Accepted the fate of not being accepted (farewell post)

[allseasons]

I guess we'll see! The justification won't be increasing diversity in med school, or affirmative action to address prior discrimination. It will be to produce URM physicians to address a need in URM communities, as evidenced in those studies.

Sorry that I come across as confident, but I am. I just don't see the Supreme Court dictating how med schools fill their classes, regardless of what happens with the Harvard UG lawsuit. I am very well aware of how the California statutes have impacted UG admissions at school slike Berkeley. Why hasn't it had the same impact at UCSF med school? After all, they are both UCs and they are both in CA!

I honestly have no idea what point you are trying to make with your cited article, since it clearly states racial diversity has returned to the same level as before the proposition was enacted. In addition, in 2020, MSAR shows that UCSF had 30 Black students and 40 Hispanic students in a first year class of 178, so what exactly are the "lingering impacts" of Prop 209 on med school admissions in CA? 🙂

It looks like there was a drop in 1996 after the proposition was enacted, and enrollment returned to prior levels as med schools figured out how to work around it. I'm pretty sure you'll see the same lingering impact in 2022, or whenever, from whatever the Supreme Court decides in the Harvard case.

My point was the sentence I quoted: "Sharp drops in Latinx and Black students admitted to medical schools followed the state’s 1996 ban on considering race in admissions"

The affirmative action ban had this effect. The UC system took measures to try and work around this ban while maintaining diversity, and eventually figured it out. Not entirely sure what they did. They could not just ignore the ban, hence why there was an initial drop.

My initial question was "I'm extremely curious to see what happens with the upcoming AA case (if it's reversed), and its effects on med school admission. It's really important to have URM doctors, so I wonder what loopholes schools will use to push forward URM applicants beyond low-SES." I have no doubts that schools will find some work around, I was just wondering what it would be.

You made the case that affirmative action ban would have no impact on med admissions, and that's just objectively wrong (or it would have had no impact in CA). Perhaps we were talking past each other, and you simply meant that it would not impact the racial demographics of med school, while I was referring to the literal admissions procedures themselves? In which case we're probably both right.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[KnightDoc]

And from that article… how many med schools have been created in CA since 1997? 5?

So did black and brown student enrollment REALLY? Go back to normal? New schools + existing school class expansion (i assume), and the numbers are back at 1997 levels? lol

How does that support your point that schools “figured it out”? If anything , it looks like their representation decreased? Again this is assuming class sizes increased + the building of new schools

Because UCSF is 42% URM while UC Berkeley is 18%. Believe me, there are more than enough very well qualified White and Asian applicants to UCSF to push its Black and Hispanic representation even lower than UC Berkeley's if UCSF was literally following the requirements of that proposition and not taking race into account in admissions.

The fact that all schools aren't doing all that they can is not my point. My point is that a law prohibiting a school from considering race in admissions is not stopping a school like UCSF from working around it to achieve a legitimate objective.

 

[JustJackie]

Because UCSF is 42% URM while UC Berkeley is 18%. Believe me, there are more than enough very well qualified White and Asian applicants to UCSF to push its Black and Hispanic representation even lower than UC Berkeley's if UCSF was literally following the requirements of that proposition and not taking race into account in admissions.

The fact that all schools aren't doing all that they can is not my point. My point is that a law prohibiting a school from considering race in admissions is not stopping a school like UCSF from working around it to achieve a legitimate objective.

Are you saying that because Berkeley is 18% URM and UCSF is not, that this means they are making efforts to increase URM representation?

So is the next assumption that being MCAT blind is part of this objective?

 

[KnightDoc]

My initial question was "I'm extremely curious to see what happens with the upcoming AA case (if it's reversed), and its effects on med school admission. It's really important to have URM doctors, so I wonder what loopholes schools will use to push forward URM applicants beyond low-SES." I have no doubts that schools will find some work around, I was just wondering what it would be.

I'm pretty sure I answered your question. You are just choosing to ignore it.

Med schools have studies showing that URM physicians improve outcomes for patients in their communities. You need URM students to produce URM doctors. That's the "loophole," if that's what you want to call it. UCSF is already using it successfully in CA in spite of a law there that basically replicates what the plaintiffs are looking for in the Harvard case.

The schools are not employing affirmative action, or merely increasing the diversity of their classes. They are admitting students to meet a underserved need in the medical community. The results of the Harvard case will therefore not apply to them.

 

[KnightDoc]

Are you saying that because Berkeley is 18% URM and UCSF is not, that this means they are making efforts to increase URM representation?

So is the next assumption that being MCAT blind is part of this objective?

Yes. The fact that UCSF, a T5 med school, is 17% Black and 22% Hispanic, in a state with a law prohibiting the consideration of race in admissions, is powerful evidence that they are making efforts to increase URM representation, while UC Berkeley is more closely following the requirements of Prop 209.

I don't think it has anything to do with them being MCAT blind, since I'm not sure they are really MCAT blind when push comes to shove at the point of making final decisions. I think it's evidence that their process is truly holistic, and they are doing a better job than most at addressing a need.

 

[JustJackie]

Yes. The fact that UCSF, a T5 med school, is 17% Black and 22% Hispanic, in a state with a law prohibiting the consideration of race in admissions, is powerful evidence that they are making efforts to increase URM representation, while UC Berkeley is more closely following the requirements of Prop 209.

I don't think it has anything to do with them being MCAT blind, since I'm not sure they are really MCAT blind when push comes to shove at the point of making final decisions. I think it's evidence that their process is truly holistic, and they are doing a better job than most at addressing a need.

Gotcha.
So if it’s truly holistic, and has nothing to do with being Mcat blind. What does this mean?

“Believe me, there are more than enough very well qualified White and Asian applicants to UCSF to push its Black and Hispanic representation even lower than UC Berkeley's if UCSF was literally following the requirements of that proposition and not taking race into account in admissions.”

Are you saying that race is part of the holistic screening taking place?

 

[KnightDoc]

Gotcha.
So if it’s truly holistic, and has nothing to do with being Mcat blind. What does this mean?

“Believe me, there are more than enough very well qualified White and Asian applicants to UCSF to push its Black and Hispanic representation even lower than UC Berkeley's if UCSF was literally following the requirements of that proposition and not taking race into account in admissions.”

Are you saying that race is part of the holistic screening taking place?

Yes, because it needs to be. As I said, multiple studies have shown that minority and low SES patients have better outcomes with doctors they can relate to. This is a legitimate consideration in med school admissions, and race is part of it. A Supreme Court ruling on affirmative action is not going to change this.

I'm not an expert on CA Prop 209, but I know it prohibits the consideration of race in admissions to the CA public higher education system, and yet, somehow, UCSF's medical school managed to have 42% of its 2020 entering class be URM while UC Berkeley's comparable UG number is 18%. I'm pretty sure that didn't happen without UCSF taking race into account.

 

[JustJackie]

Yes, because it needs to be. As I said, multiple studies have shown that minority and low SES patients have better outcomes with doctors they can relate to. This is a legitimate consideration in med school admissions, and race is part of it. A Supreme Court ruling on affirmative action is not going to change this.

I'm not an expert on CA Prop 209, but I know it prohibits the consideration of race in admissions to the CA public higher education system, and yet, somehow, UCSF's medical school managed to have 42% of its 2020 entering class be URM while UC Berkeley's comparable UG number is 18%. I'm pretty sure that didn't happen without UCSF taking race into account.

I guess I’m asking you if you’re implying that UCSFs black and brown students are less qualified to be there. I’m trying not to read your words wrong.

 

[KnightDoc]

I guess I’m asking you if you’re implying that UCSFs black and brown students are less qualified to be there. I’m trying not to read your words wrong.

NOT AT ALL!!!!!!. I'm saying there is a legitimate need to take race into account, just about every school does it today, to a greater or lesser degree, and that nothing the Supreme Court does in the Harvard UG case is going to change that. UCSF, operating in a state that currently prohibits taking race into account in admissions, is my evidence of that.

Please don't read any more into what I am saying than that. Just go back to where my back and forth with @allseasons started to see where I am coming from.

All I'm saying about UCSF is that, if it didn't take race into account, its class would look at lot more like UC Berkeley's. We both agree a lot more goes into being qualified than GPA and MCAT, and there is a legitimate need to increase URM representation in medicine that goes way beyond affirmative action. As a result, I think @allseasons is wrong in speculating that if the Harvard case makes affirmative action illegal, that the med schools will have to change anything they are currently doing.

 

[JustJackie]

NOT AT ALL!!!!!!. I'm saying there is a legitimate need to take race into account, just about every school does it today, to a greater or lesser degree, and that nothing the Supreme Court does in the Harvard UG case is going to change that. UCSF, operating in a state that currently prohibits taking race into account in admissions, is my evidence of that.

Please don't read any more into what I am saying than that. Just go back to where my back and forth with @allseasons started to see where I am coming from.

All I'm saying about UCSF is that, if it didn't take race into account, its class would look at lot more like UC Berkeley's. We both agree a lot more goes into being qualified than GPA and MCAT, and there is a legitimate need to increase URM representation in medicine that goes way beyond affirmative action. As a result, I think @allseasons is wrong in speculating that if the Harvard case makes affirmative action illegal, that the med schools will have to change anything they are currently doing.

You’re good g, i didn’t think that was the case that’s why i asked. I didn’t mean anything by it. My bad.

I was just getting tripped up on the verbiage, that’s all. CARS was my lowest score, cut me some slack

 

[KnightDoc]

You’re good g, i didn’t think that was the case that’s why i asked. I didn’t mean anything by it. My bad.

I was just getting tripped up on the verbiage, that’s all. CARS was my lowest score, cut me some slack

No problem. You're totally fine! I don't know why, but I just couldn't leave what @allseasons was saying unchallenged, even though he apparently has a strong legal background. 🙂

 

[allseasons]

NOT AT ALL!!!!!!. I'm saying there is a legitimate need to take race into account, just about every school does it today, to a greater or lesser degree, and that nothing the Supreme Court does in the Harvard UG case is going to change that. UCSF, operating in a state that currently prohibits taking race into account in admissions, is my evidence of that.

Please don't read any more into what I am saying than that. Just go back to where my back and forth with @allseasons started to see where I am coming from.

All I'm saying about UCSF is that, if it didn't take race into account, its class would look at lot more like UC Berkeley's. We both agree a lot more goes into being qualified than GPA and MCAT, and there is a legitimate need to increase URM representation in medicine that goes way beyond affirmative action. As a result, I think @allseasons is wrong in speculating that if the Harvard case makes affirmative action illegal, that the med schools will have to change anything they are currently doing.

I mean... they did have to change it. They had to introduce the PRIME program as a new initiative and then use that to enable a greater admission of URM. They couldn't just continue their standard admissions procedures. The article talks about this too. This change occurred in 2007 (about a decade later), and much of the increased enrollment happened since then.

This is a pretty clear example of exactly what I was talking about- a change in admissions procedures to ensure more URMs enter the class that doesn't violate the reformed AA laws. They had to change what they were doing to reach their goals, not just continue their old practices. The AA ban affected them, hence why there was a substantial dip the year immediately after the ban was enacted.

If it didn't affect them, then that dip wouldn't have occured in the first place.

 

[KnightDoc]

I mean... they did have to change it. They had to introduce the PRIME program as a new initiative and then use that to enable a greater admission of URM. They couldn't just continue their standard admissions procedures. The article talks about this too. This change occurred in 2007 (about a decade later), and much of the increased enrollment happened since then.

This is a pretty clear example of exactly what I was talking about- a change in admissions procedures to ensure more URMs enter the class that doesn't violate the reformed AA laws. They had to change what they were doing to reach their goals, not just continue their old practices.

I get it, but you're talking about 15 years ago now. CA med schools have been dealing with this for a long time now.

Let's just agree to disagree, if you don't agree with me. You were wondering what a workaround might be if the plaintiffs ultimately prevail in the Harvard litigation. I suggested that the med schools already have a legitimate, effective carve out, as evidenced by the fact that CA med schools are already operating in an environment you imagine might apply across the country, and schools like UCSF have very respectable URM representation in a state that already prohibits affirmative action.

Every school in the country could already do what UCSF is doing if they wanted to. How would the Harvard litigation change that, no matter how it turns out, given that Prop 209, in 2022, doesn't stop UCSF from having an entering class that is 42% URM? What more is there to say?

 

[allseasons]

I get it, but you're talking about 15 years ago now. CA med schools have been dealing with this for a long time now.

Let's just agree to disagree, if you don't agree with me. You were wondering what a workaround might be if the plaintiffs ultimately prevail in the Harvard litigation. I suggested that the med schools already have a legitimate, effective carve out, as evidenced by the fact that CA med schools are already operating in an environment you imagine might apply across the country, and schools like UCSF have very respectable URM representation in a state that already prohibits affirmative action.

Every school in the country could already do what UCSF is doing if they wanted to. How would the Harvard litigation change that, no matter how it turns out, given that Prop 209, in 2022, doesn't stop UCSF from having an entering class that is 42% URM? What more is there to say?

Just one more thing tbh. Affirmative action used to have a quote system, which was struck down. Then they moved to points ranking, which was struck down. Then they moved to narrow consideration which was narrowly upheld (5/4). Now that is again being challenged.

Courts can only rule when some one with standing brings a case before them. Things can be unconstitutional and still proceed if they are never actually brought to court. There has been no challenge to the UC medical system's new policies to ensure more URMs.

On a national scale however, starting cases like these are a lot easier. Of course, no point in speculating about that now, but it just crossed my mind. I am curious to see what the class of 23 or 24 will look like.

 

[chilly_md]

@Matthew9Thirtyfive

Don’t mean to overstep people’s discussion, but the thread was originally meant for Vox’s cycle results. I think that’s buried 3 pages back now and it might be a good idea to close it.

 

[allseasons]

@Matthew9Thirtyfive

Don’t mean to overstep people’s discussion, but the thread was originally meant for Vox’s cycle results. I think that’s buried 3 pages back now and it might be a good idea to close it.

Nah I think the discussions over now, but good point lol. Ngl sometimes I just get bored and like to see where comments go... Should probably stop doing that.

 

[JustJackie]

Nah I think the discussions over now, but good point lol. Ngl sometimes I just get bored and like to see where comments go... Should probably stop doing that.

Lmaoooooo me too.

Idk his/her name, but I’m Patiently waiting for the admin with the cat pfp to comment “Closing”

 

[allseasons]

Lmaoooooo me too.

Idk his/her name, but I’m Patiently waiting for the admin with the cat pfp to comment “Closing”

haha @gyngyn I think

 

[gyngyn]

Closing.

 

[allseasons]

Closing.

I have a strange feeling that this thread was not, in fact, closed...

 

[gyngyn]

I'll try again!