MCAT Scores vs. Socioeconomic Status (SES)

[RecycleRinsed]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Recently ran across a PowerPoint from Texas. Lots of great data about socioeconomic status and medical school admissions at Texas medical schools.

Pretty sobering how skewed the profession is to the upper range of parental income, education, etc. Equally sobering that having highly educated parents that make a lot of money gets you, on average, 5 points on the MCAT over those in the lowest SES bracket.

I'm very curious if other medical schools use a similarly explicit method of comparing applicants from similar SES backgrounds, or if it's kind of loosely rolled into "holistic review." Any adcoms able to comment on this?

Presentation is attached. Seems to be a few years old. If anyone else has similar/updated resources please tip me off.

nSome of the conclusions:



-Less than 10% of applicants are from the lowest SES level (A) compared to 75% from the top two levels (C, D)

-Applicants who are most socioeconomically disadvantaged (SES A) have a significantly lower average MCAT score (23.4) than those with the least disadvantage (SES D, 28.3)


-As defined by the SES, over 75 % of enrolled applicants come from the two highest socioeconomic groups, and approximately 10% from the two lowest


-There is a greater representation of Hispanic and African-American applicants in the lowest SES group (A)

 

[Hanguk]

Oh capitalism.....


Though seriously I believe this. Students who are socioeconomically disadvantaged generally have a lot more to worry about and give their attention to than those who don't. Not only so, but they can't always have access to all the resources other students with more money can buy and use.

 

[Raisins4Sunday]

Oh capitalism.....

Right on. Let's just allow some government committee to pick and choose who gets to go to medical school. 😛

 

[Hanguk]

Right on. Let's just allow some government committee to pick and choose who gets to go to medical school. 😛

Only then we'd have the best docs chosen to serve the people 😀

 

[Temperature101]

Recently ran across a PowerPoint from Texas. Lots of great data about socioeconomic status and medical school admissions at Texas medical schools.

Pretty sobering how skewed the profession is to the upper range of parental income, education, etc. Equally sobering that having highly educated parents that make a lot of money gets you, on average, 5 points on the MCAT over those in the lowest SES bracket.

I'm very curious if other medical schools use a similarly explicit method of comparing applicants from similar SES backgrounds, or if it's kind of loosely rolled into "holistic review." Any adcoms able to comment on this?

Presentation is attached. Seems to be a few years old. If anyone else has similar/updated resources please tip me off.

nSome of the conclusions:



-Less than 10% of applicants are from the lowest SES level (A) compared to 75% from the top two levels (C, D)

-Applicants who are most socioeconomically disadvantaged (SES A) have a significantly lower average MCAT score (23.4) than those with the least disadvantage (SES D, 28.3)


-As defined by the SES, over 75 % of enrolled applicants come from the two highest socioeconomic groups, and approximately 10% from the two lowest


-There is a greater representation of Hispanic and African-American applicants in the lowest SES group (A)

What is the news here? The system is set up that way. More money give people acccess to live in better neighborhood with better school district that has more resources. More money give you the ability to put your kids in private schools. More money gives you the ability to pay private tutors for your kids. THAT IS NOT NEWS. This is America. If you are not at the top, just bust you behind so you can get there; therefore, you kids will not be at a disadvantage as much as you were. I am shocked the mcat gap is not even wider.Most people faith are 'almost' written as they are born. However, a few defy the odds. THIS HAPPENS IN EVERY COUNTRY--NOT JUST ONLY IN AMERICA.

 

[gyropath]

It's not that surprising really. If you're smart, the odds are your parents are smart. If your parents are smart, the odds are they're more successful compared with their less intelligent counterparts.

 

[Raisins4Sunday]

It's not that surprising really. If you're smart, the odds are your parents are smart. If your parents are smart, the odds are they're more successful compared with their less intelligent counterparts.

Are you saying that intelligence isn't 100% environmental? I hope you're okay with enraging the entire social scientist community.

 

[Paracelsus1]

Think about what you're saying, high SES includes education, wealth, and positioning. The first two are the most important in terms of predictors. That doesn't mean some vast conspiracy is at play. Wealth and education are correlated. Education (even parental education) and grades are correlated. What's surprising here?

Yes, those who are highly educated will score higher, that's the way the world works at present.

 

[kimicurtis]

It's not that surprising really. If you're smart, the odds are your parents are smart. If your parents are smart, the odds are they're more successful compared with their less intelligent counterparts.

Not entirely true. Environment and what the child is given are key. What about people whose parents only went to high school/ never graduated high school but end up gaining MD's and other high level degrees.

 

[Paracelsus1]

Based on what I've read, about 70% of the variance in intelligence is explained by nurture, and about 30% by nature. That said, we all know these are extremely imprecise figures. Furthermore, we all know that intelligence can be difficult (though possible) to measure in a concrete way.

 

[kalbrecht17]

Not entirely true. Environment and what the child is given are key. What about people whose parents only went to high school/ never graduated high school but end up gaining MD's and other high level degrees.

he didn't say it was always true. just that odds are that it is true in most cases. so your point isn't really a point.

 

[Raisins4Sunday]

Based on what I've read, intelligence is about 70% nurture and 30% nature. That said, we all know these are extremely imprecise figures. Furthermore, we all know intelligence is can be difficult (though possible) measure in a concrete way.

Honestly, after reading about all these studies of identical twins reared apart and studies comparing children to their adopted siblings, I wouldn't say more than 30-40% environment. Assuming of course that the children aren't malnourished or illiterate. Just nitpicking.

 

[kimicurtis]

Think about what you're saying, high SES includes education, wealth, and positioning. The first two are the most important in terms of predictors. That doesn't mean some vast conspiracy is at play. Wealth and education are correlated. Education (even parental education) and grades are correlated. What's surprising here?

Yes, those who are highly educated will score higher, that's the way the world works at present.

But, what do you think that is saying of the system. Why do some groups have more than others? The root of the cause is colonialism, slavery and all that good stuff. If you look at the groups that have less and look at their history it is evident. You are not looking at the bigger picture.

 

[Raisins4Sunday]

Why do some groups have more than others? The root of the cause is colonialism, slavery and all that good stuff.

India was a British colony, yet I'm sure they do better than white people on the MCAT on average. I'm sure on the whole that colonialism doesn't help MCAT scores, so there's gotta be some other explanation. I'll bet that if we started everyone off at the same point, the average Indian's MCAT score wouldn't be indistinguishable from the average white person's. Let's stop being offended by the possibility of >0 heritability of intelligence.

If we start treating people as individuals, then we can forget about these differences and stop having these stupid arguments...

 

[Paracelsus1]

Raisins, I've also read a few striking twins studies. I agree with you that nature probably accounts for a lot more than the consensus view. Also, nurture cannot be separated from nature; it is the student's genes that provide a lens through which their environment is perceived.

 

[Raisins4Sunday]

Also, nurture cannot be separated from nature; it is the student's genes that provide a lens through which their environment is perceived.

That's the truth 👍

The language we speak=nurture; the fact that we can learn language=nature.

 

[kimicurtis]

India was a British colony, yet I'm sure they do better than white people on the MCAT on average. I'm sure on the whole that colonialism doesn't help MCAT scores, so there's gotta be some other explanation. I'll bet that if we started everyone off at the same point, the average Indian's MCAT score wouldn't be indistinguishable from the average white person's. Let's stop being offended by the possibility of >0 heritability of intelligence.

If we start treating people as individuals, then we can forget about these differences and stop having these stupid arguments...

If they do better that is because of the education system. Britain's education system is harder. Trust me, I have been in both the British and American education system. Also, the British education system does not require an MCAT. No one trying to pursue medicine in India takes the MCAT. We cannot only look as people as individuals, because statistics will only disprove us. Why else would one group be able to surpass another by so much. If there were only individual differences both groups would have similar averages. People need to stop ignoring history and statistics. Racism is still there. No matter how much people try to avoid talking about it. If I offend, that is not my intention.

 

[Raisins4Sunday]

If they do better that is because of the education system. Britain's education system is harder. Trust me, I have been in both the British and American education system. Also, the British education system does not require an MCAT. No one trying to pursue medicine in India takes the MCAT. We cannot only look as people as individuals, because statistics will only disprove us. Why else would one group be able to surpass another by so much. If there were only individual differences both groups would have similar averages. People need to stop ignoring history and statistics. Racism is still there. No matter how much people try to avoid talking about it. If I offend, that is not my intention.

I was talking about Indians who grow up in America. That is, Indians who are raised in the same community, go to the same school, and take the same standardized tests as everybody else. They sure as hell don't score better in my school because of racism. It sounds like you are proposing that there is some Lamarckian influence of colonialism on the MCAT scores of posterity. I am skeptical.

Sure, one group may surpass another, but why people like you always prefer to group people into races? Why not hair color, height, or amount of gray matter? I'm sure statistics will say that there is an association of MCAT scores with those traits, too. My point is, what good does it do to dwell on these things?

 

[ridethecliche]

Oh capitalism.....


Though seriously I believe this. Students who are socioeconomically disadvantaged generally have a lot more to worry about and give their attention to than those who don't. Not only so, but they can't always have access to all the resources other students with more money can buy and use.

It also ties into the fact that public schools get funding through property taxes. Less affluent area=less money for education=less $$$ per student.

I went to a school that drew from three totally different communities, I think that did a lot of good actually.

In addition, these numbers aren't going to get better given all the state cuts to education. Of course if you're affluent, you can pay for additional tutoring etc for your kids.

Those that think that the system doesn't screw people that are disenfranchised really have no idea how things work. It baffles me that people don't 'get it'.

I qualify for the FAP so I have a feeling I'm going to pull from the bottom tier of applicants in terms of SAS. I went to a small liberal arts school in the NE and it just blew my mind what people had compared to my 'rich' friends in high school haha. Things are a little different when your parents are actors/directors in hollywood or high ups in law firms/VC/etc.

India was a British colony, yet I'm sure they do better than white people on the MCAT on average. I'm sure on the whole that colonialism doesn't help MCAT scores, so there's gotta be some other explanation. I'll bet that if we started everyone off at the same point, the average Indian's MCAT score wouldn't be indistinguishable from the average white person's. Let's stop being offended by the possibility of >0 heritability of intelligence.

If we start treating people as individuals, then we can forget about these differences and stop having these stupid arguments...

Ah yes. The 'asians are smart' hypothesis. For every brilliant asian that's the top of their class, there are many more who are not even close. This has been done to death.

I'm indian and moved here during middle school. My family didn't have much but we came here so my sister and I could have a better education and opportunity. My parents were pushing me to do better and if I didn't do well their response was always "well, we moved here so you guys could get an education, we've done all we can so its up to you now. we can't help you anymore." Talk about pressure.

The difference is that one culture prides education (india) and the other is hell bent on making the educated look like bad in the public eye (america).

The cultural values of this country are screwed.
It's not cool to be smart. No one is pushing the idea of having a well balanced childhood and education. It's all a convenient way to take money away from education and put it into other pockets.

The first things that are shut down during budget cuts are libraries. There you have it. Of course it makes sense to shut down centers of knowledge during times when people should be hitting the books the hardest. It's the best message to send to kids, not that they pay any attention given that they're stuck in front of a tube almost 24/7.

I was talking about Indians who grow up in America. That is, Indians who are raised in the same community, go to the same school, and take the same standardized tests as everybody else. They sure as hell don't score better in my school because of racism. It sounds like you are proposing that there is some Lamarckian influence of colonialism on the MCAT scores of posterity. I am skeptical.

Sure, one group may surpass another, but why people like you always prefer to group people into races? Why not hair color, height, or skull cavity size? I'm sure statistics will say that there is an association of MCAT scores with those traits, too. My point is, what good does it do to dwell on these things?

Because you said indians. I can assure you, there are ton of dolts in the indian school system. I went to a private school there and there were tons and tons of idiots. Of course, their parents were filthy rich and would get them into colleges abroad because they couldn't hack it to get into an Indian university where standardized tests matter a ton. A lot of indians that come into this country for higher ed are not always the smartest. Some of them can just afford it.

Competition for schools in India is insane. There's a reason why the top US tech companies recruit heavily at IIT. Those kids are brilliant. Some of them had seen nothing more than a village before they got into school.

Every population has a normal distribution. You're not taking that into account. Saying that all indians in the US are smart is like saying all white people in the US are bill gates. It's ludicrous.

The funniest part about racism/prejudice/stereotypes is that the person perpetrating them has no idea that they're doing it. Yet here you are trying to justify yourself down the rabbit hole.

 

[Raisins4Sunday]

Every population has a normal distribution. You're not taking that into account. Saying that all indians in the US are smart is like saying all white people in the US are bill gates. It's ludicrous.

The funniest part about racism/prejudice/stereotypes is that the person perpetrating them has no idea that they're doing it. Yet here you are trying to justify yourself down the rabbit hole.

I didn't imply that all Indians are smarter than all white people. Sorry if you thought that, but try not to attack straw men.

Every population has a normal distribution, but are you honestly going to argue that they all must necessarily be centered around the same mean? If you concede that intelligence has >0 heritability, then what you MUST be arguing is that by some miraculous stroke of luck, Indian people have the EXACT same mean as white people. Considering that the MRCA of white and Indian people was 10s of thousands of years ago, this is incredible unlikely. Ten thousand years of genetic drift and random mutation? There is no way in hell that the means are identical.

You said that Indian culture values hard work. I presume this does not exclude work of an intellectual nature. Couldn't it be possible that Indian culture may have different selection pressure for traits that would be valuable for future MCAT tests?

Ten thousands years of genetic drift + mutation + selection = different mean intelligence provided intelligence isn't 100% environmental.

If you want to argue that intelligence isn't genetic, then let me ask you this: how did it evolve? Why isn't my neighbor's cat helping me with my classes?
Is it because they didn't take it to a library when it was a kitten? Ha!

 

[kimicurtis]

I was talking about Indians who grow up in America. That is, Indians who are raised in the same community, go to the same school, and take the same standardized tests as everybody else. They sure as hell don't score better in my school because of racism. It sounds like you are proposing that there is some Lamarckian influence of colonialism on the MCAT scores of posterity. I am skeptical.

Sure, one group may surpass another, but why people like you always prefer to group people into races? Why not hair color, height, or skull cavity size? I'm sure statistics will say that there is an association of MCAT scores with those traits, too. My point is, what good does it do to dwell on these things?

Because the racial groups is where the divides are seen. Another white person will not stigmatize and oppress another because that persons hair is not the same exact shade as their own. You cannot compare race (a social construct) to superficial physical characteristics like, eye color. You know there are no statistics to support those type of differences because they don't matter socially, which is what this is about.

Furthermore, those Indians that go to school with you are children or grandchildren of immigrants. These immigrants grew up in third world countries, endured crippling poverty and faced many struggles. They came to this country to make their life and their children's lives better. So, they make certain that they push them to do well. Some Asian patents are overly harsh because of this.

My point is that it needs to be acknowledged so that we can understand how the world really works. People like to pretend that something is not there. That does not make it go away.

 

[ridethecliche]

Your argument then is that the average indian is smarter than the average 'white' person?

Define white? You're combining a ton of different cultures into 'white'. With indian too...

Nature wise, it's the same species. I'm pretty sure that the 'intelligence differs by race' argument is what was tied to the subjugation of africans as well.

Seriously. Your argument is pre-phrenology even. It's like a eugenics based argument.

Cultural evolution and species based evolution are not the same thing.

You tell me I'm talking about straw men, but then insert a cat? You're talking about different species... I know you were trying to be sarcastic, but your point (if there even was one) is lost in your antiquated ideology.

 

[kimicurtis]

I didn't imply that all Indians are smarter than all white people. Sorry if you thought that, but try not to attack straw men.

Every population has a normal distribution, but are you honestly going to argue that they all must necessarily be centered around the same mean? If you concede that intelligence has >0 heritability, then what you MUST be arguing is that by some miraculous stroke of luck, Indian people have the EXACT same mean as white people. Considering that the MRCA of white and Indian people was 10s of thousands of years ago, this is incredible unlikely. Ten thousand years of genetic drift and random mutation? There is no way in hell that the means are identical.

You said that Indian culture values hard work. I presume this does not exclude work of an intellectual nature. Couldn't it be possible that Indian culture may have different selection pressure for traits that would be valuable for future MCAT tests?

Ten thousands years of genetic drift + mutation + selection = different mean intelligence provided intelligence isn't 100% environmental.

If you want to argue that intelligence isn't genetic, then let me ask you this: how did it evolve? Why isn't my neighbor's cat helping me with my classes?
Is it because they didn't take it to a library when it was a kitten? Ha!

You are joking, right. If you are going to try and make an argument, at least use the same species. Do you know the difference between a human brain and a cat brain?! Haha

 

[ridethecliche]

You are joking, right. If you are going to try and make an argument, at least use the same species. Do you know the difference between a human brain and a cat brain?! Haha

Don't worry about the troll.

Bringing race into something concerning SES is like throwing a molotov cocktail into a crowd of people on a hunger strike.

 

[Raisins4Sunday]

My point is that it needs to be acknowledged so that we can understand how the world really works. People like to pretend that something is not there. That does not make it go away.

I'm not saying that something is not there. People are definitely unequal, and opportunities/racism may account for some of it. I'm arguing that at some point (maybe/hopefully soon), we can put aside all of these race statistics stuff because the environmental differences will have been accounted for and all will be left is the stuff we can't change through social engineering, like some small inborn differences. We will have to live with the fact that not everybody is born a stormtrooper clone.

You cannot compare race (a social construct) to superficial physical characteristics like, eye color.

A social construct? Where do you learn these things? Are you saying that somebody of race A is not more related (on average!) to another person of race A than a person of race B? Races are just different populations of people with discernible physical characteristics. Sure, you may call one person black, and I may call them white, but that doesn't nullify the principle. It just means it is difficult to quantify.

If I call my dog a german shepherd and you call it a mutt, it doesn't mean that breeds are a social construct. It just means that the boundaries are fuzzy.

 

[kimicurtis]

I'm not saying that something is not there. People are definitely unequal, and opportunities/racism may account for some of it. I'm arguing that at some point (maybe/hopefully soon), we can put aside all of these race statistics stuff because the environmental differences will have been accounted for and all will be left is the stuff we can't change through social engineering, like some small inborn differences. We will have to live with the fact that not everybody is born a stormtrooper clone.



A social construct? Where do you learn these things? Are you saying that somebody of race A is not more related (on average!) to another person of race A than a person of race B? Races are just different populations of people with discernible physical characteristics. Sure, you may call one person black, and I may call them white, but that doesn't nullify the principle. It just means it is difficult to quantify.

If I call my dog a german shepherd and you call it a mutt, it doesn't mean that breeds are a social construct. It just means that the boundaries are fuzzy.

No. Race is a social construct. People with similar physical appearance being grouped as 'race a' etc. Google race and social construct and you will see. Have you ever taken sociology?

 

[kimicurtis]

Don't worry about the troll.

Bringing race into something concerning SES is like throwing a molotov cocktail into a crowd of people on a hunger strike.

Wait, are you saying that I am a troll or the OP? Check my record. It's clean.

 

[Raisins4Sunday]

No. Race is a social construct. People with similar physical appearance being grouped as 'race a' etc. Google race and social construct and you will see. Have you ever taken sociology?

So a sociologists would say I am equally related to east asians as I am to white people? This sounds like a funny way to define race.

Your argument then is that the average indian is smarter than the average 'white' person?

Define white? You're combining a ton of different cultures into 'white'. With indian too...

Nature wise, it's the same species. I'm pretty sure that the 'intelligence differs by race' argument is what was tied to the subjugation of africans as well.

Seriously. Your argument is pre-phrenology even. It's like a eugenics based argument.

Cultural evolution and species based evolution are not the same thing.

You tell me I'm talking about straw men, but then insert a cat? You're talking about different species... I know you were trying to be sarcastic, but your point (if there even was one) is lost in your antiquated ideology.

Only my last sentence was sarcasm. I was making the point that intelligence did evolve, so it must be heritable. I'm capable of looking at an uncomfortable possibility without deluding myself. Obviously I'm not capable of convincing people to think critically when they don't want to.

I don't see the connection between "intelligence differing by race" and forcing one race to be enslaved to another. I thought we would be too smart to commit the naturalistic fallacy.

With you guys, there's always something sacred about the word "species". Like Darwin said, other animals just differ from humans in degree. It's funny. I wonder how this conversation would go if we found some smart alien species. Or if Neanderthals were still alive. You guys, who get so heated when you suspect somebody is a racist, would probably go ahead and put them in cages because they haven't transcended this divine line that distinguishes one specie from another.

 

[ridethecliche]

So a sociologists would say I am equally related to east asians as I am to white people? This sounds like a funny way to define race.

Only my last sentence was sarcasm. I was making the point that intelligence did evolve, so it must be heritable. I'm capable of looking at an uncomfortable possibility without deluding myself. Obviously I'm not capable of convincing people to think critically when they don't want to.

I don't see the connection between "intelligence differing by race" and forcing one race to be enslaved to another. I thought we would be too smart to commit the naturalistic fallacy.

With you guys, there's always something sacred about the word "species". Like Darwin said, other animals just differ from humans in degree. It's funny. I wonder how this conversation would go if we found some smart alien species. Or if Neanderthals were still alive. You guys, who get so heated when you suspect somebody is a racist, would probably go ahead and put them in cages because they haven't transcended this divine line that distinguishes one specie from another.

You clearly haven't read ANY colonialist literature.

The argument is always that xyz race is inferior so we can enslave them because they're sub human. Dude, you really sound like you want to know what you're talking about so I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. Go read a couple of books. Okay, more than a couple if you're not actually trolling.

I know you don't see the connection. It's because your thinking is antiquated. Really man, do yourself a favor.

A sociologist would say cultural evolution and species central evolution in the same species are not to be confused. A culture can evolve much faster than a species.
A philosopher would say, how do you define intelligence?

Your current line of thought is a mix between eugenics and social darwinism. Both are antiquated. You pretty much just said that you were applying survival of the fittest ideology to different races, not species.

Till the species are the same, you have no clout.

You really don't have a clue, do you? The fact that you still think that you're on to something is hilarious in an 1870's kind of way. Maybe you should actually take my advice and read something.

Start here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism

ZOMG THEY AGREE WITH YOU!

And yeah, that's not a good thing...Unless, of course, you're acknowledging that you're a racist.

Next up, you're going to start saying that 'reverse racism' is a thing.

/facepalm

Wait, are you saying that I am a troll or the OP? Check my record. It's clean.

The raisin bloke.

 

[Raisins4Sunday]

You clearly haven't read ANY colonialist literature.

The argument is always that xyz race is inferior so we can enslave them because they're sub human. Dude, you really sound like you want to know what you're talking about so I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. Go read a couple of books. Okay, more than a couple if you're not actually trolling.

I know you don't see the connection. It's because your thinking is antiquated. Really man, do yourself a favor.

A sociologist would say cultural evolution and species central evolution in the same species are not to be confused. A culture can evolve much faster than a species.
A philosopher would say, how do you define intelligence?

Your current line of thought is a mix between eugenics and social darwinism. Both are antiquated. You pretty much just said that you were applying survival of the fittest ideology to different races, not species.

Till the species are the same, you have no clout.

You really don't have a clue, do you? The fact that you still think that you're on to something is hilarious in an 1870's kind of way. Maybe you should actually take my advice and read something.

Start here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism

ZOMG THEY AGREE WITH YOU!

And yeah, that's not a good thing...Unless, of course, you're acknowledging that you're a racist.

Next up, you're going to start saying that 'reverse racism' is a thing.

/facepalm



The raisin bloke.

Hahaha. Wow. I am making a scientific point I am not proposing any evil social policy. I don't know how to make that any clearer.

all will be left is the stuff we can't change through social engineering, like some small inborn differences

Notice how I rejected the use of social engineering to change people.

On another note, I totally see why real scientists don't touch this topic with a ten foot pole. You guys are completely unbelievable.

Thanks for making it clear that sociology is just another name for selective reasoning.

 

[Paracelsus1]

I was talking about Indians who grow up in America. That is, Indians who are raised in the same community, go to the same school, and take the same standardized tests as everybody else. They sure as hell don't score better in my school because of racism. It sounds like you are proposing that there is some Lamarckian influence of colonialism on the MCAT scores of posterity. I am skeptical.

Sure, one group may surpass another, but why people like you always prefer to group people into races? Why not hair color, height, or amount of gray matter? I'm sure statistics will say that there is an association of MCAT scores with those traits, too. My point is, what good does it do to dwell on these things?

Well said. I'm confused why some people can't get past race as an explanation for things it really ought not to be.

 

[Paracelsus1]

Different groups of people have different average gene compositions. We are all human, and we are all undoubtedly equal in terms of rights. That doesn't change the fact that some groups of people have a small average genetic advantage at the 100 yard sprint. It doesn't change the fact that some people are on average short, some are on average tall. It doesn't change the fact that some people are great at metabolizing ethanol and acetylaldehyde, and some people are poor at metabolizing those substances. It doesn't change the fact that some groups are more likely to be deficient on a subtype of a serotonin transporter in the brain.

The human race diversified to adapt to different environments. We are the same, and yet we are different in some ways. Besides the 99.99% of genes that make us all alike, every race has great genes that confer them certain advantages.

Why hide under a rock from this obvious truth? Wait, no it's easier to brand anyone who dares speak of such heresy as a racist!

 

[ridethecliche]

What you're not getting is the media, etc, propagate stereotypes like this.

When was the last time you heard of an asian that didn't do well or an Indian that never got a 30 on the MCAT? You don't! That's the point. I happens much more than it doesn't, but it's not cool to cover.

Lack of coverage doesn't mean lack of incidence.

You can't define yourself as talking about social darwinism and then say that you're not.

Race is a ridiculous reason because it's a construct. Look at how race is represented? Asians/east asians in media are always shown as scientists/doctors. Now tie that in to role modeling. People grow up thinking it's what they're supposed to do. If I start talking about social constructs and systems of blame/oppression, you're just going to label me a soc. hokey.

If you grow up being told that the only way to achieve success is by being a rapper or an athlete, then of course you're going to be drawn to those things more so than you will to academics.

That's social conditioning, nothing to do with race.

The same can be said for men and women. It's conditioning, race is just a copout answer. That's why it doesn't come down to it.

The issue with talking about innate intelligence is that there is no way to definite it or test to measure it because there's too much bias every which way. What would you propose? MCAT? SAT? LSAT?

That doesn't really say anything about innate intelligence.

You are only offering conjecture, which is all fun and games. Show me some reasonable source that can even remotely back you up and I'll look at it. If not, maybe you should study it.

Let us know how it goes.

Here's something I found:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/nov/12/race-intelligence-iq-science

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence

 

[ridethecliche]

Different groups of people have different average gene compositions. We are all human, and we are all undoubtedly equal in terms of rights. That doesn't change the fact that some groups of people have a small average genetic advantage at the 100 yard sprint. It doesn't change the fact that some people are on average short, some are on average tall. It doesn't change the fact that some people are great at metabolizing ethanol and acetylaldehyde, and some people are poor at metabolizing those substances. It doesn't change the fact that some groups are more likely to be deficient on a subtype of a serotonin transporter in the brain.

The human race diversified to adapt to different environments. We are the same, and yet we are different in some ways. Besides the 99.99% of genes that make us all alike, every race has great genes that confer them certain advantages.

Why hide under a rock from this obvious truth? Wait, no it's easier to brand anyone who dares speak of such heresy as a racist!

Define intelligence.

You're defining environmental factors and things like muscle composition. Sure.

Show me the 'smart' gene or the 'dumb' gene. Go ahead. I'm waiting.

 

[kimicurtis]

You clearly haven't read ANY colonialist literature.

The argument is always that xyz race is inferior so we can enslave them because they're sub human. Dude, you really sound like you want to know what you're talking about so I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. Go read a couple of books. Okay, more than a couple if you're not actually trolling.

I know you don't see the connection. It's because your thinking is antiquated. Really man, do yourself a favor.

A sociologist would say cultural evolution and species central evolution in the same species are not to be confused. A culture can evolve much faster than a species.
A philosopher would say, how do you define intelligence?

Your current line of thought is a mix between eugenics and social darwinism. Both are antiquated. You pretty much just said that you were applying survival of the fittest ideology to different races, not species.

Till the species are the same, you have no clout.

You really don't have a clue, do you? The fact that you still think that you're on to something is hilarious in an 1870's kind of way. Maybe you should actually take my advice and read something.

Start here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism

ZOMG THEY AGREE WITH YOU!

And yeah, that's not a good thing...Unless, of course, you're acknowledging that you're a racist.

Next up, you're going to start saying that 'reverse racism' is a thing.

/facepalm

Thank you! +100 for you. This person is living in a bubble.


The raisin bloke.

Oh, I see lol

 

[kimicurtis]

Different groups of people have different average gene compositions. We are all human, and we are all undoubtedly equal in terms of rights. That doesn't change the fact that some groups of people have a small average genetic advantage at the 100 yard sprint. It doesn't change the fact that some people are on average short, some are on average tall. It doesn't change the fact that some people are great at metabolizing ethanol and acetylaldehyde, and some people are poor at metabolizing those substances. It doesn't change the fact that some groups are more likely to be deficient on a subtype of a serotonin transporter in the brain.

The human race diversified to adapt to different environments. We are the same, and yet we are different in some ways. Besides the 99.99% of genes that make us all alike, every race has great genes that confer them certain advantages.

Why hide under a rock from this obvious truth? Wait, no it's easier to brand anyone who dares speak of such heresy as a racist!

So, some people have the smart gene then? Lol. So, you are saying that being from one race over another can make you smarter?

 

[Raisins4Sunday]

Define intelligence.

You're defining environmental factors and things like muscle composition. Sure.

Show me the 'smart' gene or the 'dumb' gene. Go ahead. I'm waiting.

Obviously there isn't a single locus for a smart and dumb allele. Nobody was arguing simple mendelian inheritance. Although I'm not surprised that you demand one, considering the anti-genetics propaganda of sociologists. The brain is a complex system and the genes and conditions that influence its development are subject to epistatic and additive interactions with eachother on multiple levels. Fortunately statistics can help to make associations:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1784004/?tool=pmcentrez

PPP1R1B is a gene that can influence intelligence and schizophrenia depending on the presence of other genes, and probably certain random developmental features. If a person has other genes that alter the expression of this gene, then this could be one of the many ways that someone's brain works differently than yours.

 

[Raisins4Sunday]

Different groups of people have different average gene compositions. We are all human, and we are all undoubtedly equal in terms of rights. That doesn't change the fact that some groups of people have a small average genetic advantage at the 100 yard sprint. It doesn't change the fact that some people are on average short, some are on average tall. It doesn't change the fact that some people are great at metabolizing ethanol and acetylaldehyde, and some people are poor at metabolizing those substances. It doesn't change the fact that some groups are more likely to be deficient on a subtype of a serotonin transporter in the brain.

The human race diversified to adapt to different environments. We are the same, and yet we are different in some ways. Besides the 99.99% of genes that make us all alike, every race has great genes that confer them certain advantages.

Why hide under a rock from this obvious truth? Wait, no it's easier to brand anyone who dares speak of such heresy as a racist!

If it matters, I commend you on your decisive closing statement. Now they want a gene! 😱

I need a break, haha.

 

[ridethecliche]

This is like saying that people of one race are more attractive than another...

Define attractiveness. Oh wait. What is that? You're defining it based on your social constructions? O I C.

Intelligence is defined by social and cultural phenomenon. Show me the standard.

Side note: I'm not a sociologist. I've just done my due diligence when learning about social constructions of race, intelligence, beauty, etc. I paid attention in undergrad and took some classes that made me uncomfortable as I realized my own biases.

I'm a molecular biologist slash biochemist, as well as a student of the politic of science if you go by my diploma.

I've just heard your kind of argument ad nauseum by those that felt entitled to their privilege. Everyone thinks that their thoughts are so incredibly novel that they want a few pats on the back.

Obviously there isn't a single locus for a smart and dumb allele. Nobody was arguing simple mendelian inheritance. Although I'm not surprised that you demand one, considering the anti-genetics propaganda of sociologists. The brain is a complex system and the genes and conditions that influence its development are subject to epistatic and additive interactions with eachother on multiple levels. Fortunately statistics can help to make associations:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1784004/?tool=pmcentrez

PPP1R1B is a gene that can influence intelligence and schizophrenia depending on the presence of other genes, and probably certain random developmental features. If a person has other genes that alter the expression of this gene, then this could be one of the many ways that someone's brain works differently than yours.

So you're correlating schizophrenia with intelligence? Tell me more!

Does the 'post hoc ergo proctor hoc' fallacy ring a bell? Statistics should lend some familiarity to that as well.

This should help:

 

[Paracelsus1]

I am _not_ saying that I believe any race has a difference in average intelligence. My earlier post was a response to sub-arguments in this thread, such as the validity of genetics as predictors for various things.

 

[Raisins4Sunday]

Define attractiveness. Oh wait. What is that? You're defining it based on your social constructions? O I C.

Intelligence is defined by social and cultural phenomenon. Show me the standard.

Side note: I'm not a sociologist. I've just done my due diligence when learning about social constructions of race, intelligence, beauty, etc. I paid attention in undergrad and took some classes that made me uncomfortable as I realized my own biases.

Just because intelligence is difficult to measure, and it would flatter your ideology to say so, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Our metric was the MCAT, but that was just the example we used. Anyway, I'm done with this. I'm sorry to hear you wasted your time with this postmodernism nonsense.

 

[RecycleRinsed]

Ya'll miss the point completely. The post had nothing to do with intelligence and little to do with race. MCAT is not designed to be an intelligence test. It is supposed to predict success in medical school, something it does quite poorly (see Donnon et al's meta analysis in Academic Medicine, Vol 82, No. 1, Jan 2007).

The point is that, like the SAT, the MCAT is a highly teachable metric that favors wealthy kids with highly educated parents...precisely the demographic of medical students LEAST likely to go into primary care, rural medicine, and poor urban settings.

What does our country need, more primary care docs willing to serve the poor/uninsured or more specialists clustered in wealthy suburbs?

 

[411309]

I think people worry too much about finding the right excuse for failure. If you want something bad enough youll find a way.

 

[OCDOCDOCD]

It's not surprising. Medicine operates under a rent-seeking system that is inherently biased against students coming from lower income families. First you have to consider that the first major hurdle for a low SES student is just getting into college in the first place. Then they have to get through college with all the stats needed to get into med school which is no easy feat if you have to work to get through school. All throughout this process they're disadvantaged when it comes to resources available to them. A rich kid can afford private tutors, exorbitantly priced MCAT classes, mountains of prep books, practice tests, test reschedules, test retakes, etc. When it comes to actually applying the rich kid can not only afford more applications, but he can pay people to write his application essays for him. If his family is connected he can get amazing recommendations just as a favor to his parents, and the same goes for getting great ECs.

There's a reason class mobility is low in the US. If you want a good profession you have to already be born to parents in a good profession, or you have to be a highly talented genius who still has to work twice as hard as a rich kid with borderline aptitude.

Ya'll miss the point completely. The post had nothing to do with intelligence and little to do with race. MCAT is not designed to be an intelligence test. It is supposed to predict success in medical school, something it does quite poorly (see Donnon et al's meta analysis in Academic Medicine, Vol 82, No. 1, Jan 2007).

The point is that, like the SAT, the MCAT is a highly teachable metric that favors wealthy kids with highly educated parents...precisely the demographic of medical students LEAST likely to go into primary care, rural medicine, and poor urban settings.

What does our country need, more primary care docs willing to serve the poor/uninsured or more specialists clustered in wealthy suburbs?

The reason we have so many people going into specialties instead of primary care and rural medicine is because the difference in pay and prestige is so massive. Even the most idealistic medical student is going to find it difficult to resist the temptation to not specialize, if only because they're going to see that their large student loan debt is going to be very difficult if not impossible to pay back on a primary doc's salary. If medical schools actually were concerned about graduating more primary care docs they would reimburse students' tuition fully when they matched to a primary care residency. If the federal, state, or local governments cared about having primary care docs in rural areas there would be tax incentives to draw them to those areas. Instead everyone just thinks that people are going to choose primary care in a town with 3000 people out of the niceness of their hearts even when they're qualified enough to get into derm or surgery residencies at major metropolitan hospitals.

 

[ridethecliche]

Just because intelligence is difficult to measure, and it would flatter your ideology to say so, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Our metric was the MCAT, but that was just the example we used. Anyway, I'm done with this. I'm sorry to hear you wasted your time with this postmodernism nonsense.

It's actually worked out pretty well for me given that I don't come off looking ignorant under most circumstances. For instance, I wouldn't be caught preaching social darwinism even under an alias. I would also probably know that race and species are different and that there is genetic variability within a species that is normally distributed. Fitness is also defined as an environment based idea.

And that the MCAT is a pretty poor indicator of intelligence.

It's not surprising. Medicine operates under a rent-seeking system that is inherently biased against students coming from lower income families. First you have to consider that the first major hurdle for a low SES student is just getting into college in the first place. Then they have to get through college with all the stats needed to get into med school which is no easy feat if you have to work to get through school. All throughout this process they're disadvantaged when it comes to resources available to them. A rich kid can afford private tutors, exorbitantly priced MCAT classes, mountains of prep books, practice tests, test reschedules, test retakes, etc. When it comes to actually applying the rich kid can not only afford more applications, but he can pay people to write his application essays for him. If his family is connected he can get amazing recommendations just as a favor to his parents, and the same goes for getting great ECs.

There's a reason class mobility is low in the US. If you want a good profession you have to already be born to parents in a good profession, or you have to be a highly talented genius who still has to work twice as hard as a rich kid with borderline aptitude.


The reason we have so many people going into specialties instead of primary care and rural medicine is because the difference in pay and prestige is so massive. Even the most idealistic medical student is going to find it difficult to resist the temptation to not specialize, if only because they're going to see that their large student loan debt is going to be very difficult if not impossible to pay back on a primary doc's salary. If medical schools actually were concerned about graduating more primary care docs they would reimburse students' tuition fully when they matched to a primary care residency. If the federal, state, or local governments cared about having primary care docs in rural areas there would be tax incentives to draw them to those areas. Instead everyone just thinks that people are going to choose primary care in a town with 3000 people out of the niceness of their hearts even when they're qualified enough to get into derm or surgery residencies at major metropolitan hospitals.

Agree on all points. Some state schools do this by giving you tons of grants in school if you agree to match to primary care. The military does it too...Serve for a few years and practice medicine for them and get your stuff paid for. Works out pretty well for them. I know a few md's that did this and a friend is getting his MD at the armed forces school. He also went to the air force academy for undergrad so it's no different.

Cuba has an interesting solution as well, i.e. students must do 2 years of rural medicine after school and school is paid for. The health care access disparity there is nowhere near as gross as it is stateside.

Hopefully we'll start to see the system change for the better.

 

[Raisins4Sunday]

It's actually worked out pretty well for me given that I don't come off looking ignorant under most circumstances. For instance, I wouldn't be caught preaching social darwinism even under an alias. I would also probably know that race and species are different and that there is genetic variability within a species that is normally distributed. Fitness is also defined as an environment based idea.

Social Darwinism? You continually misconstrue what I have said. All I was saying was that traits in different populations need not necessarily be centered around the same mean. It is absurd to argue that the distributions of every trait in all populations are superimposable. Logically, I think that is clear.

Social Darwinism is an ideology of society that seeks to apply biological concepts of Darwinism or of evolutionary theory to sociology and politics, often with the assumption that conflict between groups in society leads to social progress as superior groups outcompete inferior ones.
From Wikipedia

Social Darwinism is an ideological position that argues that Darwinian competition is morally good, because it is natural.

Notice how this is completely unrelated to what I've been saying, you *****. Facts about genetics do not imply social Darwinism. Your ignorance is astounding.

 

[Paracelsus1]

And that the MCAT is a pretty poor indicator of intelligence.

Hahaha. Some guy is on the SDN forums complaining that the MCAT is a poor predictor of intelligence. This is hilarious.

 

[ridethecliche]

Hahaha. Some guy is on the SDN forums complaining that the MCAT is a poor predictor of intelligence. This is hilarious.

It's a decent predictor of performance in medical school and on the USMLE, but I wouldn't say either of those things is reflective of so called 'intelligence'. How good you are at medicine, sure maybe... even though there are data that show otherwise, but it's just a hurdle to hop over before you can get in.

It's part of the process, so I'm not criticizing that. It just is. I seem to have made out okay, so it's not like I'm trying to rationalize my own failures.

I'm glad I could provide a laugh though.

Social Darwinism? You continually misconstrue what I have said. All I was saying was that traits in different populations need not necessarily be centered around the same mean. It is absurd to argue that the distributions of every trait in all populations are superimposable. Logically, I think that is clear.

Social Darwinism is an ideology of society that seeks to apply biological concepts of Darwinism or of evolutionary theory to sociology and politics, often with the assumption that conflict between groups in society leads to social progress as superior groups outcompete inferior ones.
From Wikipedia

Social Darwinism is an ideological position that argues that Darwinian competition is morally good, because it is natural.

Notice how this is completely unrelated to what I've been saying, you *****. Facts about genetics do not imply social Darwinism. Your ignorance is astounding.

The idea you are trying to define is applying social darwinism to intelligence. If you read a line further in the wiki you just cited, then you see:

The name social Darwinism is a modern name given to the various theories of society that emerged in England and the United States in the 1870s, which, it is alleged, sought to apply biological concepts to sociology and politics. Which, interestingly, is what you're trying to do. Ergot...
You're applying the aforementioned concepts to sociology, i.e. intelligence and race. The point is that you're defining things that are the same population, i.e. homo sapien. It's really not that complicated. Think on a slightly more elevated plane, here let me help:

http://www33.homepage.villanova.edu/edward.fierros/pdf/Dennis,%20Social%20Darwinism.pdf

Since you seem to like wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism

And what are these facts about genetics that you're speaking about. You can disprove me entirely, but again, you aren't showing any evidence. The burden of proof rests with you, not with me.

In any event, Asians and Causasians are statistically tied in applicants, but for matriculants it appears that selection leads to a higher score for Asians.

https://www.aamc.org/download/161696/data/table19.pdf

Race is a construct, a western one at that. You're basically saying that intelligence differs based on geography. The species is exactly the same. That's like saying two different populations of the same species of bird has different intelligence because they have a different plume. You're missing some of the underpinnings of the generation of your ideas. You didn't just think them up yourself. Phrenologists tried to justify what you're trying to based on physical traits, i.e brain size and 'lumps', and you're just taking the genetic basis of the same argument. The basis and structure of the argument and mechanism of reasoning is exactly the same.

I will not defy that intelligence differs between people, whether there is a biological basis, I'm not sure though I would think that there is one. When it comes down to race, however, is where I draw the line because race is a made up thing.

Honestly dude, I don't think that we're going to convince each other here. I really wish we could get a beer and talk about this or something because we're coming off as way more dickish than we would in person.

 

[Raisins4Sunday]

Honestly dude, I don't think that we're going to convince each other here. I really wish we could get a beer and talk about this or something because we're coming off as way more dickish than we would in person.

Yeah, I bet that's true.

The name social Darwinism is a modern name given to the various theories of society that emerged in England and the United States in the 1870s, which, it is alleged, sought to apply biological concepts to sociology and politics

This is literally true, but it's not the complete definition. Social Darwinism does apply theories of biology to sociology, but it uses those theories to argue that society should aim to allow survival of the fittest to occur unfettered. What I am saying is in line with sociobiology, which says that evolutionary biology can be used to explain human behaviors and traits.

Social Darwinism is a social/political ideology that says we should not have welfare programs to prevent poor people's genes from getting reproduced. Sociobiology is a science that evaluates the role of evolution in shaping human social behavior.

In my opinion, this is what a lot of postmodernists don't understand. They equate the two and end up calling people like E.O. Wilson a racist.

 

[ridethecliche]

Yeah, I bet that's true.

This is literally true, but it's not the complete definition. Social Darwinism does apply theories of biology to sociology, but it uses those theories to argue that society should aim to allow survival of the fittest to occur unfettered. What I am saying is in line with sociobiology, which says that evolutionary biology can be used to explain human behaviors and traits.

Social Darwinism is a social/political ideology that says we should not have welfare programs to prevent poor people's genes from getting reproduced. Sociobiology is a science that evaluates the role of evolution in shaping human social behavior.

In my opinion, this is what a lot of postmodernists don't understand. They equate the two and end up calling people like E.O. Wilson a racist.

Postmodernists understand that, however they also understand that natural selection is a 'natural' process and shaping that through policy is artificial. Case in point, breeding 'races' of dogs which inevitably have more issues than 'mutts' ex. labs have hip issues and seizures.

There's a difference between selection happening and it being forced. Disenfranchising an entire group of people be it based on race/SES/etc isn't really selection in the biological mechanism especially when there are barriers that are forced in place. That's not letting anything happen unfettered. Having a political system in place at all means that things are being forced.

The current system we're in has arbitrarily selected that causasians are 'better' than african americans and should therefore hold higher social positions. The system is set up so as to allow those that are white and rich to stratify power while further disenfranchising those that don't have it. I think that a lot of postmodernism is bogus, but when it comes to systems of oppression, I think it has a lot of merit in terms of history.

That's like equating natural selection to someone showing up to a fight with a spork when their opponent has rail gun and shoots them through the wall.

In the line of work we're aspiring to, it's really important to keep that in perspective. This guy has stuff to say about it and it's totally worth reading:
http://books.google.com/books/about/Pathologies_of_Power.html?id=2sbP7J-lckoC