The URM Advantage

[Narmerguy]

While I would predict that the genetic contribution is very limited, the topic hasn't been well-studied at all. This is partly for political reasons and partly because it's a difficult scientific question to tackle.

It actually has been well studied, particularly in Education, Psychology, and Sociology. Student performance in school is linked to a lot of things like what school you go to, SES, the classroom peer effects, parental involvement during formative years, parental education level, etc etc etc. The more we strip away the effects of these different variables, the more and more unified student performance becomes. There's no evidence that some groups are simply "inherently dumber" than others, or have inherently poorer work ethic.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[zwitterion34]

It actually has been well studied, particularly in Education, Psychology, and Sociology. Student performance in school is linked to a lot of things like what school you go to, SES, the classroom peer effects, parental involvement during formative years, parental education level, etc etc etc. The more we strip away the effects of these different variables, the more and more unified student performance becomes. There's no evidence that some groups are simply "inherently dumber" than others, or have inherently poorer work ethic.

There are numerous Asian students of the low SES that have succeeded.

 

[Chrome19]

There are numerous Asian students of the low SES that have succeeded.

There are numerous URMs of low SES that have also succeeded. What's your point?

 

[zwitterion34]

There are numerous URMs of low SES that have also succeeded. What's your point?

If there is a will to succeed, success will happen..

 

[Chrome19]

Also while we're at it, why do people assume all the races are equal in every aspect? This doesn't mean a race is better, but clearly most people not trying super hard to be politically correct are going to know blacks have a pretty natural advantage in some areas compared to Asians (such as basketball as they're taller etc). Why is it so hard to believe Asians have agenetic advantages in academics? That would also explain why Asians continue to do well academically as they've just got good genetics for it (obviously other factors also matter a ton, that's extremely obvious).

Very good read about data regarding race and intelligence that for some reason isn't politically correct to talk about.

http://www.iapsych.com/wj3ewok/LinkedDocuments/Murray2005.pdf

You cite height as if it's proof of innate genetic differences. While black men are taller on average in America, in Africa the situation is reversed on average. Clearly, extra-genetic influences are notable. In America, even Asians have been gaining grounds on height.

From an evolutionary standpoint, what leads you to conclude Asians have "good" genetics? Since your argument and that of others are based on outcomes, why didn't Asians create the industrial revolution? If Asians are smarter than whites, why didn't they pioneer flight and the other wonderful technologies of the 19th/20th century? The major technological advances of today are still coming from Western societies, yet tests indicate Asians have higher mean IQs than everybody. Clearly, just because minorities have lower mean IQ scores doesn't mean they are not capable and that under the right circumstances outcomes could be different. This again shows IQ isn't everything. The IQ of blacks today is equivalent to the IQs of whites in the 1950s when they were making radars, atomic bombs, etc.

Furthermore, studies show Asian men are the least desirable in the dating scene. You would think if Asians had "good" genes, they would be most capable of attracting mates and spreading their genetic material. Even Asian women would rather date Caucasians (ON AVERAGE). Obviously, something must be amiss with your terrible logic.

I've read Murray's pseudo-scientific views on this issue. Especially terrible is his argument concerning men and women at the high end of scientific achievement. I am not even going to waste my time critiquing it because it strongly undermines social pressures over centuries (and possibly millennia) that may influence this outcome.

I still can't believe people spout this sociobiological nonsense. Acceptance of this sociobiological rubbish leads to a deterministic acceptance of one's own "limitations".

 

[235788]

You cite height as if it's proof of innate genetic differences. While black men are taller on average in America, in Africa the situation is reversed on average. Clearly, extra-genetic influences are notable. In America, even Asians have been gaining grounds on height.

From an evolutionary standpoint, what leads you to conclude Asians have "good" genetics? Since your argument and that of others are based on outcomes, why didn't Asians create the industrial revolution? If Asians are smarter than whites, why didn't they pioneer flight and the other wonderful technologies of the 19th/20th century? The major technological advances of today are still coming from Western societies, yet tests indicate Asians have higher mean IQs than everybody. Clearly, just because minorities have lower mean IQ scores doesn't mean they are not capable and that under the right circumstances outcomes could be different. This again shows IQ isn't everything. The IQ of blacks today is equivalent to the IQs of whites in the 1950s when they were making radars, atomic bombs, etc.

Furthermore, studies show Asian men are the least desirable in the dating scene. You would think if Asians had "good" genes, they would be most capable of attracting mates and spreading their genetic material. Even Asian women would rather date Caucasians (ON AVERAGE). Obviously, something must be amiss with your terrible logic.

I've read Murray's pseudo-scientific views on this issue. Especially terrible is his argument concerning men and women at the high end of scientific achievement. I am not even going to waste my time critiquing it because it strongly undermines social pressures over centuries (and possibly millennia) that may influence this outcome.

I still can't believe people spout this sociobiological nonsense. Acceptance of this sociobiological rubbish leads to a deterministic acceptance of one's own "limitations".

true.

I feel like many of you don't know 3rd generation asians. Asians only really care about school if their parents are immigrants -- Many of the ones who have been here a while are just everyday americans and don't give two craps about being a doctor/PhD. But rather, like other american's, care more about dating girls and watching football.

Indians are the same way. The ones who immigrate here or are children of immigrants try a lot harder. Then care less as generations go by.

 

[zwitterion34]

You cite height as if it's proof of innate genetic differences. While black men are taller on average in America, in Africa the situation is reversed on average. Clearly, extra-genetic influences are notable. In America, even Asians have been gaining grounds on height.

From an evolutionary standpoint, what leads you to conclude Asians have "good" genetics? Since your argument and that of others are based on outcomes, why didn't Asians create the industrial revolution? If Asians are smarter than whites, why didn't they pioneer flight and the other wonderful technologies of the 19th/20th century? The major technological advances of today are still coming from Western societies, yet tests indicate Asians have higher mean IQs than everybody. Clearly, just because minorities have lower mean IQ scores doesn't mean they are not capable and that under the right circumstances outcomes could be different. This again shows IQ isn't everything. The IQ of blacks today is equivalent to the IQs of whites in the 1950s when they were making radars, atomic bombs, etc.

Furthermore, studies show Asian men are the least desirable in the dating scene. You would think if Asians had "good" genes, they would be most capable of attracting mates and spreading their genetic material. Even Asian women would rather date Caucasians (ON AVERAGE). Obviously, something must be amiss with your terrible logic.

I've read Murray's pseudo-scientific views on this issue. Especially terrible is his argument concerning men and women at the high end of scientific achievement. I am not even going to waste my time critiquing it because it strongly undermines social pressures over centuries (and possibly millennia) that may influence this outcome.

I still can't believe people spout this sociobiological nonsense. Acceptance of this sociobiological rubbish leads to a deterministic acceptance of one's own "limitations".

Thus, the URM advantage is not needed... This only serves to reinforce the deterministic acceptence of one's own limitations..

 

[StBernardsRule]

You cite height as if it's proof of innate genetic differences. While black men are taller on average in America, in Africa the situation is reversed on average. Clearly, extra-genetic influences are notable. In America, even Asians have been gaining grounds on height.

From an evolutionary standpoint, what leads you to conclude Asians have "good" genetics? Since your argument and that of others are based on outcomes, why didn't Asians create the industrial revolution? If Asians are smarter than whites, why didn't they pioneer flight and the other wonderful technologies of the 19th/20th century? The major technological advances of today are still coming from Western societies, yet tests indicate Asians have higher mean IQs than everybody. Clearly, just because minorities have lower mean IQ scores doesn't mean they are not capable and that under the right circumstances outcomes could be different. This again shows IQ isn't everything. The IQ of blacks today is equivalent to the IQs of whites in the 1950s when they were making radars, atomic bombs, etc.

Furthermore, studies show Asian men are the least desirable in the dating scene. You would think if Asians had "good" genes, they would be most capable of attracting mates and spreading their genetic material. Even Asian women would rather date Caucasians (ON AVERAGE). Obviously, something must be amiss with your terrible logic.

I've read Murray's pseudo-scientific views on this issue. Especially terrible is his argument concerning men and women at the high end of scientific achievement. I am not even going to waste my time critiquing it because it strongly undermines social pressures over centuries (and possibly millennia) that may influence this outcome.

I still can't believe people spout this sociobiological nonsense. Acceptance of this sociobiological rubbish leads to a deterministic acceptance of one's own "limitations".

You think my logic is terrible, I think your logic and reasoning is terrible, rather than go through it point by point I'll make a more general response and you can tell me where you disagree. We might not be on the same page right now.

I'm not saying one specific group is smarter than the another, more athletic, or more sexually attractive. I imagine different groups are more endowed with different traits, but I don't know which group is "best" with regards to any specific trait (since you brought it up I have no idea if whites or Asians are smarter for example and don't particularly care).

What I do think is it is ridiculous every teacher I've ever talked seems to follow the philosophy (or has at least been told by the system) that "all groups of students are equal in every way." Little boys keep scoring better than little girls at math? Something must be wrong, we need to boost those girls test scores. Asians keep scoring higher than other races? Something must be wrong, we need to boost those other test scores. You can't just start with the premise that all groups are equal in every way as that then leads to use wasting resources.

I've had this discussion with many people before, and for some reason Americans seem to think it's ok to say a group of people has a natural advantage in athletics but not intelligence. If you make the comment "I think Asians are naturally better than blacks at math" people will completely freak out. "No way bro, you just don't know much the black culture puts down education and how blacks are still oppressed in today's society!!!" If you ask the same people who freak out "Do you think blacks have a natural advantage in sports? Height is a pretty huge advantage and the average black male is much taller than the average Asian male in America (I don't care how the advantage got there, that's not the point)." The response is almost always "Yes, that makes sense since blacks are taller so their are more athletes since that's a pretty big advantage." I then say "Cool, so do you think blacks are just overall superior to Asians since they are more athletic and equal intellectually, or do you think Asians have an advantage somewhere else?" That almost never gets a response other than "I never thought about it like that before, I'll have to think about it." They are now stuck because they clearly believe that American blacks have a big advantage in sports and are forced to either give a genetic advantage to Asians somewhere to "balance it out," or they need to acknowledge they've basically just said they think blacks are superior since they have an advantage in one area but everything else is equal. This is a problem since people don't want to admit race/group/sex/etc might naturally be intellectually superior to another.

FWIW, I'm neither black or Asian. I'm white and don't think whites are getting screwed at all and I'm not bitter about it at all. My mind was just blown when I learned for the first time how big of a deal being the right minority is. I think Asians are the ones getting screwed hard, because you might have English as a second language and have to work your absolute ass off (as much if not more so than other minorities) and at the end of the day you're still the worst race you can possibly be when applying to medical school despite your hardships. It seems like Asians keep getting the short end of the stick for being some combination of very talented and/or hard working, and very few people speak up about it.

 

[sibitrum]

It actually has been well studied, particularly in Education, Psychology, and Sociology. Student performance in school is linked to a lot of things like what school you go to, SES, the classroom peer effects, parental involvement during formative years, parental education level, etc etc etc. The more we strip away the effects of these different variables, the more and more unified student performance becomes. There's no evidence that some groups are simply "inherently dumber" than others, or have inherently poorer work ethic.

Just because it's been demonstrated that environment is very important doesn't mean genetics aren't. Indeed, what has been shown is that among low SES people, environment crowds out most other causes. However, this does not enable you to make conclusions about genetics between groups, if they hypothetically all had a nurturing environment.

 

[redsquareblack]

I can't believe people are still citing Murray. That guy is a hack, and his research is as good an example of confirmation bias as you'll ever see.

 

[plumazul]

Thus, the URM advantage is not needed... This only serves to reinforce the deterministic acceptence of one's own limitations..

Well then, this is very fortunate, since there is NO URM advantage.

 

[zwitterion34]

Well then, this is very fortunate, since there is NO URM advantage.

You're welcome.

 

[Narmerguy]

Just because it's been demonstrated that environment is very important doesn't mean genetics aren't. Indeed, what has been shown is that among low SES people, environment crowds out most other causes. However, this does not enable you to make conclusions about genetics between groups, if they hypothetically all had a nurturing environment.

I'm sorry, what is your basis for a genetic basis for racial disparities? I speak as someone that has studied and researched this. I'm curious whether you have a basis for your stance or whether you are arguing with me for fun?

You clearly do not know what you are talking about. Racial disparities in academic performance are not relegated to low SES, the research on this already has been studied for those who grew up in a nurturing environment. Though when we control SES the gap severely decreases, whites out-perform blacks in every bracket, whether they're poor, middle-class, or affluent. The cause digs far deeper than SES. Many layers must be addressed to get at the root of the problem.

Many different factors are at play, some of which I have already mentioned. I can point to countless more like. However, the research almost unanimously agrees with a non-genetic explainer for academic disparities. For example, in studies examining academic performance of mixed children, one would expect, using your genetic argument, that all else being equal their performance would be between that of a black and that of a white. However, that is not the case in the data. Mixed children performance clumps separately depending on which race they primarily identify with. This has been studied in twins as well to produce the same results.

I'm sorry, but as someone that both does genetics research and also studies the effects of race on educational performance, I am quite confident in my understanding of the present literature. This is not to say that future studies might show otherwise. However, at present, no credible science has proven this. I'm happy to provide more information and sources by PM if you care to know them, but it would be inappropriate for me to continue this debate in this thread.

There are numerous Asian students of the low SES that have succeeded.

I am neither arguing for nor against an URM advantage. I think that we should acknowledge all students that succeed despite overcoming significant odds. However, I will also say, as I have already said, that there are burdens to being an URM that extend beyond SES. There are countless studies on this as well. That no one is well versed in these things is disappointing to me. The research on this is staggering and well established.

 

[zwitterion34]

I am neither arguing for nor against an URM advantage. I think that we should acknowledge all students that succeed despite overcoming significant odds. However, I will also say, as I have already said, that there are burdens to being an URM that extend beyond SES. There are countless studies on this as well. That no one is well versed in these things is disappointing to me. The research on this is staggering and well established.

There are burdens for being an applicant as an Asian-American as well. For instance, an affluent Hispanic of the high SES will trump a poor Asian of the lower SES. The Hispanics were not subjected to slavery like the AA so the cartoon below need not apply here...

 

[plumazul]

You're welcome.

Do you think this graph supports something you said?

Let me make this easy for you. In the case of Hispanics, according to US Census data, represents well over 16% of the American population

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html

However, Hispanics currently represent about 7% of the enrolled mainland students.

https://www.aamc.org/download/160146/data/table31-enrll-race-sch-2011.pdf

I will leave it as an exercise for you to calculate the Black disadvantage.

You're welcome

PS, I would be remiss if I didn't include the numbers on Asian Americans, ...
over 22% of those enrolled, but only 4.8% of the American Population, ... wow!!!

 

[sibitrum]

I'm sorry, what is your basis for a genetic basis for racial disparities? I speak as someone that has studied and researched this. I'm curious whether you have a basis for your stance or whether you are arguing with me for fun?

First off, I never claimed there was a definite genetic difference between groups. I merely said that the jury was still out, because of methodological and political challenges to successfully resolving the issue. If you want a good source that objectively backs my line of thinking, see Human Intelligence by Earl Hunt (chapter 11).

 

[StBernardsRule]

Many different factors are at play, some of which I have already mentioned. I can point to countless more like. However, the research almost unanimously agrees with a non-genetic explainer for academic disparities. For example, in studies examining academic performance of mixed children, one would expect, using your genetic argument, that all else being equal their performance would be between that of a black and that of a white. However, that is not the case in the data. Mixed children performance clumps separately depending on which race they primarily identify with. This has been studied in twins as well to produce the same results.

I would not assume someone of mixed race would perform in between. Also if you want to PM me the sources you're talking about I'd be glad to take a look.

 

[Chrome19]

I imagine different groups are more endowed with different traits, ...

What I do think is it is ridiculous every teacher I've ever talked seems to follow the philosophy (or has at least been told by the system) that "all groups of students are equal in every way."...

I've had this discussion with many people before, and for some reason Americans seem to think it's ok to say a group of people has a natural advantage in athletics but not intelligence. It seems like Asians keep getting the short end of the stick for being some combination of very talented and/or hard working, and very few people speak up about it.

I demolished the silly arguments you initially espoused with vapid and evolutionarily useless phrases such "good genetics","genetic advantages in academics", etc. Your entire argument now rests on the assumption that certain groups may have "better genes" for certain traits due to differing test scores/performances. I will address this further.

Except for clear cut demonstrations and inferences (such as sickle cell, Down's syndrome, etc), it's very difficult to conclude certain phenotypical outcomes/outputs are inextricably linked to differing genetics. Under this basis, one cannot claim that differences between math scores of men and women are due to a greater "genetic ability" in men. Many years ago, women were not considered genetically capable of performing science at a high level. However, we now know that isn't true as the phenotypic outcome clearly refutes that, that is if we were to follow this kind of "phenotypic-outcome logic" to the expected end. Work from Dr. Karel Svoboda and colleagues on experience-dependent synaptic plasticity and others on biological stochasticity provides strong evidence for the role of the environment in brain remodeling. As such, identical twins can have differing neural structures and phenotypic outcomes based on experience and randomness. It would be silly to now conclude identical twins don't share the same DNA.

Furthermore, we don't have any genes that are race-specific--at least that's what research has uncovered even after the success of the Human Genome Project. Any genes found in whites can be found in blacks, Asians, etc and in whatever combination of subject-test target of your choosing. This again suggests it's unlikely that the relatively low mean performance of blacks on standardized and IQ tests is a consequence of genetic 'defects'.

Shifting gears a little, if IQ tests truly reflected "genetic intelligence" and if phenotypic outcomes (as Dr. Murray and colleagues describe) were valid ways of putting a ruler to the brain, then Asian societies should be the most advanced. However that isn't true. What we find is rapid and voluminous immigration of Asians into Western societies and universities. What gives?

This same approach of forming conclusions based on phenotypic outcomes in gray areas makes people conclude blacks are better athletes. There was a time Jews were considered "genetically superior" boxers since they dominated the sport, however today that claim seems ridiculous. This same silly reasoning is being espoused to claim blacks have "better" athletic genes.

Are there individual differences in height? Indeed. Are particular individuals "smarter" than others? Sure, depending on how you define "smart". (For example, scientists still can't understand how some savants can be superior mental calculators yet be deficient in others aspects of intellectual and creative performance.) However to now conclude that there must be differences by virtue of sex and/or skin color now requires more data and evidence than what we currently have. The Irish used to be considered people with inferior genetic stock--I don't know how much truth there is in that.

 

[mipp0]

You cite height as if it's proof of innate genetic differences. While black men are taller on average in America, in Africa the situation is reversed on average. Clearly, extra-genetic influences are notable. In America, even Asians have been gaining grounds on height.

From an evolutionary standpoint, what leads you to conclude Asians have "good" genetics? Since your argument and that of others are based on outcomes, why didn't Asians create the industrial revolution? If Asians are smarter than whites, why didn't they pioneer flight and the other wonderful technologies of the 19th/20th century? The major technological advances of today are still coming from Western societies, yet tests indicate Asians have higher mean IQs than everybody. Clearly, just because minorities have lower mean IQ scores doesn't mean they are not capable and that under the right circumstances outcomes could be different. This again shows IQ isn't everything. The IQ of blacks today is equivalent to the IQs of whites in the 1950s when they were making radars, atomic bombs, etc.

Furthermore, studies show Asian men are the least desirable in the dating scene. You would think if Asians had "good" genes, they would be most capable of attracting mates and spreading their genetic material. Even Asian women would rather date Caucasians (ON AVERAGE). Obviously, something must be amiss with your terrible logic.

I've read Murray's pseudo-scientific views on this issue. Especially terrible is his argument concerning men and women at the high end of scientific achievement. I am not even going to waste my time critiquing it because it strongly undermines social pressures over centuries (and possibly millennia) that may influence this outcome.

I still can't believe people spout this sociobiological nonsense. Acceptance of this sociobiological rubbish leads to a deterministic acceptance of one's own "limitations".

Your own logic is terrible, because you don't consider lurking variables, which I find hilarious. What is the normative standards of beauty in this country? How many minority main characters do you see in movies, shows, or even comic books? All these factors would influence a person's perception of beauty in this country. Why do you think there is a billion dollar industry for straight black hair for black women? Even Asian women would rather date Caucasian men in general? I would disagree. There are many ethnic groups within the Asian population, and nearly half are born in America, with the other half born abroad. Which group are you referring to? For what year? If this was the case in past years, why? How would you interpret the data? What is influencing the trend?

Example: I could see this trend for Filipino women. Why? Quite simple, sociocultural factors tied to imperialism and nearly a century of American political/corporate maneuverings in their country. Light, white skin is a symbol of beauty, and anything American is lionized.


USING IQ AS A STANDARD OF INTELLIGENCE IS PROBLEMATIC, and there are so many papers on this...

You are oblivious to these sociocultural factors, yet you go off championing the end of sociobiological "rubbish"? Irony.

EDIT: Your analysis on Western technologies is also problematic, including scale, type of industry, contribution by "American" engineers (believe it or not, Asians are American too, and there are many Asian engineers and scientists contributing to this innovation), etc.

 

[mipp0]

Do you think this graph supports something you said?

Let me make this easy for you. In the case of Hispanics, according to US Census data, represents well over 16% of the American population

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html

However, Hispanics currently represent about 7% of the enrolled mainland students.

https://www.aamc.org/download/160146/data/table31-enrll-race-sch-2011.pdf

I will leave it as an exercise for you to calculate the Black disadvantage.

You're welcome

PS, I would be remiss if I didn't include the numbers on Asian Americans, ...
over 22% of those enrolled, but only 4.8% of the American Population, ... wow!!!

It's convenient, isn't it? Manipulating the data to fit your argument? If we go by sheer numbers of matriculants without considering individual GPA/MCAT, of course it looks like there is no URM advantage...

 

[Chrome19]

Mipp:

I was taking our friend's argument to reductio ad absurdum, hence I cited my example of general trends in dating preferences in Northern America.

Secondly, keeping with the spirit of the discussion I implicitly granted IQ may be a standard for intelligence. Of course I am aware of the problems with using IQ tests as a proxy for intelligence.

Finally, in using the example of the technological advancement of Western societies, the aim was to show that IQ as a prognosticator for intelligence and life outcomes is flawed.

Obviously, if I were to keep to our friend's logic, we arrive at funny conclusions. You seem to agree as much. I don't know what you are getting at. Perhaps you are misunderstanding me. .

 

[mipp0]

Chrome:

Just wanted to shed some light on areas that could easily be and are often misinterpreted and in need of critical insight in a sociocultural and historical context. Many of your counter arguments, for example, suggest some dangerous things, even if you are trying to reduce his argument to nothingness...

My point is, by trying to disprove his argument, you bring up issues that are marred by their own set of lurking variables and in need of thorough dissection. Your comment on Western innovation is especially problematic, because you are associating Western with "non-Asianness" (I would go so far as to say white), even though Asian Americans (Western) are contributing to this innovation (brain drain). Also, in certain industries, East Asian countries (multi-national and multi-ethnic cooperation in this case too, right?) are leading innovation. This is important, because historically, Western stereotypes depict Asians as not creative, etc. etc. you know the drill...

I understand what you are trying to do, and that's why I didn't bold your entire argument. I didn't have my morning coffee and acted like a douch* in response to your comment, so for that, I do sincerely apologize...learning...to..b.ee..nicer....need..cofffee..I have no excuses for my un-gentlemanly behavior besides immaturity and withdrawal...

Mipp:

I was taking our friend's argument to reductio ad absurdum, hence I cited my example of general trends in dating preferences in Northern America.

Secondly, keeping with the spirit of the discussion I implicitly granted IQ may be a standard for intelligence. Of course I am aware of the problems with using IQ tests as a proxy for intelligence.

Finally, in using the example of the technological advancement of Western societies, the aim was to show that IQ as a prognosticator for intelligence and life outcomes is flawed.

Obviously, if I were to keep to our friend's logic, we arrive at funny conclusions. You seem to agree as much. I don't know what you are getting at. Perhaps you are misunderstanding me. .

 

[ranson]

White/Asian having a cushier life in general in middle to upper class neighborhoods with good schools, tutors, attending better universities, affording MCAT prep courses, and not dealing with racial animosity = advantage ++ (and yes, I expect the reply of how not all white/asian kids are that way. You don't say? It's called exceptions and having the disadvantaged box for them)

I seriously can't believe all this complaining over a few black kids in a few medical schools. The bulk of black kids go to Howard, Morehouse, and Meharry (all historically black universities), so stop complaining. What do you want? Take their colleges?

What about URMs who are in the middle to upper class who get the best of both worlds? Where's the box for "advantaged"?

 

[zwitterion34]

White/Asian having a cushier life in general in middle to upper class neighborhoods with good schools, tutors, attending better universities, affording MCAT prep courses, and not dealing with racial animosity = advantage ++ (and yes, I expect the reply of how not all white/asian kids are that way. You don't say? It's called exceptions and having the disadvantaged box for them)

I seriously can't believe all this complaining over a few black kids in a few medical schools. The bulk of black kids go to Howard, Morehouse, and Meharry (all historically black universities), so stop complaining. What do you want? Take their colleges?

The disadvantaged box doesn't work...
A rich, affluent Hispanic or AA applicant will TRUMP a disadvantaged, destitute Asian applicant.

 

[kpcrew]

Let's just say that Charles Murray is not considered a legitimate scientist in the world of Social Science. The work he does is not "good" science. If you want to understand why Asians do better than Blacks in school, there are many layers of answers to that question. Much of it has to do with poverty, though not all. Race is a complicated creature, but almost everyone that studies this agrees that we've seen no evidence for a "genetic" academic/intellectual advantage for any one group.

i was wondering about your thoughts on the pisa test:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/07/education/07education.html?pagewanted=all
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2010/12/07/education/07education_graph.html?ref=education

 

[makauzi]

My $0.02 cents
Think about it this way, Med Schools are just supplying a demand. The market (America) is demanding doctors, not just any doctors though, this market is saturated with White and Asian doctors and has very few N. American, Black, Hispanic and Female doctors. Now within this market, you have individuals, usually a minority I presume, who prefer a certain kind of physician i.e. some blacks (as I have heard and not seen) prefer black doctors and some Hispanics prefer Hispanic doctors (haven't seen this either, just read about it in articles). So as a Med school/admissions board, your duty is to provide the market with the kind of physicians they are asking for. As the really cool graphs previously have shown, a greater proportion of African Americans come from households with much lower median income as compared to Whites and Asians, and as most of use already know or are arguing for, academic performance does correlate to some extent with median income (a person a household with 25,000 median income has a lower probability of taking MCAT prep course for example to bump up his/her MCAT score). So again, as a Med school, would you just want to put everyone of the same level when picking students i.e. ignoring race and only factoring MCAT, GPA and socioeconomic environment, or would you throw race into that mix of factors to consider when picking students, knowing very well that the market these physicians end up in does consider race?
NB: This is just my two cents, I have no data to support anything said.

 

[StBernardsRule]

I demolished the silly arguments you initially espoused with vapid and evolutionarily useless phrases such "good genetics","genetic advantages in academics", etc.

No you haven't, you're using really bad logic as some other posters have already pointed out. I'll respond to them now.

Except for clear cut demonstrations and inferences (such as sickle cell, Down's syndrome, etc), it's very difficult to conclude certain phenotypical outcomes/outputs are inextricably linked to differing genetics. Under this basis, one cannot claim that differences between math scores of men and women are due to a greater "genetic ability" in men.

That's fine. You also can't prove they're equal, so starting with the assumption that they are is pretty ridiculous.

Many years ago, women were not considered genetically capable of performing science at a high level. However, we now know that isn't true as the phenotypic outcome clearly refutes that, that is if we were to follow this kind of "phenotypic-outcome logic" to the expected end. Work from Dr. Karel Svoboda and colleagues on experience-dependent synaptic plasticity and others on biological stochasticity provides strong evidence for the role of the environment in brain remodeling. As such, identical twins can have differing neural structures and phenotypic outcomes based on experience and randomness. It would be silly to now conclude identical twins don't share the same DNA.

No one ever said ones environment isn't a huge factor in how intelligent/hard working/etc one turns out. It clearly is and seems so incredibly obvious that I don't even know why you'd point this out. It isn't a surprise this occurs on the neurological level, I'd be shocked if it didn't.

FWIW, I agree environment is the biggest factor in what a healthy individual accomplishes and I don't think it's close.

Furthermore, we don't have any genes that are race-specific--at least that's what research has uncovered even after the success of the Human Genome Project. Any genes found in whites can be found in blacks, Asians, etc and in whatever combination of subject-test target of your choosing. This again suggests it's unlikely that the relatively low mean performance of blacks on standardized and IQ tests is a consequence of genetic 'defects'.

No it doesn't. Even if there are no race specific genes, the frequency at which the genes are distributed between the races is going to be what is important. That's the main question we care about. Pointing out every race can have a certain type of gene does nothing to prove different groups of people are equally endowed with a certain trait or ability.

Shifting gears a little, if IQ tests truly reflected "genetic intelligence" and if phenotypic outcomes (as Dr. Murray and colleagues describe) were valid ways of putting a ruler to the brain, then Asian societies should be the most advanced.

This is horribly bad logic. There are many important variables which determine how advanced a society becomes (access to natural resources, surrounding nations and wars, physical abilities in addition to intellectual abilities, random variance, etc). It is pretty much impossible to offend me, but calling my arguments "silly" and then using one as bad as this comes pretty close.

However that isn't true. What we find is rapid and voluminous immigration of Asians into Western societies and universities. What gives?

See above.

This same approach of forming conclusions based on phenotypic outcomes in gray areas makes people conclude blacks are better athletes. There was a time Jews were considered "genetically superior" boxers since they dominated the sport, however today that claim seems ridiculous. This same silly reasoning is being espoused to claim blacks have "better" athletic genes.

Would you agree that if one race had the genes which resulted in the average member being taller they would have a natural advantage in playing basketball, baseball, football, and pretty much any sport? If you don't follow sports you may be surprised how big of an advantage is in sports where you might think it doesn't matter much (such as pitching in baseball). If you answer this I'd like as direct of an answer as possible, preferably either just yes or no.

To make it clear, no one is assuming Koreans are naturally better at Starcraft 2 because they dominate the game. Clearly that can be a cultural thing. But the fact height is such a huge advantage in so many sports make it a LOT harder to ignore that the races which seem to be over represented in athletics also tend to have the tallest members. And once you start acknowledging one group might have a natural advantage in a sport, why are we assuming everyone is equal in math even if there isn't a specific gene or trait we can directly link to mathematical ability? Is it that far fetched that the race which tends to crush skulls in math class might just have a genetic advantage in math the same way the race which crushes skulls on the basketball court might have a natural advantage in basketball?

Are there individual differences in height? Indeed. Are particular individuals "smarter" than others? Sure, depending on how you define "smart". (For example, scientists still can't understand how some savants can be superior mental calculators yet be deficient in others aspects of intellectual and creative performance.) However to now conclude that there must be differences by virtue of sex and/or skin color now requires more data and evidence than what we currently have. The Irish used to be considered people with inferior genetic stock--I don't know how much truth there is in that.

There's no real point in this paragraph. It just says really obvious stuff.

 

[StBernardsRule]

My $0.02 cents
Think about it this way, Med Schools are just supplying a demand. The market (America) is demanding doctors, not just any doctors though, this market is saturated with White and Asian doctors and has very few N. American, Black, Hispanic and Female doctors. Now within this market, you have individuals, usually a minority I presume, who prefer a certain kind of physician i.e. some blacks (as I have heard and not seen) prefer black doctors and some Hispanics prefer Hispanic doctors (haven't seen this either, just read about it in articles). So as a Med school/admissions board, your duty is to provide the market with the kind of physicians they are asking for..

If a study found that white people preferred to hire white lawyers while blacks would hire lawyers who were black or white, would you be OK with a law school giving a huge advantage to white applicants? Please answer clearly with yes or no then explain why, don't try to just deflect the question or give another example.

I would bet a very lot of money if a study found people want to hire white lawyers or white doctors because that's what they see on TV then most blacks and Hispanics would NOT be OK with these schools giving an advantage to whites. I'd pretty much bet my entire net worth on that.

 

[makauzi]

If a study found that white people preferred to hire white lawyers while blacks would hire lawyers who were black or white, would you be OK with a law school giving a huge advantage to white applicants? Please answer clearly with yes or no then explain why, don't try to just deflect the question or give another example.

I would bet a very lot of money if a study found people want to hire white lawyers or white doctors because that's what they see on TV then most blacks and Hispanics would NOT be OK with these schools giving an advantage to whites. I'd pretty much bet my entire net worth on that.

If the market does not have enough white lawyers to cater for this sort of situation, then yes. But if the market already has enough lawyers to cater for the white people who prefer white lawyers, then no. But again, if you reverse the situation the way you have, also reverse socioeconomic and population ratio of blacks and white i.e. in your case, Blacks are more than whites and Blacks come from households with a higher income that whites.

 

[Lexdiamondz]

true.

I feel like many of you don't know 3rd generation asians. Asians only really care about school if their parents are immigrants -- Many of the ones who have been here a while are just everyday americans and don't give two craps about being a doctor/PhD. But rather, like other american's, care more about dating girls and watching football.

Indians are the same way. The ones who immigrate here or are children of immigrants try a lot harder. Then care less as generations go by.

most of us dont know 3rd generation asians because by the 2nd generation they've already all married whites lol

 

[Chrome19]

That's fine. You also can't prove they're equal, so starting with the assumption that they are is pretty ridiculous.

So it's moot. There's nothing in biological science that leads me to accept there's a "genetic intellectual" difference between men and women. So my assumption isn't ridiculous. If you have the biological data, show it to us.

No it doesn't. Even if there are no race specific genes, the frequency at which the genes are distributed between the races is going to be what is important. That's the main question we care about. Pointing out every race can have a certain type of gene does nothing to prove different groups of people are equally endowed with a certain trait or ability.

Again, show us the evidence.

This is horribly bad logic. There are many important variables which determine how advanced a society becomes (access to natural resources, surrounding nations and wars, physical abilities in addition to intellectual abilities, random variance, etc). It is pretty much impossible to offend me, but calling my arguments "silly" and then using one as bad as this comes pretty close.

Apparently you don't read white nationalist arguments. They predicate the progress in the Western world on superior Caucasian intelligence. When you ask them about "Asians and IQ", they claim Asians are robotic learners and not creative. It's nice to see you don't fall into that silly camp.

Would you agree that if one race had the genes which resulted in the average member being taller they would have a natural advantage in playing basketball, baseball, football, and pretty much any sport? If you don't follow sports you may be surprised how big of an advantage is in sports where you might think it doesn't matter much (such as pitching in baseball). If you answer this I'd like as direct of an answer as possible, preferably either just yes or no.

Jews, though representing a small portion of the population, dominated boxing. The assumption was that Jewish dominance must be genetic. That idea seems incorrect today.

And the answer to your question could be a "yes" or a "no", pending critical environmental factors. There is evidence that the heights of Asians are increasing, especially in the West. I don't think genes can account for this increase.

 

[StBernardsRule]

Again, show us the evidence.

You show me evidence that proves all races are the same? My original post was we shouldn't assume all races are endowed will all the same natural talents and we shouldn't have policies which assumes if a race is underrepresented or over represented it means something is wrong. In other words, Asians should not be punished for kicking ass in academics.

Clearly blacks were discriminated against in the past and black medical schools developed because of that. It seems reasonable given our history that those schools should be allowed to select for black students since their original goal was to train black doctors. For other public schools they should simply pick the best possible candidate and not care about ones skin color.

Apparently you don't read white nationalist arguments. They predicate the progress in the Western world on superior Caucasian intelligence. When you ask them about "Asians and IQ", they claim Asians are robotic learners and not creative. It's nice to see you don't fall into that silly camp.

Obviously I don't. I'm white and it would not surprise me in the slightest if Asians are on average a bit more intelligent than whites and whites are bit more athletic or something. I don't have a horse in this race. I just want consistent and fair policies and right now it seems like Asians are getting screwed hard. I know many Asians who have English as their second language and have busted their ass to get where they are but still are an ORM on applications. Asians who have English as their second language and did not grow up in a rich privileged environment have every right to be pissed they're being discriminated against.

Jews, though representing a small portion of the population, dominated boxing. The assumption was that Jewish dominance must be genetic. That idea seems incorrect today.

I agree with this, which is why I mentioned the fact that Koreans dominate competitive gaming and that doesn't really do anything to suggest they have a genetic advantage in games.

If you could prove most Koreans who haven't played video games have a faster reaction time than whites who haven't played video games, however, then I would guess they likely have a genetic advantage. Does it prove it? No. Does it tell us exactly where their "reaction time gene" is? No. But I'm not going to just assume all the races are equal in every way because it sounds politically correct and I like the idea of it. I'm also going to think it's ridiculous if I hear complaints like "we need more white people in competitive gaming" since it's possible white people just aren't talented in that area.

And the answer to your question could be a "yes" or a "no", pending critical environmental factors. There is evidence that the heights of Asians are increasing, especially in the West. I don't think genes can account for this increase.

I'm aware of this, and if Asian Americans in time become the same height as Black Americans (something I highly doubt, but who knows) then I'll start thinking their may be less genetic differences in the races than I think now.

 

[StBernardsRule]

But again, if you reverse the situation the way you have, also reverse socioeconomic and population ratio of blacks and white i.e. in your case, Blacks are more than whites and Blacks come from households with a higher income that whites.

You can't pretend massively favoring URM and discriminating against Asians is a supply and demand thing then when presented with a scenario where blacks would be discriminated against based on your supply and demand argument say "no wait it is socioeconomic stuff too."

Your argument right now doesn't make much sense. Should it be a socioeconomic thing and you get a boost if you overcome a lot of difficulties? Then sure, I agree, but now you need to give that big boost to underprivileged whites and especially Asians (who likely had to overcome language difficulties) as well and not give a boost to a privileged black guy. Racial slurs get used on Asians as well.

If it is a supply and demand thing and not a socioeconomic thing then it does make sense to massively discriminate against Asians. There are too many of them and some people prefer black or Hispanic doctors. But if you think that's alright, then you also need to be OK if a school says to a black student "Sorry, we're not going to let you play on the basketball team since we already have a bunch of black guys. Our school is mostly Asian so we want some Asian guys to root for, so you don't make the team since you're the wrong skin color. Sorry, we just have a lot of good black athletes already." You think this is OK? I would bet my left nut people would FREAK OUT if a school discriminated against a black athlete for an Asian athlete despite the fact that many Asian students would love an Asian guy on the team.

 

[sibitrum]

I've said any many times before, but URM is also about race. Just because you're upper class black doesn't mean you're less likely to be called a racial slur by a racist person or make you somehow less black for purposes of being from the black community.

People get discriminated against and called names for many reasons, for being fat, ugly, gay, nerdy, etc. This doesn't mean they need a leg up in admissions. In modern society, SES is much more important for educational attainment than any of the above variables, including racial discrimination. Being an upper class black gives a lot more advantages than a lower class white, despite getting your feelings hurt occasionally.

 

[mipp0]

So it's moot. There's nothing in biological science that leads me to accept there's a "genetic intellectual" difference between men and women. So my assumption isn't ridiculous. If you have the biological data, show it to us.



Again, show us the evidence.



Apparently you don't read white nationalist arguments. They predicate the progress in the Western world on superior Caucasian intelligence. When you ask them about "Asians and IQ", they claim Asians are robotic learners and not creative. It's nice to see you don't fall into that silly camp.



Jews, though representing a small portion of the population, dominated boxing. The assumption was that Jewish dominance must be genetic. That idea seems incorrect today.

And the answer to your question could be a "yes" or a "no", pending critical environmental factors. There is evidence that the heights of Asians are increasing, especially in the West. I don't think genes can account for this increase.

Very nice argument +1

I'm impressed with your knowledge of US History. Jewish Americans dominated basketball as well (perhaps you mentioned this, there's a lot of text). This is the tragedy of our country: nobody looks to the past to interpret the present

Strong work.

 

[mipp0]

People get discriminated against and called names for many reasons, for being fat, ugly, gay, nerdy, etc. This doesn't mean they need a leg up in admissions. In modern society, SES is much more important for educational attainment than any of the above variables, including racial discrimination. Being an upper class black gives a lot more advantages than a lower class white, despite getting your feelings hurt occasionally.

Agreed. Have many South Asian friends? The number of terrorist references is just plain sad. These types of comments are usually followed by physical violence or threats of it. Most bullied ethnic group as well.

 

[plumazul]

It's convenient, isn't it? Manipulating the data to fit your argument? If we go by sheer numbers of matriculants without considering individual GPA/MCAT, of course it looks like there is no URM advantage...

Exactly. When you remove the tainted metrics, and just look at the pure, unadulterated numbers, the truth is revealed. This truth, that URM's (by definition) actually face a HUGE disadvantage in becoming medical doctors, can not be ignored or explained away. It is what it is.

 

[mipp0]

Exactly. When you remove the tainted metrics, and just look at the pure, unadulterated numbers, the truth is revealed. This truth, that URM's (by definition) actually face a HUGE disadvantage in becoming medical doctors, can not be ignored or explained away. It is what it is.

I would argue socioeconomically disadvantaged applicants face the greatest hurdle to becoming physicians. I'm not disagreeing race and class don't intersect, nor am I neglecting American history. But it's ludicrous to deny URM advantage when applying to medical school. The numbers, when "you remove the tainted metrics" as you say, speak for themselves.

 

[Joe the Plumber]

I think we all know what the answer is: 26^7 = 8.0 x 10^9.

 

[StBernardsRule]

Exactly. When you remove the tainted metrics, and just look at the pure, unadulterated numbers, the truth is revealed. This truth, that URM's (by definition) actually face a HUGE disadvantage in becoming medical doctors, can not be ignored or explained away. It is what it is.

I didn't know that if a group is underrepresented it means they must have faced a huge disadvantage by definition.

What huge obstacles do you think face Asian Americans for becoming athletes? What huge obstacles do you think men face when becoming hair stylist?

 

[TriagePreMed]

Except we know for a fact that urm do face great socioeconomic disadvantages.

Sent from my SCH-R910 using Tapatalk

 

[OATAcer]

Which races are URM?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

 

[mipp0]

Except we know for a fact that urm do face great socioeconomic disadvantages.

Sent from my SCH-R910 using Tapatalk

Not all URM face great socioeconomic disadvantages. ORM and white applicants have had to endure great socioeconomic disadvantages as well. ORM/white and dirt poor are not mutually exclusive.

You brush too broadly, friend.

Read what I wrote carefully. There's no need to start posting charts...

 

[DocJaz]

I think his point is that the average black applicant is not equal to the average white applicant, because of income and background differences. Thus it would be hard to compare a 24yr old white applicant from Duke, for example to a 24yr black applicant from Duke as well...because though they might have went to the same school, the black applicant is more likely to have come from a poor, or rather poorer background then that of the white applicant...

 

[mipp0]

I think his point is that the average black applicant is not equal to the average white applicant, because of income and background differences. Thus it would be hard to compare a 24yr old white applicant from Duke, for example to a 24yr black applicant from Duke as well...because though they might have went to the same school, the black applicant is more likely to have come from a poor, or rather poorer background then that of the white applicant...

Yes, I got that. But if the opposite is true, shouldn't socioeconomic factors be weighed much more heavily? How much weight is given to race and to socioeconomic considerations? There is a lack of transparency and accountability in this process. Also, be careful how you frame/word your hypothetical situation. His point, I assume, is that white applicants are more likely to come from higher income/advantaged families at Duke, on average, but there will be white/ORM from backgrounds more disadvantaged than their URM peers. I know we're saying the same thing, but "average black applicant" or "average white applicant" might be confusing/misinterpreted.

 

[TriagePreMed]

Not all URM face great socioeconomic disadvantages. ORM and white applicants have had to endure great socioeconomic disadvantages as well. ORM/white and dirt poor are not mutually exclusive.

You brush too broadly, friend.

Read what I wrote carefully. There's no need to start posting charts...

I brush broadly because the idea is based on broad terms. In general, URM face greater socioeconomic disadvantages in comparison to ORM/Caucasians. You're trying to use exceptions as a way of invalidating the larger, greater, trend, which is disingenuous. Either way, the disadvantaged box exists for a reason.

 

[Aeterni]

Basing AA or other Similar initiatives on race as opposed to socioeconomic status is due to the history of systemic, legalized racism in the US. Nobody is denying that those of a low socioeconomic status are also at a disadvantage. However, that is not the purpose of AA. If you don't agree that the effects of aforementioned history of systemic, legalized racism are still felt today, and thus a race-based consideration is inappropriate, fine. But own up to that view and stop changing the argument by insisting that basing an affirmative action-like initiative on socioeconomic status, as opposed to race, would do what race-based AA is trying to do, but would do it better.

Essentially - stop strawmanning. AA was never meant to aid a socioeconomic class but entire groups of people that were systematically discriminated against DUE TO their race.

 

[mipp0]

I brush broadly because the idea is based on broad terms. In general, URM face greater socioeconomic disadvantages in comparison to ORM/Caucasians. You're trying to use exceptions as a way of invalidating the larger, greater, trend, which is disingenuous. Either way, the disadvantaged box exists for a reason.

I can't help but chuckle a little.

First off, "greater" is relative. How much greater?

Poor ORM/white applicants are exceptions? I'm sorry to say, they do exist, and quite a lot actually. They are hardly exceptions. I think you are doing a great job assuming the point I'm trying to make, and assuming incorrectly.

I said you brush too broadly. Vietnamese, Hmong, Laotians, and many other SE Asians are far underrepresented in medicine. Same goes for Bangladeshi, etc. other ethnic groups in South Asia. In general, these groups are oft overlooked and have a far lower average income than their Chinese and Indian peers, comparable, on average, to black and Hispanic families. They are conveniently put into the "Asian" category and overlooked. Most Asian matriculants to medical school are South/East Asian, and even within that category, South Asians are far over-represented. There is a vast income range within these East Asian ethnic groups as well. Even the average income per "race" graph has many lurking variables, because the data doesn't factor in size of family, cost of living, etc. In general, Asian families per household tend to be larger, so of course the average income would be inflated, and Asian families are often located in regions with some of the highest cost of living (California, Hawaii, New York, for example).

Among Caucasians, I'm sure Jewish matriculants are over-represented (there are articles about Jewish over-representation) in medical school, and other ethnic groups are underrepresented. Again, ethnic groups within the "white" category are conveniently lumped together.

How much does the disadvantaged box help? My point was that there is a lack of transparency and accountability in the process. Also, how many disadvantaged applicants will actually check the box? Medicine breeds a "suck it up" mentality, and "disadvantaged" has a large subjective element. My other point was that there is a danger to over-generalizing people's experiences. I don't believe I was picking or choosing exceptions...

Life is never black and white (no pun intended). Unfortunately, there are many shades of grey.

 

[mipp0]

Basing AA or other Similar initiatives on race as opposed to socioeconomic status is due to the history of systemic, legalized racism in the US. Nobody is denying that those of a low socioeconomic status are also at a disadvantage. However, that is not the purpose of AA. If you don't agree that the effects of aforementioned history of systemic, legalized racism are still felt today, and thus a race-based consideration is inappropriate, fine. But own up to that view and stop changing the argument by insisting that basing an affirmative action-like initiative on socioeconomic status, as opposed to race, would do what race-based AA is trying to do, but would do it better.

Essentially - stop strawmanning. AA was never meant to aid a socioeconomic class but entire groups of people that were systematically discriminated against DUE TO their race.

Strawman fallacy? I don't think the strawman fallacy works in this case...I don't think we are misrepresenting the purpose of AA, or the reason it exists. At least, that wasn't my intention...we already know AA was never meant to aid a socioeconomic class (LizzyM made this clear on multiple threads)...we are critiquing its current form and offering ways to improve it? Also, weren't Asian Americans systematically discriminated as well? Last I checked, the only racial group to be banned from America was "Asian", and only until 1965 were large numbers even allowed to enter the country, and against the true purpose of the immigration law (technicality)...

 

[Stumpyman]

Dude, are you seriously trying to argue that black and Latino Americans have, on average, as many socioeconomic problems as Asians and Caucasians in the United States? Right now I'm not sure if you're genuinely naive or doing a good great job at trolling me.

Not in an overall general sense (yes, we all can stereotype that asians and caucasians make a good deal amount of money, live in nice neighborhoods, etc.).

But mipps talking about the smaller asian ethnic groups, and believe me, there are a lot of them that have serious socioeconomic problems (a lot on the same level as Black and Hispanic Americans). The worst part is, these smaller groups are so overlooked, they are stereotyped as all other asians are (smart, make decent money, etc), they don't get any preferential treatment, and they are definitely under-represented in medicine.