	0.6
L/Hum/Art	2.7	2.9
Pre		12.3	11.4
Other		8.3	7.8
Nm/Nr		2.7	1.7

		Total	M	F	M %	F %
1	Alaba	60	35	24	58	40
2	Arizona	60	31	29	52	48
3	Loma	95	67	28	71	29
4	UCLA	88	48	40	55	45
5	UCSF	85	45	40	53	47
6	UOP	141	78	63	55	45
7	USC	144	94	50	65	35
8	Colo	50	28	16	56	32
9	Conn	39	20	19	51	49
10	Howard	82	45	37	55	45
11	NOVA	93	51	42	55	45
12	Florida	83	33	50	40	60
13	Georgia	63	39	24	62	38
14	S. Illi	50	29	20	58	40
15	Illi	68	39	31	57	46
16	Indiana	101	62	39	61	39
17	Iowa	80	46	34	58	43
18	Kent	56	36	20	64	36
19	Louisv	84	53	31	63	37
20	Louisi	60	37	23	62	38
21	Maryl	130	63	67	48	52
22	Boston	115	60	55	52	48
23	Harvard	35	16	19	46	54
24	Tufts	166	85	81	51	49
25	Mercy	78	42	36	54	46
26	Mich	105	54	51	51	49
27	Minn	96	55	41	57	43
28	Miss	35	18	17	51	49
29	MisouKC	104	55	49	53	47
30	Creigh	85	49	36	58	42
31	Neb	45	19	26	42	58
32	Nevada	78	59	19	76	24
33	UMDNJ	87	45	42	52	48
34	Colum	77	36	41	47	53
35	NY	228	128	99	56	43
36	SUNY SB	39	19	20	49	51
37	SUNY B	88	54	34	61	39
38	N Carol	76	37	39	49	51
39	Case	85	57	28	67	33
40	Ohio	103	63	39	61	38
41	Okla	58	39	19	67	33
42	Oregon	75	51	24	68	32
43	Penn	115	53	62	46	54
44	Pitt	78	52	26	67	33
45	Temple	125	72	53	58	42
46	PR	42	18	24	43	57
47	S Carol	56	41	15	73	27
48	Meharry	51	24	27	47	53
49	Tenn	80	46	34	58	43
50	Baylor	95	49	46	52	48
51	UT Hou	84	36	48	43	57
52	UT-SA	94	50	32	53	34
53	Virg	90	52	38	58	42
54	Wash	55	32	23	58	42
55	W Va	51	31	20	61	39
56	Marque	80	50	30	63	38

				        %	       %
		4666	2626	2020	56	43

		Total	Af/Am	Hisp	Af/Am %	Hisp %
1	Alaba	60	2	2	3	3
2	Arizona	60	0	6	0	10
3	Loma	95	6	5	6	5
4	UCLA	88	4	11	5	13
5	UCSF	85	1	3	1	4
6	UOP	141	3	16	2	11
7	USC	144	5	5	3	3
8	Colo	50	0	2	0	4
9	Conn	39	1	0	3	0
10	Howard	82	40	4	49	5
11	NOVA	93	2	9	2	10
12	Florida	83	7	13	8	16
13	Georgia	63	3	3	5	5
14	S. Illi	50	3	3	6	6
15	Illi	68	7	5	10	7
16	Indiana	101	1	0	1	0
17	Iowa	80	2	6	3	8
18	Kent	56	6	1	11	2
19	Louisv	84	8	1	10	1
20	Louisi	60	1	0	2	2
21	Maryl	130	9	3	7	2
22	Boston	115	3	11	3	10
23	Harvard	35	1	1	3	3
24	Tufts	166	14	3	8	2
25	Mercy	78	4	3	5	4
26	Mich	105	10	6	10	6
27	Minn	96	1	6	1	6
28	Miss	35	5	0	14	0
29	MisouKC	104	2	3	2	3
30	Creigh	85	1	6	1	7
31	Neb	45	0	3	0	7
32	Nevada	78	0	4	0	5
33	UMDNJ	87	5	3	6	3
34	Colum	77	5	3	6	4
35	NY	228	3	13	1	6
36	SUNY SB	39	0	1	0	3
37	SUNY B	88	0	1	0	1
38	N Carol	76	10	2	13	3
39	Case	85	0	2	0	2
40	Ohio	103	3	3	3	3
41	Okla	58	0	2	0	3
42	Oregon	75	0	0	0	0
43	Penn	115	4	7	3	6
44	Pitt	78	1	8	1	10
45	Temple	125	4	14	3	11
46	PR	42	0	42	0	100
47	S Carol	56	2	1	4	2
48	Meharry	51	48	0	94	0
49	Tenn	80	10	0	13	0
50	Baylor	95	13	30	14	32
51	UT Hou	84	1	14	1	17
52	UT-SA	94	1	7	1	7
53	Virg	90	2	5	2	6
54	Wash	55	1	4	2	7
55	W Va	51	2	4	4	8
56	Marque	80	0	5	0	6
						
				        %	%
		4666	267	315	6	7

This should be fun to watch

Hmmm...so the stats show that there is Affirmative action. The point of AA is that URMs have lower gpa's and DAT's. If they have just as good a shot of getting in (a little better maybe), then something must be helping them get in. Someone correct me if I am wrong.

Like doc toothache, I am NOT arguing about AA. Just talking about these stats.

There's another ADA document out there that summarizes how many URMs enter dental school. It also shows their avg GPA/DAT, and they happen to have significantly lower numbers compared to the national average. While there may not be an overwhelming amount of URM's getting in, but those who got in are getting in with lower numbers.

Yeah, I agree 100%. It isn't about the applicants to enrollee stats, it is about the DAT and GPA stats. That is where the difference is suspected.

Since I am an older applicant, I would be interested to see if diversity applies to age as well.

Why was this posted in the first place? For sure a battle will ensue shortly... no bueno

edited. why bother posting.

Doc Toothache, thanks for posting the info, I hope you didn't take too much time out of your schedule........so thanks. It seems as if this matter will go on and on.......everyone has a view, but #'s don't lie. If everyone just worked hard to get in, and didn't worry about everyone else.......they will get in.

^ Browncrack.............man that pic scared the daylights out of me!!!! We must have posted at similar times.....b/c when I wrote my above post......your pic was not there. Then I scrolled up unexpectinly. haha

This is why I don't support affirmative action.

Just watch this video.

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

Another video of Dr Moody assaulting, without all the cuts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5teKQ...eature=related

You call that guy a dentist?


I hope he gets his license revoked for assaulting people.

Originally Posted by SubugataiDDS

This is why I don't support affirmative action.

You call that guy a dentist?

I hope he gets his license revoked for assaulting people.

Yes, he is an example of a bad citizen, but do you know anything about how well he practices dentistry? His educational background? His GPA, DAT, or Board scores? Do you know he is a product of affirmative action? Or are you just making a broad generalization based on his skin color?

Originally Posted by SubugataiDDS

This is why I don't support affirmative action.

Just watch this video.

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

Another video of Dr Moody assaulting, without all the cuts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5teKQ...eature=related

You call that guy a dentist?


I hope he gets his license revoked for assaulting people.

He looks so badass when he pulls off his blazer to fight.

Doc Toothache,

I have disagreed with you before, but your statistics are always a great read. I really do appreciate the work you put into these threads and I think every single one of them is a great resource. I just wanted to say thank you.

Originally Posted by bjhath

Yes, he is an example of a bad citizen, but do you know anything about how well he practices dentistry? His educational background? His GPA, DAT, or Board scores? Do you know he is a product of affirmative action? Or are you just making a broad generalization based on his skin color?

The legalities one faces when hs/she is in a professional capacity and holds licenses definitely comes into quesiton. I, personally, do not feel that the color of anyone's skin comes into play here. His demonstaation of uncontrolled frustration is undaunted by the camera. Not only does he batter the two individuals in the other car he then turns his attention to a camera crew that jsut so happens to be filming.

As for his licenses that I mentioned earlier. Teh state has the abilityt o fine, suspend and even revoke his license if they seem fit. If that is the case he may not be practicing in that state for some time (if at all) and could potentially face a multitude of fines not to mention being arrested and being sued by those that were assaulted.

Originally Posted by jaypea65

Since I am an older applicant, I would be interested to see if diversity applies to age as well.

Not only for older applicants but for veterans as well.

Originally Posted by StudentDentist

There's another ADA document out there that summarizes how many URMs enter dental school. It also shows their avg GPA/DAT, and they happen to have significantly lower numbers compared to the national average. While there may not be an overwhelming amount of URM's getting in, but those who got in are getting in with lower numbers.

Perhaps you have a source that some of us have not seen. If that is the case maybe you can point us in the right direction. However, you may be referring to the ADA information published as Report #2, 2005 Examinee Information (http://www.ada.org/prof/ed/testing/d...mographics.pdf) which has the information you are alluding to. The fact that the report is based on 1. self reporting of info and on a voluntary basis and 2. is a summary of data obtained over a 5-year period beginning in 2001 detracts from the otherwise useful information contained therein, especially since the ADEA info is, at least, school specific. Moreover, there is ample statistical evidence to show that male/females and ethnic group have different means for both DAT scores and gpa. What the information, however, does not provide us is with specific data supporting the supposition that minorities entered with lower scores and, in fact, contributed to the lower range of the scores as well as to lowering of the means. Unless you are a Dean of Admission of one the ds in the U.S. the assertions will continue to remain pure speculation.
It should also be noted that ADEA does not make a distinction between URM and minorities. There is going to be a world of difference between an African American from Beverly Hills and one from Watts or a Hispanic from Bell Air and one from any barrio in the U.S.

[quote=doc toothache;7156582]Perhaps you have a source that some of us have not seen. If that is the case maybe you can point us in the right direction. However, you may be referring to the ADA information published as Report #2, 2005 Examinee Information (www.ada.org/prof/ed/testing/dat/dat_examinee_demographics.pdf) which has the information you are alluding to. The fact that the report is based on 1. self reporting of info and on a voluntary basis and 2. is a summary of data obtained over a 5-year period beginning in 2001 detracts from the otherwise useful information contained therein, especially since the ADEA info is, at least, school specific. Moreover, there is ample statistical evidence to show that male/females and ethnic group have different means for both DAT scores and gpa. What the information, however, does not provide us is with specific data supporting the supposition that minorities entered with lower scores and, in fact, contributed to the lower range of the scores as well as to lowering of the means. Unless you are a Dean of Admission of one the ds in the U.S. the assertions will continue to remain pure speculation.
It should also be noted that ADEA does not make a distinction between URM and minorities. There is going to be a world of difference between an African American from Beverly Hills and one from Watts or a Hispanic from Bell Air or one from any barrio in the U.S.[/quote]


Very true........big difference there.

Originally Posted by rdhdds1

The legalities one faces when hs/she is in a professional capacity and holds licenses definitely comes into quesiton. I, personally, do not feel that the color of anyone's skin comes into play here. His demonstaation of uncontrolled frustration is undaunted by the camera. Not only does he batter the two individuals in the other car he then turns his attention to a camera crew that jsut so happens to be filming.

As for his licenses that I mentioned earlier. Teh state has the abilityt o fine, suspend and even revoke his license if they seem fit. If that is the case he may not be practicing in that state for some time (if at all) and could potentially face a multitude of fines not to mention being arrested and being sued by those that were assaulted.

I agree with you completely. His actions definitely bring into question his privilege to hold a license. It was the OPs assumption that this bad doctor is a product of affirmative action that I was questioning.

Originally Posted by SubugataiDDS

This is why I don't support affirmative action.

Just watch this video.

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

Another video of Dr Moody assaulting, without all the cuts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5teKQ...eature=related

You call that guy a dentist?


I hope he gets his license revoked for assaulting people.

So one incident of one guy brings you to that conclusion. Your argument has so many flaws, but I will point out the glaring ones. First of all, he is one case of one man assaulting another person. It just so happens that he is black. It just so happens he is a dentist. Are all assault perpetrators black? Are all assault perpetrators dentists? What if he was a white male dentist? What then... all white male dentists shouldn't be allowed to practice? Get real.

I do not believe for one minute that the reason you don't support affirmative action is because of this incident. I am willing to bet that you didn't support it before you found out about that incident, and I am willing to bet that your racist views would be the same whether or not that incident ever took place. I am surprised nobody called you out on this ridiculous racist logic, but on SDN what can you expect?

Originally Posted by Aceofspades

So one incident of one guy brings you to that conclusion. Your argument has so many flaws, but I will point out the glaring ones. First of all, he is one case of one man assaulting another person. It just so happens that he is black. It just so happens he is a dentist. Are all assault perpetrators black? Are all assault perpetrators dentists? What if he was a white male dentist? What then... all white male dentists shouldn't be allowed to practice? Get real.

I do not believe for one minute that the reason you don't support affirmative action is because of this incident. I am willing to bet that you didn't support it before you found out about that incident, and I am willing to bet that your racist views would be the same whether or not that incident ever took place. I am surprised nobody called you out on this ridiculous racist logic, but on SDN what can you expect?

I didn't call him out because I didn't feel like wasting my time watching some stupid video. Honestly, these AA discussions are starting to get on my nerves. It's evident that some people are so frustrated by it that they can't listen to reason.

My proposal: Don't ask race on the application... during the interview, put a voice scrambler and a screen up kind of like a Catholic confession so you can't make out a dialect or see the applicant but you can still interview them.

My guess...my idea won't pass, but it would make things more fair

Originally Posted by doc toothache

Perhaps you have a source that some of us have not seen. If that is the case maybe you can point us in the right direction. However, you may be referring to the ADA information published as Report #2, 2005 Examinee Information (http://www.ada.org/prof/ed/testing/d...mographics.pdf) which has the information you are alluding to. The fact that the report is based on 1. self reporting of info and on a voluntary basis and 2. is a summary of data obtained over a 5-year period beginning in 2001 detracts from the otherwise useful information contained therein, especially since the ADEA info is, at least, school specific. Moreover, there is ample statistical evidence to show that male/females and ethnic group have different means for both DAT scores and gpa. What the information, however, does not provide us is with specific data supporting the supposition that minorities entered with lower scores and, in fact, contributed to the lower range of the scores as well as to lowering of the means. Unless you are a Dean of Admission of one the ds in the U.S. the assertions will continue to remain pure speculation.
It should also be noted that ADEA does not make a distinction between URM and minorities. There is going to be a world of difference between an African American from Beverly Hills and one from Watts or a Hispanic from Bell Air and one from any barrio in the U.S.

Looking at how you're able to assess the meaning of stats, I'm sure you understand then that the information you posted is pretty much meaningless, at least enough to not warrant naming the thread "the myth behind the impact on ds admissions." Every stat available in every field anyone's ever seen pretty much suggest that URM's are, on average, entering with lower numbers.

And that wasn't the document I'm talking about. The one I'm referring to has the DAT/GPA of dental school matriculants, organized by race amongst other things.

Originally Posted by StudentDentist

Looking at how you're able to assess the meaning of stats, I'm sure you understand then that the information you posted is pretty much meaningless, at least enough to not warrant naming the thread "the myth behind the impact on ds admissions." Every stat available in every field anyone's ever seen pretty much suggest that URM's are, on average, entering with lower numbers.

And that wasn't the document I'm talking about. The one I'm referring to has the DAT/GPA of dental school matriculants, organized by race amongst other things.

You seem to be having a hard time understanding that no one is going to buy what you're saying without a reference to a reputable source.

Here is an example:

Statement - Tony Romo is 3rd among NFL quarterbacks in completion percentage.

Reference - ESPN.com

Link - http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/statis...on=2&year=2008

Originally Posted by alanan84

You seem to be having a hard time understanding that no one is going to buy what you're saying without a reference to a reputable source.

Here is an example:

Statement - Tony Romo is 3rd among NFL quarterbacks in completion percentage.

Reference - ESPN.com

Link - http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/statis...on=2&year=2008

If you're from Tejas, it's not hard to see what ethnic group you belong to. You can do your own research, but I'm not convinced you'd understand what it means. jk. What's there to buy? URM's do poorer on every standardized exam out there. SAT, MCAT,....etc. It's become common knowledge at this point. It's like saying men do better in perceptual reasoning than women, caucasions do better on reading comprehension than asians, women do better on reading than men, or men do better in math than women. We've all seen stats to support this, and it just doesn't need much more verification at this point.

Originally Posted by StudentDentist

If you're from Tejas, it's not hard to see what ethnic group you belong to. You can do your own research, but I'm not convinced you'd understand what it means. jk. What's there to buy? URM's do poorer on every standardized exam out there. SAT, MCAT,....etc. It's become common knowledge at this point. It's like saying men do better in perceptual reasoning than women, caucasions do better on reading comprehension than asians, women do better on reading than men, or men do better in math than women. We've all seen stats to support this, and it just doesn't need much more verification at this point.

LOL, hey, I'm just trying to help you defend your argument! If you actually want to make a legitimate point, you have to prove it.

BTW, I'm actually not hispanic.

Statistical information is nothing except lying with numbers. At least that is what I have heard.

Originally Posted by StudentDentist

Looking at how you're able to assess the meaning of stats, I'm sure you understand then that the information you posted is pretty much meaningless, at least enough to not warrant naming the thread "the myth behind the impact on ds admissions." Every stat available in every field anyone's ever seen pretty much suggest that URM's are, on average, entering with lower numbers.
And that wasn't the document I'm talking about. The one I'm referring to has the DAT/GPA of dental school matriculants, organized by race amongst other things.

No argument about the info being meaningless. Ah!, if this were the only post to fit that description.

Originally Posted by StudentDentist

If you're from Tejas, it's not hard to see what ethnic group you belong to. You can do your own research, but I'm not convinced you'd understand what it means. jk. What's there to buy? URM's do poorer on every standardized exam out there. SAT, MCAT,....etc. It's become common knowledge at this point. It's like saying men do better in perceptual reasoning than women, caucasions do better on reading comprehension than asians, women do better on reading than men, or men do better in math than women. We've all seen stats to support this, and it just doesn't need much more verification at this point.

The assertion that there is a difference in how males, females and various ethnic groups fare in standardized test is not likely to make it to TIME's top 10 list of outstanding revelations of the 21th Century. We are going to be hard pressed to find someone that will argue otherwise and there is a pretty good chance that if each of the group was further sub grouped based on the socio-economic background we would find a significant difference between the means for those in the higher and lower groups. The post was less about the whether or not there are "minorities" with lower stats that are accepted in U.S. ds and more about the real or imagined impact that those admissions have on the admissions process vis a vis the more qualified "other" applicants. Speaking of Texas, it is interesting to note that from 2007 to 2008 Baylor increased it's "minority" enrollment from 25 to 44 yet, surprisingly the science gpa, overall gpa and AA scores showed an increase rather than a decrease. SA with a decrease in "minorities" from 15 to 8 shows an actual decrease in gpa and a slight increase in the AA. The low range of gpa scores for both Hou and SA are not exactly in the same league of those seen with Meharry, Howard and PR. Painstaking analysis of the number of minorities enrolled, the mean and range of scores can give us, at least, some clues whether or not the socio-economic "minorities" accepted came from Ivy League schools or "Minority College".

	Baylor	Baylor	Hou	Hou	SA	SA
	2007	2008	2007	2008	2007	2008
Afr/Am	10	13	4	1	3	1
Hisp	12	30	14	14	12	7
NatAm	3	1	0	1	0	0
T Min	25	44	18	16	15	8
Gpa S	3.44	3.47	3.52	3.61	3.6	3.59
Gpa Ran	2.73-4.00	3.23-4.00	3.08-4.00
Gpa O	3.51	3.54	3.59	3.66	3.74	3.67
Gpa Ran	2.96-3.90	3.22-3.98	3.25-4.00
AA	19.5	19.5	19.19	19.7	19	20
AA Rang		14-21.2		15-22		15-23

									
	Total	Af/Am	Hisp	AA	Mean	GPA-S	Mean	Gpa	AA
Alab	60	2	2	18-24	19.8	3.01-3.96	3.58		
AZ	60	0	6	14-22	18.4	2.67-3.94	3.36	*	*
LL	95	6	5	15-23.8	19.3	2.78-3.96	3.4		*
UCLA	88	4	11	17-25	22	2.89-4.00	3.58		
UCSF	85	1	3	17-23	21.6	3.14-4.00	3.67		
UOP	141	3	16	17-23	20.6	2.64-3.95	3.29	*	
USC	144	5	5	15.4-22	19.2	2.85-3.91	3.39		*
Colo	50	0	2	15-23.6	 N/A	3.06-3.97	 N/A		*
Conn	39	1	0	16-21	20.6	3.00-4.00	3.56		
Howard	82	40	4	12-20.9	17	2.55-3.68	3.06	*	*
Nova	93	2	9	15-23	19.7	2.99-4.08	3.56		*
Flor	83	7	13	    N/A	19.5	      N/A	3.54		
Geo	63	3	3	15-23	19.2	3.09-3.99	3.54		*
S Ill	50	3	3	16-23	18.5	3.16-4.00	3.55		*
U Ill	68	7	5	14.1-22	20	2.68-4.00	3.45	*	*
Ind	101	1	0	17-24	19.1	2.91-4.00	3.5		
Iowa	80	2	6	16-22	19.4	3.16-4.00	3.64		*
Kent	56	6	1	15-24	18.2	2.40-4.00	3.37	*	*
Louiv	84	8	1       13-21.8	17.4	2.73-3.93	3.28		*
Louis	60	1	0	16-22	19.6	2.97-4.00	3.5		*
Md	130	9	3	17-25	20.2	2.82-3.91	3.39		
Boston	115	3	11	15-23	19.9	2.66-3.85	3.31	*	*
Harv	35	1	1	17-24.6	22.7	3.43-4.11	3.75		
Tufts	166	14	3	16-22	19.2	2.76-3.85	3.33		*
Mercy	78	4	3	15-23.1	19.7	3.11-3.97	3.62		*
Mich	105	10	6	15.5-23	20	2.83-4.01	3.4		*
Minn	96	1	6	16-23	19.7	2.94-3.98	3.53		*
Miss	35	5	0	16-21	18.2	2.70-4.00	3.59	*	*
Missou	104	2	3	16-22.1	18.3	3.00-4.00	3.6		*
Creigh	85	1	6	17-22.7	19.1	2.98-3.98	3.46		
Neb	45	0	3	15-22.7	18.7	3.23-4.11	3.8		*
Nev	78	0	4	15-22	19.6	2.77-3.92	3.35		*
UMDNJ	87	5	3	14-21.6	19.5	2.89-3.96	3.47		*
Colum	77	5	3	15-22.6	22.3	2.92-4.09	3.54		*
NY	228	3	13	15-23	19.8	2.91-3.93	3.37		*
SB	39	0	1	16-22	21.6	3.07-4.00	3.62		*
Buf	88	0	1	16-23.6	19.6	3.15-3.99	3.58		*
UNC	76	10	2	15-24	20.1	2.97-4.16	3.55		*
Case	85	0	2	16.3-23	19.7	3.10-3.93	3.45		*
Ohio	103	3	3	16-23	19.5	2.85-4.00	3.51		*
Ok	58	0	2	15-25	19.6	2.63-3.95	3.54	*	*
Ore	75	0	0	17-24	19.57	3.10-4.00	3.64		
Penn	115	4	7	  N/A	20.7	3.39-4.00	3.71		
Pitt	78	1	8	16-22.1	19.9	2.80-4.00	3.43		*
Temple	125	4	14	16-22	19.1	2.82-3.82	3.27		*
PR	42	0	42	12.-20	15.3	2.68-3.94	3.2		*
SC	56	2	1	17-23.1	18.9	2.92-4.00	3.49		
Meh	51	48	0	14-20	15.8	2.09-3.69	2.85		*
Tenn	80	10	0	  N/A	18.3	2.82-3.94	3.45		
Baylor	95	13	30	14-21.2	19.5	2.73-4.00	3.47		*
Hou	84	1	14	15-22	19.7	3.23-4.00	3.61		*
SA	94	1	7	15-23	20	3.08-4.00	3.59		*
VA	90	2	5	15-23	19.1	2.70-3.95	3.4	*	*
Wash	55	1	4	14-23	20.7	2.72-3.98	3.51		*
WVA	51	2	4	13-21.4	17	2.67-3.88	3.37	*	*
Marq	80	0	5	14.8-22	18.9	2.79-3.99	3.5		*


	4666	267	315						
	4666	267	315

VCU's current D1 class has only 2 Af-Am student! Pitiful! VCU's Af-Am pop. use to be higher. There in-state students used to be higher also. Seems VCU's priorities have changed!!!

Originally Posted by jaypea65

Since I am an older applicant, I would be interested to see if diversity applies to age as well.

Ditto.

I'll be 33 when I apply. Which, from what I can tell, is pretty much ancient.

Let me know if you find anything out.

Originally Posted by PreDentDJ

Ditto.

I'll be 33 when I apply. Which, from what I can tell, is pretty much ancient.

Let me know if you find anything out.

Originally Posted by jaypea65

Since I am an older applicant, I would be interested to see if diversity applies to age as well.

Of course it does. It is no accident that practically every ds in the nation has enrollees that are over 30. The exception for the class entering 2008 was Boston whose oldest was 29. In this category, the leaders of the pack are Houston and SA with 11 each, UNLV, Louisville and Colorado with 9 each. There were 13 schools with students over 40. Last year the grand prize went to a 56 year old at NYU.

I happen to be mixed. And I will def be checking blk for my race on my applications to increase my chances of being accepted. Although it seems unfair that URMs are accepted to school with lower scores etc, someone with good stats who is not a minority will surely be accepted to one of the schools they applied to anyway...
If race wasn't such a big deal in the US then there would not even be a place to pick your race on the app. I was born in the UK and my birth certificate does not have a place for race.

We always hear colored folks moaning about the lack of colored doctors/dentist ect.

If colored people had high standardized test scores and higher grades and they were STILL low in numbers, then they may be onto something.

The numbers show that colored people are at the lower end of the spectrum with respect to their stats. No mystery here. They can have all the affirmative black action garbage they want, and maybe even add a few more colored universities, but the problem isn't going away until they can go toe to toe with whites and asians on paper.

Originally Posted by vendredi

We always hear colored folks moaning about the lack of colored doctors/dentist ect.

If colored people had high standardized test scores and higher grades and they were STILL low in numbers, then they may be onto something.

The numbers show that colored people are at the lower end of the spectrum with respect to their stats. No mystery here. They can have all the affirmative black action garbage they want, and maybe even add a few more colored universities, but the problem isn't going away until they can go toe to toe with whites and asians on paper.

Originally Posted by vendredi

We always hear colored folks moaning about the lack of colored doctors/dentist ect.

If colored people had high standardized test scores and higher grades and they were STILL low in numbers, then they may be onto something.

The numbers show that colored people are at the lower end of the spectrum with respect to their stats. No mystery here. They can have all the affirmative black action garbage they want, and maybe even add a few more colored universities, but the problem isn't going away until they can go toe to toe with whites and asians on paper.

Dude, did you seriously use the term "colored"?? Did you grow up in the early 20th or something?

In case you didn't get the memo, that's an offensive racial term.

Originally Posted by lemoncurry

Dude, did you seriously use the term "colored"?? Did you grow up in the early 20th or something?

In case you didn't get the memo, that's an offensive racial term.

It was meant to be inflammatory. Reads his prior posts, clearly a troll...

Is there any data on the effect of disabled status on admissions?

Asian...
% applied: 22.5
% enrolled: 20.4

You also have to factor in scores. I bet the avg asian applicant has better numbers than other applicants.. yet few % get in.. wtf.

In Canada, there is no affirmative action for blacks, but rather, for Aboriginals, and the statistical pattern is the same. Honestly, I can't see why anyone would complain. African Americans are the most likely people to serve in African American communities (same goes for Natives with their respective communities), which tend to be some of the most underserved areas.
It doesn't matter what's "fair" according to your whiny terms; it's logical to enable more dentists to practice in areas with fewer dentists present. Are you going to go into poor areas and set up a practice? No, you're not. Most of you love money and like being in nice, wealthy (read: white/asian) communities. Which is fine. But that means a lot of people don't have access to dental care because of the color of their skin, which has come to mandate their economic status. I'm white, and I've never had the advantage given to Aboriginals here, but I'd rather work harder to get in knowing that my country has a policy based on logic and what benefits the country as a whole, rather than what's "fair" in the most illogical sense of the term. Then again, we pay 40% taxes for a fairer and happier society, so maybe that's just us.

Originally Posted by toothhead

In Canada, there is no affirmative action for blacks, but rather, for Aboriginals, and the statistical pattern is the same. Honestly, I can't see why anyone would complain. African Americans are the most likely people to serve in African American communities (same goes for Natives with their respective communities), which tend to be some of the most underserved areas.
It doesn't matter what's "fair" according to your whiny terms; it's logical to enable more dentists to practice in areas with fewer dentists present. Are you going to go into poor areas and set up a practice? No, you're not. Most of you love money and like being in nice, wealthy (read: white/asian) communities. Which is fine. But that means a lot of people don't have access to dental care because of the color of their skin, which has come to mandate their economic status. I'm white, and I've never had the advantage given to Aboriginals here, but I'd rather work harder to get in knowing that my country has a policy based on logic and what benefits the country as a whole, rather than what's "fair" in the most illogical sense of the term. Then again, we pay 40% taxes for a fairer and happier society, so maybe that's just us.

.....beautiful.... if society would have been "fair" in the past, we wouldn't have the mess today.

I don't support affirmative action either..but thats not a strong argument against it. IMO affirmative action continues to divide us based on race. Instead of the most qualified, dedicated students gaining admittance into dental school, some spots are set aside for URM's. Why do seats need to be reserved for students with different color? We are almost making the assumption that these students couldn't gain acceptance on their own if they tried. Thats sadly untrue. As far as your reasoning, that could have easily been a white guy, a native american, asian, etc. It could have been an African American that graduated from a prestigious university with a 3.8. It's not reasonable to use instances like this and infer that affirmative action was the catalyst.

Originally Posted by SubugataiDDS

This is why I don't support affirmative action.

Just watch this video.

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

Another video of Dr Moody assaulting, without all the cuts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5teKQ...eature=related

You call that guy a dentist?


I hope he gets his license revoked for assaulting people.

Originally Posted by printer21

Asian...
% applied: 22.5
% enrolled: 20.4

You also have to factor in scores. I bet the avg asian applicant has better numbers than other applicants.. yet few % get in.. wtf.

uhh... pretty sure that means only 2.1% didn't get in

It is pretty clear that the entire AA question is devisive, but remains in play, both on a school and job level for a variety of good reasons which none of you have touched on.
1. Life as we know it is not fair. You are born into a set of circumstances you have no control over. The URM child growing up in an underserved environment does not have the same educational opportunities or the same education at all for that matter as someone who is growing up in a middle or upper middle class environment (let's not even talk about wealthy).
2. Let's not discount for one minute that racism and bigotry still exist, on a real level and these children are the victims of this from day one, and continue to work against it through their entire educational process.
3. There are many children who achieve even with these obstacles set in their path, and one must consider them to be even more extraordinary than a similar student who did not have to endure these hardships (anyone who thinks all things are equal can give up now, they just are not). A good example would be the President and First Lady. They must be pretty smart, perhaps smarter than their white/asian school contemporaries, because they made it through some top schools.

AA levels the palying field just a little. Not much. There are still too few URM docs in this country.
And just an aside, instead of whining about the very few URMs who get seats in DS, why not whine louder obout the legacies or those with connections who either weasel or buy their way into school (large alumni contributions go a long way). They often get undeserved seats.

Originally Posted by setdoc7

It is pretty clear that the entire AA question is devisive, but remains in play, both on a school and job level for a variety of good reasons which none of you have touched on.
1. Life as we know it is not fair. You are born into a set of circumstances you have no control over. The URM child growing up in an underserved environment does not have the same educational opportunities or the same education at all for that matter as someone who is growing up in a middle or upper middle class environment (let's not even talk about wealthy). This isn't only limited to URMs. There are many, many Caucasians born into the same underserved situation. Yet, we still continue to focus on the URMs since the Caucasian population is representated in academia at a higher percent?


2. Let's not discount for one minute that racism and bigotry still exist, on a real level and these children are the victims of this from day one, and continue to work against it through their entire educational process.
3. There are many children who achieve even with these obstacles set in their path, and one must consider them to be even more extraordinary than a similar student who did not have to endure these hardships (anyone who thinks all things are equal can give up now, they just are not). A good example would be the President and First Lady. They must be pretty smart, perhaps smarter than their white/asian school contemporaries, because they made it through some top schools.

AA levels the palying field just a little. Not much. There are still too few URM docs in this country. So, you just stated that URMs do not have the same educational opportunities... Now there are not enough URMs. Are you suggesting that the scholars who have higher academic marks should be discriminated against since they are not URMs and thus have their seat given to an URMs?
And just an aside, instead of whining about the very few URMs who get seats in DS, why not whine louder obout the legacies or those with connections who either weasel or buy their way into school (large alumni contributions go a long way). They often get undeserved seats.

Acceptance into any program should be based on personal merit, not race.

Originally Posted by setdoc7

why not whine louder obout the legacies or those with connections who either weasel or buy their way into school (large alumni contributions go a long way). They often get undeserved seats.

Money talks.

Originally Posted by setdoc7

It is pretty clear that the entire AA question is devisive, but remains in play, both on a school and job level for a variety of good reasons which none of you have touched on.
1. Life as we know it is not fair. You are born into a set of circumstances you have no control over. The URM child growing up in an underserved environment does not have the same educational opportunities or the same education at all for that matter as someone who is growing up in a middle or upper middle class environment

Yeah but there's also a good number of Caucasians that are born into these environments too. They don't have to deal with the racial issues, but they are still really disadvantaged. Race should not be a factor in admissions. Continuing to abide by affirmative action shows what little faith we have in all the progress that's been made.

Originally Posted by timwatley

Yeah but there's also a good number of Caucasians that are born into these environments too. They don't have to deal with the racial issues, but they are still really disadvantaged. Race should not be a factor in admissions. Continuing to abide by affirmative action shows what little faith we have in all the progress that's been made.

You said it yourself, they do not have to deal with racial issues. Unless you have dealt with these issues (not non issues or little issues, but big undebiable issues) you cannot even imagine them. I agree that there are poor white communities that are disadvantaged. When someone steps out of that community into college, they are not discernable by the color of their skin. And they do not have to deal with racism and bigotry. Progress? Not as much as you think.

Originally Posted by setdoc7

You said it yourself, they do not have to deal with racial issues. Unless you have dealt with these issues (not non issues or little issues, but big undebiable issues) you cannot even imagine them. I agree that there are poor white communities that are disadvantaged. When someone steps out of that community into college, they are not discernable by the color of their skin. And they do not have to deal with racism and bigotry. Progress? Not as much as you think.

Since URM have to deal will racism, the Caucasians should experience discrimination in the application process?

Is the application process based more on equality and politics than merit?

What do you mean the whites do not have to deal with the issues? I grew up in an area where I was one of the few of my race in a large area of "URMs." A majority of the URMs dislike whites in these poor comunities you are mentioning!!! (Not all, just like not all whites are racist.) So, I completely understand the racism, pity card you're trying to state. Racism exists. And the Caucasians are not the only ones demonstrating "racism".

i think URM's should have an advantage in admissions. i get what you're saying reo, and it would be fair to go staright off of scores if it were a fair world but it's not. since it has been a white-male dominated profession for as long as it's been a profession, i think it evens out all the legacy apps and any racist admissions staff out there (if there might be). actually that probly doesn't "even" it out but i figure it's a good faith effort anyways. we might not be racist but whites still benefit from a history of racism and sexism. since we do undoubtably benefit from previous racism, then we have an obligation to do something about it now.