Affirmative Action and Med School Application

[lesstalkmorock]

Meh.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Luthertaketwo]

"aaaah yes
the age-old AA debate

my 0.02"

Ahh, your two cents is an old, rehashed, poorly drawn piece of crap that someone else came up with? Oh sweet irony.

"ok but seriously
i'm asian
yes its tough competing with other asians
but look:
lets face it - white people and asians grow up much more privileged than URMs
not just financially, but from a support-base POV"

There are more poor whites in the US than blacks. Do you even figure this stuff out before you spew your ignorance? And I have no idea what you mean by a "support base" POV," but I'm sure it's just as *****ic as your previously ignorant comment.


"so yes, I think URMs are deserving of a sliding scale
if for nothing more than 200 years of social inequality
boo-freakin-hoo"

Obviously someone that has not heard of poor laws, apprenticeships, indentured servitude and a myriad of other laws that placed poor whites in a worse place for far longer than that of even black slaves. A number of slaves have even said as much.

?When I was a boy we used to sing, 'Rather be a n*gger than a poor white man.'
--Waters McIntosh, slave.


"luther needs to stop crying like the little bitch he is and grow up, or run off to PA school if he can't hack the competition"

No, ignorant people like you need to open up your eyes to the classism that is so pervasive. Compared to race, it's a ranging bonfire vs a zippo lighter. But you just keep believing whatever bassackwards assumptions have been dogmatically driven into your tiny brain.

 

[JayMiranti]

im bored so here goes..

ok its not like i hate AA, i think its intentions are good and whatnot, is there a need for it? yup is it flawed? yup
I think it should be done by income instead of race personally, but who knows the right answer...

Anyway..I have a problem not with AA in med school, but with the EXTREMENESS of the AA.

I hear all of these arguments like, oh the white guy will just go to his state school instead, big loss...

But thats not the case in many situations, LOTS of white guys get turned away from med school and go do other different things with their lives, giviing up on their life goals, when they would really want to be in med school, but dont want to go through the app process again, and meanwhile, the only difference between living their dream and being a med student, is their race. Its hard to see someone with the exact same, or much less, qualifications than yours doing what you want to do, but you cant cuz your white. its the truth.

And i think that it happens more than you think, its not one or two unlucky people each year who loses out, i feel like its TONS.

THAT is my problem with AA, not that it exists, but that it is SOOO strong. I think this admissions process favors URMS more heavily than any job offer, or other admissions process I have every heard of, by FAR. Its not like the differences are one or two points, if thats the case, whatever....what is causing anger is the URMS admitted with 24, 25, 26s that would eliminate a white guy from contention right away.

 

[scota]

Please let this thread die.


BTW, I'm a URM... but I think AA is not helpful in getting most of us into med school. It's not like adcoms are going to accept someone who's clearly incompetent because of his/her race.

 

[lesstalkmorock]

 

[MeganRose]

Originally posted by Luthertaketwo
"
No, ignorant people like you need to open up your eyes to the classism that is so pervasive. Compared to race, it's a ranging bonfire vs a zippo lighter. But you just keep believing whatever bassackwards assumptions have been dogmatically driven into your tiny brain.

I actually agree in part with this statement. American is a very classist society: Poor white people are disadvantaged from the day that they are born and are less likely ot be successful than their white-upper class counterparts. The only problem with your viewpoint is that blacks, hispanics and other URMs in the states are generally of a lower socio-economic class. Couple this with the fact that many people in the US are racist, and the scales are undoubtedly weighted against the lower class, esp the lower class of color.

I feel bad that as a middle-class black person (with educated parents that were very involved in my education) that I benefited more from AA than my lower-class black counterpart. AA hasn't done much to help him. This is why discussion of restructuring Affirmative Action rather than dissolution is important.

Still, you do seem angry. Maybe you should put more energy into working hard to make sure you get a spot instead of railing against those things that are unlikely to change anytime in the near future.

 

[cardsurgguy]

I'm curious to get opinions on this alternative to affirmative action... (I know it's a long post, but I think it's an interesting situation and it'll spark some interesting debate)

I thought this up a couple summers ago while working at the hospital I work at. I was talking to a black cardiac surgeon who had just moved into the area and was asking me where he should make his final move to, ie what areas. So he started listing some areas to get my opinion on them since I've living in the area my whole life. He was wondering about the usual things a parent (10 year old kid) would wonder about-safety, school quality, etc.

All of the areas he was mentioning were the middle class-wealthy suburbs with excellent quality schools. Obviously this in itself was no great revelation since he was a cardiac surgeon, who obviously aren't the poorest people on the face of the Earth, and who also had a wife who was a professional.

What I started to think about was the fact that if his kid wanted to go to medical school, he/she would prolly get affirmative action. However, I believe that coming from a rich background, and going to a good school, and prolly a good college in which his parents could definitely pay for, so he prolly wouldn't have to work at all during the school year, he should definitely not get affirmative action.

I realize he prolly won't need it. If he winds up anything like his father (father is a very smart guy and very good surgeon), he'll be really smart and kill the MCAT's and GPA and get into med school most likely with ease. However, let's imagine the opposite scenario. Say he's not like his father. Say he goes to school and winds up with a 3.3 overall/3.2 science GPA with a 24 MCAT's. Let's say this comes with situation I described in the previous paragraph-his parents paid for college and he didn't have to work at all during the school year.

I don't think he should get affirmative action at all. I think a white student who came from a low middle class/poor background who had to put himself/herself through school by working 25 hours/week during school should and who pulled the same numbers 3.3 overall/3.2 science GPA and 24 MCAT's should definitely get affirmative action over the son of the cardiac surgeon described above.

In other words, I'm for the concept of affirmative action, I'm just against the way affirmative action is done today. I would totally 100% support affirmative action if it was just based on socioeconomic background.

In fact, I don't even regard this as some special way of looking at admissions, I regard it as basic logic. If you take 2 equal students, 1 who didn't have to work at all during the school year, and the other who had to work 25 hours/week during the school year, the one who had to work is obviously going to to have a lower GPA than the one who did not have to work. If I were an adcom member, I'd regard a 3.6 sci GPA from the 1st student as equal to a 3.4 sci GPA from the 2nd. Since if the 2nd student didn't have to work at all, they most likely would have gotten a 3.6 sci GPA as well. And I'd actually prefer taking the 2nd student if they had say a 3.5 sci GPA over the 1st student with a 3.6 sci GPA since if the 2nd student didn't have to work at all, they most like would have gotten higher than a 3.6 sci GPA.

The problem I have with the current affirmative action program is that it's race specific. I think the above description should work no matter who the 2 students are. In other words, you should be able to take any combination and put them into either of the 2 students 1st or 2nd, and the decision should be the same.

The fundamental problem is that we still look at race (as well as ethnicity, religion, etc) as some special issue in this country. Race should be looked at as nothing more than a meaningless physicial feature, ie as different amount of melanin produced in skin cells. It should be looked at with the same importance as height, which is just different amount of growth hormone being produced. For example, I'm a white male. If you put me next to 2 other people-1 black guy who was the same height as me and a white guy who was 4 inches shorter than me and you asked me who do you have more in common with, my answer would be neither, since I have 1 physical feature in common with both of them. The same goes for ethnicity and religion. Obviously these two aren't physical features, since they're mental processes. However, these two should be viewed as just as meaningless as what genre of movie a person likes. For example, I'm Greek by ethnicity. If you put me next to two people, 1 who was Greek but who liked drama movies, and one who was a different ethnicity but who also like comedy movies (as I do), and you asked who do you have more in common with, my answer would be neither because I have 1 thing in common with both.

It's time for people to stop viewing race/ethnicity/religion as so important. They're all meaningless, therefore diversity is meaningless. Diversity for these 3 things is just as stupid as having diversity in the heights of people or diversity in genre of movies people liked in the incoming class of any kinda of school. It's time we in this country stopped breaking the population into groups, because there is only one group-the human race.

 

[lesstalkmorock]

hear hear
Finally some logic, reason, and tolerance. Finally the type of discussion you would expect out of a forum of premedical students. Thanks for reinstating my faith in our generation of doctors.

 

[medic8m]

Only considering socioeconomic factors would be one way to change the current AA model. However, we can't get away from the fact the race, in many instances, DOES put people in a disadvantaged status. I'm not talking about education, I'm talking about life. Just look at all the stats regarding home loans, car sales, etc. ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL, it is more difficult for minorities to obtain loans, get jobs, buy cars, rent housing, etc. I'm not advocating the current system but we can't make a blanket statment about ignoring race altogether.

 

[JayMiranti]

Well that is a little idealistic no? I mean i know what you mean, sure everyone is the same, one love, but we all come from different CULTURES that cannot be denied.

Certain cultures have characteristics that promote or discourage entrance into professional careers. AA is intented to balance that out, and give a kid who has been discouraged to be a physician for WHATEVER reason ( financial/philosophical/whatever cultural value) a chance to transcend their own tradition if they choose...to enter into the wonderful theoretical "melting pot" everyone likes to think that America is..

Modern AA groups these cultures by race, which i agree is wrong, but that is the name of the game, trying to find out how to define the "disadvantaged"

"Disadvantaged" SHOULD be given preference (a reasonable amount) in my opinion until the proportions are equal, i.e. the same percentage of each group is a physician. Then cut it out...

 

[Luthertaketwo]

"There's just one small problem here. Maybe it's because you never passed middle school arithmetic,"

And given your ability to misspell words even my six year-old nephew can spell, I wouldn't talk too much about "passing" a class.

" Yes, the reason why there are more poor whites in this country than poor blacks is... there are more whites in this country than blacks. Pause here for a moment to grasp that. If your head hurts too much, stop here."

Why does the proportion matter? Simple question. The fact that a black is more likely to be poor does not mean they will be poor, and by the same token, any given white is not somehow magically born middle-class or better. Following your own logic, we should just lock blacks up and/or just exterminate them since they have such high crime rates -- proportionately. Right, mien furor?

"What a joke. People like you come a dime a dozen. People who scour the internet for random quotes and statistics to back up their argument on a premed forum. Get a life."

Persons with absolutely no grasp of English grammar are, too, a dime a dozen.

"BTW - POV is an acronym for Point Of View. In the future, I recommend www.acronymfinder.com for those times you see acronyms you don't understand. Yes, luther, there are acronyms besides LOL, BRB, G2G, OMFG, and STFU"

I know what POV is, but the context it was placed in made no sense.

" Asians and whites generally have parents who are stricter about academics than blacks. Now go ahead and "quote and attack" this paragraph by calling it an assumption. It's a valid assumption."

Now you go back to generalizations. Amazing. Blacks are more likely to be criminals. Why are they even allowed to walk the streets, huh?

"Again, I say to you luther, if you can't hack the competetion, scamper off to PA school. Although they might turn you away too. Let's face it - nobody likes you."

Oh, and I'm sure they love your third-grade spelling. The "competetion" must be trembling in their collective boots.


"Class dismissed."

You should stay late with the teacher; maybe you'll actually learn something today.

 

[Ryo-Ohki]

Yes, I agree with JayMiranti. We should award resources based on your race's relative percentage in a field of study.

Looking at the census data, whites make up 80%.
http://eire.census.gov/popest/data/national/tables/asro/NA-EST2002-ASRO-04.php

However, whites only represent 64% of accepted med students.
http://www.aamc.org/data/facts/2003/20022003detmat.htm

Whites are URMs (Under-represented majority)

The offending overachieving race, Asians, make up 8% of the population but make up 18% of the matriculants. I propose we either place an 8% cap on Asians or invent a new form of math that allow greater than 100% when adding up percentages of racial groups.

When you help someone because of his race, you will hurt someone else because of his race. So, are you willing to hurt Asians in order to help whites, blacks, and hispanics?

 

[lesstalkmorock]

Whoops, I guess you never learned that double quotation marks don't go inside other double quotes.

Thanks for checking my spelling though, maybe I'll hire you as secretary for my practice one day. You're a waste of my time.

As for everybody else, thanks for the constructive comments on this thread. Hopefully we'll make a positive impact on policy when it's our go-around.

 

[Luthertaketwo]

Originally posted by lesstalkmorock

Thanks for checking my spelling though, maybe I'll hire you as secretary for my practice one day. You're a waste of my time.

Another bigot bites the dust.
Hey, gonna get you too.
Another bigot bites the dust.

At least your spelling wasn't half as bad as your logic.

 

[....]

Originally posted by medic8m
Just look at all the stats regarding home loans, car sales, etc. ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL, it is more difficult for minorities to obtain loans, get jobs, buy cars, rent housing, etc.

You mean all things being equal except credit worthiness. The average black person has a lower income and worse credit, so how is the fact they get denied loans more often racist?

 

[Luthertaketwo]

Originally posted by hightrump
You mean all things being equal except credit worthiness. The average black person has a lower income and worse credit, so how is the fact they get denied loans more often racist?

Essentially every supposed "racist" thing you will hear someone parrot disappears when controlling for socioeconomic status. Of course, you probably already knew this. After you drop bombs like that, though, watch out for the incoming barrage anecdotal "proof".

 

[medic8m]

Originally posted by hightrump
You mean all things being equal except credit worthiness. The average black person has a lower income and worse credit, so how is the fact they get denied loans more often racist?

Studies and exposes have been done where two people, one white one black, try to rent an apt./ apply for a loan. They have exactly the same credit, history, etc. etc. Yet, the white person will be offered the apt/loan at a greater frequency than the black. That was what I was refering too.

 

[medic8m]

Originally posted by Luthertaketwo
Essentially every supposed "racist" thing you will hear someone parrot disappears when controlling for socioeconomic status. Of course, you probably already knew this. After you drop bombs like that, though, watch out for the incoming barrage anecdotal "proof".

Dude, are you denying that racist exists? What planet do you live on?

 

[....]

Originally posted by medic8m
Studies and exposes have been done where two people, one white one black, try to rent an apt./ apply for a loan. They have exactly the same credit, history, etc. etc. Yet, the white person will be offered the apt/loan at a greater frequency than the black. That was what I was refering too.

let's see it.

 

[Ryo-Ohki]

Can you point to some links? If blacks are being denied loans for being black, we should take aggressive steps to end this illegal behavior. Those who engage in it should be punished severely.

It's just hard for me to fathom how this would occur in a world where blacks can complain about legitimate, legal hardware terminology (master/salve) and have action taken (CA office of AA issued memo trying to bar use) and not have a huge outcry on something that is clearly illegal and illegitimate.

 

[Luthertaketwo]

Give job recruiters two invented resumes that have been carefully matched except for the candidates' height. Fully 72% of the time, the taller man is "hired". And when they are hired, they tend also to earn more.

December 23, 1995, U.S. Edition. The Economist

Show me this same data on the grounds of race.

 

[Ryo-Ohki]

There was study done recently on small businesses and race. I think it found they were less willing to call back black job applicants.

 

[39094]

Originally posted by Luthertaketwo


Show me this same data on the grounds of race.

To test whether employers discriminate against black job applicants, Marianne Bertrand of the University of Chicago and Sendhil Mullainathan of M.I.T. conducted an unusual experiment. They selected 1,300 help-wanted ads from newspapers in Boston and Chicago and submitted multiple r?sum?s from phantom job seekers. The researchers randomly assigned the first names on the r?sum?s, choosing from one set that is particularly common among blacks and from another that is common among whites. So Kristen and Tamika, and Brad and Tyrone, applied for jobs from the same pool of want ads and had equivalent r?sum?s. Nine names were selected to represent each category: black women, white women, black men and white men. Last names common to the racial group were also assigned. Four r?sum?s were typically submitted for each job opening, drawn from a reservoir of 160. Nearly 5,000 applications were submitted from mid-2001 to mid-2002. Professors Bertrand and Mullainathan kept track of which candidates were invited for job interviews.

No single employer was sent two identical r?sum?s, and the names on the r?sum?s were randomly assigned, so applicants with black- and white-sounding names applied for the same set of jobs with the same set of r?sum?s. Apart from their names, applicants had the same experience, education and skills, so employers had no reason to distinguish among them.

The results are disturbing. Applicants with white-sounding names were 50 percent more likely to be called for interviews than were those with black-sounding names. Interviews were requested for 10.1 percent of applicants with white-sounding names and only 6.7 percent of those with black-sounding names...

New York Times, Decemeber 12, 2002.

Let me guess, you're just going to say the New York Times is "ignorant."

Pick a new word for the love of God.

 

[Luthertaketwo]

Originally posted by getianshi
To test whether employers discriminate against black job applicants, Marianne Bertrand of the University of Chicago and Sendhil Mullainathan of M.I.T. conducted an unusual experiment. They selected 1,300 help-wanted ads from newspapers in Boston and Chicago and submitted multiple r?sum?s from phantom job seekers. The researchers randomly assigned the first names on the r?sum?s, choosing from one set that is particularly common among blacks and from another that is common among whites. So Kristen and Tamika, and Brad and Tyrone, applied for jobs from the same pool of want ads and had equivalent r?sum?s. Nine names were selected to represent each category: black women, white women, black men and white men. Last names common to the racial group were also assigned. Four r?sum?s were typically submitted for each job opening, drawn from a reservoir of 160. Nearly 5,000 applications were submitted from mid-2001 to mid-2002. Professors Bertrand and Mullainathan kept track of which candidates were invited for job interviews.

No single employer was sent two identical r?sum?s, and the names on the r?sum?s were randomly assigned, so applicants with black- and white-sounding names applied for the same set of jobs with the same set of r?sum?s. Apart from their names, applicants had the same experience, education and skills, so employers had no reason to distinguish among them.

The results are disturbing. Applicants with white-sounding names were 50 percent more likely to be called for interviews than were those with black-sounding names. Interviews were requested for 10.1 percent of applicants with white-sounding names and only 6.7 percent of those with black-sounding names...

New York Times, Decemeber 12, 2002.

Let me guess, you're just going to say the New York Times is "ignorant."

Pick a new word for the love of God.

So you agree, then, height is more of a factor than race. 72% vs 50%. Hmm?

 

[....]

Originally posted by getianshi
To test whether employers discriminate against black job applicants, Marianne Bertrand of the University of Chicago and Sendhil Mullainathan of M.I.T. conducted an unusual experiment. They selected 1,300 help-wanted ads from newspapers in Boston and Chicago and submitted multiple r?sum?s from phantom job seekers. The researchers randomly assigned the first names on the r?sum?s, choosing from one set that is particularly common among blacks and from another that is common among whites. So Kristen and Tamika, and Brad and Tyrone, applied for jobs from the same pool of want ads and had equivalent r?sum?s. Nine names were selected to represent each category: black women, white women, black men and white men. Last names common to the racial group were also assigned. Four r?sum?s were typically submitted for each job opening, drawn from a reservoir of 160. Nearly 5,000 applications were submitted from mid-2001 to mid-2002. Professors Bertrand and Mullainathan kept track of which candidates were invited for job interviews.

No single employer was sent two identical r?sum?s, and the names on the r?sum?s were randomly assigned, so applicants with black- and white-sounding names applied for the same set of jobs with the same set of r?sum?s. Apart from their names, applicants had the same experience, education and skills, so employers had no reason to distinguish among them.

The results are disturbing. Applicants with white-sounding names were 50 percent more likely to be called for interviews than were those with black-sounding names. Interviews were requested for 10.1 percent of applicants with white-sounding names and only 6.7 percent of those with black-sounding names...

New York Times, Decemeber 12, 2002.

Let me guess, you're just going to say the New York Times is "ignorant."

Pick a new word for the love of God.

The question was about credit and loans. This, a seperate issue, is still bothersome though. Yet has nothing to do with med school AA. I could rephase all of that you have above.

35K people sent in their resumes, when people of differing race but identical qualififations applied the black person was 50% more likely to ge the position.

The job being applied for was 'doctor'.

 

[medic8m]

thanks getianshi..
here is a link to some dept. of justice data:
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/housing/bll_01.htm

I dont have time to search for studies that proof racism exists. I see it all the time (but you dont want any anecdotes)

 

[cardsurgguy]

Posted by Medic
Only considering socioeconomic factors would be one way to change the current AA model. However, we can't get away from the fact the race, in many instances, DOES put people in a disadvantaged status. I'm not talking about education, I'm talking about life. Just look at all the stats regarding home loans, car sales, etc. ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL, it is more difficult for minorities to obtain loans, get jobs, buy cars, rent housing, etc. I'm not advocating the current system but we can't make a blanket statment about ignoring race altogether.

medic-It's a shame that it is the way you said in terms of certain aspects of life (ie your point about how it's more difficult for minorities to get a loan or buy cars). I've seen a few of these undercover journalism things on shows like 20/20 and Dateline where two employees of equal credit, salary, education apply or call for something and the minority gets rejected. This isn't the most scientific of study, since the sample set is small, but let's assume it's true.
This is comparing apples to oranges for 2 reasons. Medical school admissions (any school admissions for example) decisions are made by more educated and tolerant people than loan officers or car salesmen. Also, there are many people who make a decision about school acceptances. However, there's only 1 person (the loan officer, or car saleman) who makes a decision in these areas. Therefore, the chance that the race itself of a person will harm them because of a prejudice admissions officer is much less than the chance 1 single loan officer or car salesman can deny a minority these things.
Also, if it's discovered that a prejudice admissions officer didn't accept a strong minority applicant because they were a minority, that person is weakening that medical school's class, which will undoubtedly not be tolerated by the medical school since all medical school's want to have the strongest class possible. However, not selling 1 car or 1 loan because of a prejudice loan officer or car salesman isn't as big of a deal to the dealer or bank.

Posted by JayMiranti
Well that is a little idealistic no? I mean i know what you mean, sure everyone is the same, one love, but we all come from different CULTURES that cannot be denied.

Certain cultures have characteristics that promote or discourage entrance into professional careers. AA is intented to balance that out, and give a kid who has been discouraged to be a physician for WHATEVER reason ( financial/philosophical/whatever cultural value) a chance to transcend their own tradition if they choose...to enter into the wonderful theoretical "melting pot" everyone likes to think that America is..

Modern AA groups these cultures by race, which i agree is wrong, but that is the name of the game, trying to find out how to define the "disadvantaged"

"Disadvantaged" SHOULD be given preference (a reasonable amount) in my opinion until the proportions are equal, i.e. the same percentage of each group is a physician. Then cut it out...

Jay-I agree that certain cultures have certain preferences. That's part of the reason cultures are different. For example, when my mother went back to work after raising my sister and I, her mother/my grandmother (who was born in Greece and then came here, who was more traditional in values) gave my mother hell for doing it since the traditional old fashioned viewpoint is for the mother to stay at home and raise the kids. She thought my mother was abandoning her kids and being a bad mother.

You know what though? My mother did it anyways because she wanted to. Your particular cultures preference isn't an excuse that it's harder for you to be a physician. Saying that you've received negative views from your culture to go into medicine is just as much of an excuse than saying they sky is blue.

What you're culture says is meaningless. If you let others in your culture make it harder for you to go to medical school, then you don't deserve to be a physician because you're not a strong enough person.
Peer pressure (or cultural pressure as we're talking about here) is a cop-out for weak-mindedness. You should be able to resist all peer or cultural pressure in life to accomplish your goals.

I've never really been accepted by my culture. Many of the people of my ethnicity I knew growing up were more traditional in values since many of them were born in Greece and then immigrated here. Me personally I can't stand most of their traditional values, so as a result I didn't care for them that much, and as a result they looked negatively at me. So what?!?! I don't care whatsoever. My attitude to them is they can kiss my ass. If a person in my situation let's their culture influence them and actually cares what their culture thinks, they're too weakminded to be in medicine in the first place and don't deserve to be in this field.

 

[Luthertaketwo]

Originally posted by medic8m
thanks getianshi..
here is a link to some dept. of justice data:
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/housing/bll_01.htm

I dont have time to search for studies that proof racism exists. I see it all the time (but you dont want any anecdotes)

An excerpt from Getianshi'sstudy:

"The experiment, conducted between July 2001 and January 2002, reveals several other aspects of discrimination. If the fictitious resume indicates that the applicant lives in a wealthier, or more educated area, the callback rate rises. Interestingly, this effect does not differ by race. "

Lookie there: classism masquerading as racism once again.

 

[39094]

Originally posted by Luthertaketwo
So you agree, then, height is more of a factor than race. 72% vs 50%. Hmm?

I agree that both racism and "heightism" exist.

You accept one but not the other. +/- 22% is not the issue here, it's the absolute fact of whether racism exists in the US.

So far you haven't admitted to that, so I ask you the question directly:

Does racism against minorities exist in the United States?

And don't answer back about reverse discrimnation blah blah blah, that's not what I'm asking.

Simple yes or no question luther, I'm interested to hear your answer.

 

[medic8m]

Originally posted by cardsurgguy
medic-It's a shame that it is the way you said in terms of certain aspects of life (ie your point about how it's more difficult for minorities to get a loan or buy cars). I've seen a few of these undercover journalism things on shows like 20/20 and Dateline where two employees of equal credit, salary, education apply or call for something and the minority gets rejected. This isn't the most scientific of study, since the sample set is small, but let's assume it's true.
This is comparing apples to oranges for 2 reasons. Medical school admissions (any school admissions for example) decisions are made by more educated and tolerant people than loan officers or car salesmen. Also, there are many people who make a decision about school acceptances. However, there's only 1 person (the loan officer, or car saleman) who makes a decision in these areas. Therefore, the chance that the race itself of a person will harm them because of a prejudice admissions officer is much less than the chance 1 single loan officer or car salesman can deny a minority these things.
Also, if it's discovered that a prejudice admissions officer didn't accept a strong minority applicant because they were a minority, that person is weakening that medical school's class, which will undoubtedly not be tolerated by the medical school since all medical school's want to have the strongest class possible. However, not selling 1 car or 1 loan because of a prejudice loan officer or car salesman isn't as big of a deal to the dealer or bank.

Yes, definately, I agree. I wasn't making that point in relation to AA. My point was to counter those that were implying racism does not exist. I've seen it first hand, but nobody wants to hear a personal story. I have problems with AA but we must admit minorities are disadvantaged in general.

 

[Ryo-Ohki]

"When our lawyers examined loan files, they uncovered disturbing evidence that bank employees were providing assistance to white applicants that they were not providing to African-American and Hispanic applicants. Loan officers often did not help minority applicants explain negative information on their credit reports and document all of their income."
-------
It seems like in discriminatory cases like United States v. First National Bank of Do?a Ana County, the employees aren't going the extra mile to help blacks whereas they are doing so for other racial groups rather than just out and out racism (You're black. No loan for you).

-----
"Lenders are now using automated credit scoring systems for underwriting more and more credit products. These systems, used for many years for credit card underwriting, are also now being used by lenders making home mortgage, home improvement, and even business loan underwriting decisions."
-----
Good.


So, the question is, do you wish to eliminate racism in all aspects (when it hurts you and when it benefits you) or do you wish to be compensated for negative racism in one aspect of your life by positive racism in another aspect of your life?

35K people sent in their resumes, when people of differing race but identical qualififations applied the black person was 50% more likely to ge the position. The job being applied for was 'doctor'.

That was a pretty good burn.

 

[Luthertaketwo]

"I agree that both racism and "heightism" exist."

I can show that heightism is far more prolific and powerful than anything else. So AA should be based on height before race, right? This isn't rhetorical.

"You accept one but not the other. +/- 22% is not the issue here, it's the absolute fact of whether racism exists in the US."

See above.

"So far you haven't admitted to that, so I ask you the question directly:

Does racism against minorities exist in the United States?"

Yes, but is it of great of impact? Comparatively speaking, no. A number of things are far more important than race, which makes race a silly criterion for AA.

 

[medic8m]

The place to settle this is the courtroom

 

[Ryo-Ohki]

No, the place to settle this is the ballot box.

Judges should not have the power to make or contradict laws. The power should lie with the people.

 

[medic8m]

Originally posted by Ryo-Ohki
No, the place to settle this is the ballot box.

Judges should not have the power to make or change laws. The power should lie with the people.

I was refering to the constition. It is not a state issue. You dont elect the supreme court.

 

[Ryo-Ohki]

Yes, let's talk about the Constitution.

Which part of the current Constitution allows for separate admissions standards for whites and blacks (i.e.: different protection under the law for different races)?

 

[medic8m]

Originally posted by Ryo-Ohki
Yes, let's talk about the Constitution.

Which part of the current Constitution allows for separate admissions standards for whites and blacks (i.e.: different protection under the law for different races)?

I'm not a lawyer. Check out all the lawsuits and case-law on record regarding this issue. There is plenty. I dont want to debate the constitutionality of AA. I was merely pointing out that the supreme court interprets the constitution, not you. Go vote in November. Make AA your issue and do your thing man. More power to you.

Why do you get so fired up about this? Are you in the application process right now?

 

[Ryo-Ohki]

I enjoy talking about this issue.

You're the one who brought up the Constitution. Now you don't want to talk about it?

Yes, the SC is supposed to defend and interpret the Constitution. On what Constitutional basis did O'Connor decide Grutter vs UM?


You're right about voting in Nov. <plug>
http://www.michigancivilrights.com/ </plug>

 

[39094]

Thank you luther, finally got a straight answer out of you.

This will be my last post on this topic, too much negative energy going on for my taste.

I am not in favor of current AA policies, I only argue in favor of AA because I think this issue is more complicated than luther and others make it out to be.

That and luther just comes off as an overconfident pr*ck.

so, a little reading for all interested. This study can be taken either way but makes some interesting points:

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6920/3/6

 

[medic8m]

Originally posted by Ryo-Ohki
I enjoy talking about this issue.

You're the one who brought up the Constitution. Now you don't want to talk about it?

Yes, the SC is supposed to defend and interpret the Constitution. On what Constitutional basis did O'Connor decide Grutter vs UM?


You're right about voting in Nov. <plug>
http://www.michigancivilrights.com/ </plug>

I dont know about your O'Conner reference, did she publish a ruling? I dont know.

The destruction of AA is not the purpose of my life. You obviously feel very passionate about the issue. Good for you! This is America! Why dont you hire a lawyer and file a class action? I doubt your negative rhetoric is going to change any minds on SDN. You come of as a whiner. Did you not get into med school and blame minorities for it? Seriously. I could care less about your put downs. I'm starting med school this fall. I was accepted to a UC and I'm white so dont give up hope!!

 

[medic8m]

Minorities and those from disadvantaged backgrounds tend to go back and serve in their own communities. Why not look at it from a public health perspective. Doctors are in great need in these areas. You cant force doctors to practice in a certain area so why not admit those which are more likely to? This is actually the angle manu AdComs take on AA.

 

[Ryo-Ohki]

So base Affirmative Action on the willingness to serve in an assigned area after graduation...not race. You can even make them sign a contract before you admit them into your med school. Don't underserved areas deserve an applicant pool of all races rather than an applicant pool of just minorities?

Yes, don't discriminate against me because of my race. How terribly "whining" and "uppity" of me.

 

[39094]

Okay, I lied, not my last post

Here's the bottom line:

I interviewed at Harvard, Hopkins, Wash U and Duke. I attended classes at most of my interviews, so I got to have a good look at either the first year class or the second year class at each of these schools.

Luther might lead you to believe that URMs would make up the majority of the students at these schools, but you know what? The VAST majority of the students were white. I didn't stop to take an exact racial headcount, but the fact is that I didn't see any incongruous numbers of minorities at any of these schools.

And I got accepted to 2 of these schools, and I'm a middle-class white boy.

So, debate the merits of AA you want, but don't blame AA for your failures. Try bringing up your MCAT score and GPA first.

 

[medic8m]

Originally posted by Ryo-Ohki
So base Affirmative Action on the willingness to serve in an assigned area after graduation...not race. You can even make them sign a contract before you admit them into your med school.

Yes, don't discriminate against me because of my race. How "whining" and "uppity" of me.

hmm, thats a good idea. I'm not sure how legal it is. How would you enforce it? I think the only way would be paying back loans or other financial incentives. I don't believe you could force someone to serve in a certain area as a condition of their admission. What would stop them from changing their mind at the end? They could forgive loans for serving in underserved areas - but I think they already do.

 

[Ryo-Ohki]

I think most people are arguing about the process, not the result.

The fact is, some groups are getting on average of 0.3 and 6 points added on to their GPA and MCAT respectively.

Does it matter if the result was 0 applicants were admitted/denied because of this? Does it matter if 1000 applicants were admitted/denied? No, it is the very fact that the process uses "race" as a factor that matters.

 

[OrthoFixation]

In review:

Blacks need AA to reach parity in undergrad college. Done.

Blacks need AA to reach parity in med / law school. Done.

Whites / Asians need AA to reach parity in basketball and football (college and pro levels). Not done, what the heck?

(if the present PC trend continues, Board Score requirements will be next to fall, since standardized tests discriminate against minorities)

Anyone receiving benefits & entitlements is not willing to give them up (regardless of original intent) Ex: rich blacks vs. poor whites, tall people vs. short people, GQ looks vs. homely (some of us med-geeks would benefit greatly from Dating AA), college legacy matriculants vs. first generation, AARP & seniors extorting gov't for socialized prescription meds.

The % of population of your race entitles you to that same percent representation in EVERY career field. Working on that one, but unlikely to ever get there. See sports above.

A cultures' values may skew other aspects of "fairness" but the government should make it all even-steven. Ex. Black culture does not generally value marriage or legitimate children, but Uncle Sam is expected to make up for the shortfall via entitlement programs. Ex2: Most crimes against the black community are perpetuated by blacks, however disproportionate numbers of blacks in prison is racist. Ex3: Which minority groups predominantly drive cars that cost more that their homes?



The problem today is PERSONAL ACCOUNTABILITY. If you do not like where you are, look for the answers in the mirror. Not from entitlements.


Too many people (of all races) feel like they are owed something. News bulletin: perform and ye shall prosper, regardless of the odds and hurdles. Nobody owes you anything.

One last thought: If any med school selection formula favored you, would you be willing to voluntarily give that advantage up?

I doubt any would.


The current rules suck. So let's change them. None of this will help all of us currently fighting the PC & entitlement mentality while attempting to gain admission.

 

[Ryo-Ohki]

Yes, it's the National Health Service Corps. http://nhsc.bhpr.hrsa.gov/

With legislation we can place more bite into keeping a promise to serve in a pre-assigned area.
There are several ways to do this like:
1) Withholding board certification
2) Incurring a large liability ($1 million penalty for not keeping your promise).
3) Public shaming (publishing the names of those who break their promise)


There is a basis for contracts for admission into medical school. Look at the USUHS. For admissions, you have to sign a contract that you'll give 4 years of your post-residency life to go anywhere Uncle Sam tells you to go. We can extend the idea of contracts to civilian medical schools as well.

 

[medic8m]

Originally posted by OrthoFixation
In review:

Blacks need AA to reach parity in undergrad college. Done.

Blacks need AA to reach parity in med / law school. Done.

Whites / Asians need AA to reach parity in basketball and football (college and pro levels). Not done, what the heck?

(if the present PC trend continues, Board Score requirements will be next to fall, since standardized tests discriminate against minorities)

Anyone receiving benefits & entitlements is not willing to give them up (regardless of original intent) Ex: rich blacks vs. poor whites, tall people vs. short people, GQ looks vs. homely (some of us med-geeks would benefit greatly from Dating AA), college legacy matriculants vs. first generation, AARP & seniors extorting gov't for socialized prescription meds.

The % of population of your race entitles you to that same percent representation in EVERY career field. Working on that one, but unlikely to ever get there. See sports above.

Your cultures values may skew other aspects of "fairness" but the government should make it all even-steven. Ex. Black culture does not generally value marriage or legitimate children, but Uncle Sam is expected to make up for the shortfall via entitlement programs. Ex2: Most crimes against the black community are perpetuated by blacks, however disproportionate numbers of blacks in prison is racist. Ex3: Which minority groups predominantly drive cars that cost more that their homes?



The problem today is PERSONAL ACCOUNTABILITY. If you do not like where you are, look for the answers in the mirror.


Too many people (of all races) feel like they are owed something. News bulletin: perform and ye shall prosper, regardless of the odds and hurdles. Nobody owes you anything.

One last thought: If any med school selection formula favored you, would you be willing to voluntarily give that advantage up?

I doubt any would.


The current rules suck. So let's change them. None of this will help all of us currently fighting the PC & entitlement mentality while attempting to gain admission.

Great post..

I'm reminded of this short story, I can't remember the author. Its a futuristic short-story on this issue. The more intellegent people are forced to wear this earpiece that transmits a high frequency sound to distract them every few minutes. Athletic people are required to wear a sandbag around there neck at all times. In the end the protagonist kills himself. I wish a could remember the title. Anyway, yes, things can go to far with leveling the playingfield. I think the problem would take care of itself if our society put more resources toward community based social programs. The problem should be addressed before kids get into school/college. Maybe this would eliminate the need for AA in the first place. the issue could be resolved not through changing AA but eliminating it due to lack of need.

 

[Luthertaketwo]

Originally posted by medic8m
Great post..

I'm reminded of this short story, I can't remember the author. Its a futuristic short-story on this issue. The more intellegent people are forced to wear this earpiece that transmits a high frequency sound to distract them every few minutes. Athletic people are required to wear a sandbag around there neck at all times. In the end the protagonist kills himself. I wish a could remember the title. Anyway, yes, things can go to far with leveling the playingfield. I think the problem would take care of itself if our society put more resources toward community based social programs. The problem should be addressed before kids get into school/college. Maybe this would eliminate the need for AA in the first place. the issue could be resolved not through changing AA but eliminating it due to lack of need.

I've read that too. Doesn't the guy in it kill the teacher first and than himself with a 10 gauge shotgun?

 

[medic8m]

Hey Ryo-Ohki, that tag after your post is Title VII right? It only applies to employment and places of public accomodation. Universities are neither so it doesn't apply to affirmative action. Just thought I'd point that out since it seems you are using it as a legal foder to dump AA.