- Joined
- Dec 29, 2015
- Messages
- 89
- Reaction score
- 26
Nothing contributes more to global warming that a discussion on affirmative action and ds admission. As with most passionate exchanges, they are usually long on conjecture and short on statistical evidence to support their claim.
This post is not about whether affirmative action is right or wrong, legal or illegal, fair or unfair, just or unjust, good or bad. It is more about how the ds admission process appears to be dealing with diversities of students that apply and get accepted. Judging the wisdom of Howard adcoms on the acceptance of a student with an AA of 12 may be premature, at least, until all the vital statistics of the student in question are brought into focus. With 127 years of experience for Howard and 132 years for Meharry, one would expect there is enough tradition at the two institutions to have acquired reasonable experience to choose the best candidates to meet the school's criteria. The true measure of whether or not the choices adcoms make are wise does not lie in the absolute values of the mean or range of gpa/dat scores but rather on the retention rate of enrollees and the number of years of practice the graduates of the institution provide the community. The degree of competency of the practitioner is not a function of how "good" a dentist he or she may be, but rather on whether they are able to meet the needs of the immediate community that they serve.
ADEA provides statistical information on gender, age, and ethnic background (White, African American, Hispanic/Latino, Native America/Alaskan Native. Asian/, Pacific Islander, Other, and Not Reported). It also provides information on academic background in terms of pre dental education and mean gpa and DAT scores.
It should be understood, that while statistical information for individual school is provided, it is a great deal more difficult to make generalization regarding particular school because each applicant applies, on the average, to 10 ds.
In order to assess the impact of "affirmative action" on the chances of admission for either the minority or the majority it is necessary to review to available statistical evidence.
Dental schools have an interest in having a heterogeneous group of students. The diversity of the student body extends to sex, ethnic and socio-economic background as well as academic background. The exception to the diversity of the students in terms ethnic background applies to a limited extent to schools such as Meharry, Howard and Puerto Rico. On a national basis, it is no coincidence that the distribution of various groups in the applicant and enrollees pools parallel one another. As can be seen from the table, 55 % of the applicants and 56.6% of the enrollees are males. A similar trend is seen between the applicants/enrollees pool in the ethnic background as well as undergraduate majors. For example, 12.2% of the applicants and 13.2% of the enrollees are chemistry/physics majors. The need for diversity including educational background may explain why in some cases a "less qualified" was accepted over a "more qualified" applicant. A ds whose top 100 applicants are all white or any ethnic group, all males or all females with a degree in electrical engineering are unlikely to be all accepted inspite of their credentials.
The national average of African Americans is roughly 5/ds, which drops to less than 4 when we exclude Mehhary and Howard. The averages, however, are somewhat misleading considering the fact that for 2007 there were 11 ds with zero, 11 with one and 7 with two Affrican American enrolles. Thus, more than half of the ds in the nation had less than two Affrican American per school. Hispanics fared slightly better with 5/school. In this case, as well, there 7 schools with zero, 6 with one, 5 with two, and 11 with three Hispanics/school. As with African Americans, more than half of the schools in the nation had less than 3. For the majority of schools, the numbers appear to suggest that "affirmative action" does not have a significant negative impact on admission nor does it support the notion that those with "more competitive" stats are being displaced by the "less qualified" minorities.
Statistical data was obtained from the 2008 ADEA Official Guide to Dental Schools.
https://access.adea.org/adeassa/ecs...st_id=&p_order_serno=&p_promo_cd=&p_price_cd=
.Code:2008 ADEA Official Guide to DS Appl Enrol App/Enr % of App% of Enr Total 12010 4599 2.6 Male 6604 2603 2.5 55.0 56.6 Female 5404 1995 2.7 45.0 43.3 White 6835 2736 2.5 57.0 59.5 Afr/Am 704 284 2.5 5.9 6.2 His/Lat 679 286 2.4 5.7 6.2 Nat Am 84 35 2.4 0.7 0.7 Asian 2704 937 2.9 22.5 20.4 Other 677 210 3.2 5.6 4.6 N/R 327 111 2.9 2.7 2.4
.Code:Undergraduate Majors of DS App/enroll. Major % Appl % Enroll Bio 52.6 56.6 Chem/Phy 12.2 13.2 Eng 2.4 3.0 Math/Cs 1.2 1.3 SS 1.3 1.0 Bus 3.7 3.7 Ed 0.6 0.6 L/Hum/Art 2.7 2.9 Pre 12.3 11.4 Other 8.3 7.8 Nm/Nr 2.7 1.7
.Code:Total M F M % F % 1 Alaba 60 35 24 58 40 2 Arizona 60 31 29 52 48 3 Loma 95 67 28 71 29 4 UCLA 88 48 40 55 45 5 UCSF 85 45 40 53 47 6 UOP 141 78 63 55 45 7 USC 144 94 50 65 35 8 Colo 50 28 16 56 32 9 Conn 39 20 19 51 49 10 Howard 82 45 37 55 45 11 NOVA 93 51 42 55 45 12 Florida 83 33 50 40 60 13 Georgia 63 39 24 62 38 14 S. Illi 50 29 20 58 40 15 Illi 68 39 31 57 46 16 Indiana 101 62 39 61 39 17 Iowa 80 46 34 58 43 18 Kent 56 36 20 64 36 19 Louisv 84 53 31 63 37 20 Louisi 60 37 23 62 38 21 Maryl 130 63 67 48 52 22 Boston 115 60 55 52 48 23 Harvard 35 16 19 46 54 24 Tufts 166 85 81 51 49 25 Mercy 78 42 36 54 46 26 Mich 105 54 51 51 49 27 Minn 96 55 41 57 43 28 Miss 35 18 17 51 49 29 MisouKC 104 55 49 53 47 30 Creigh 85 49 36 58 42 31 Neb 45 19 26 42 58 32 Nevada 78 59 19 76 24 33 UMDNJ 87 45 42 52 48 34 Colum 77 36 41 47 53 35 NY 228 128 99 56 43 36 SUNY SB 39 19 20 49 51 37 SUNY B 88 54 34 61 39 38 N Carol 76 37 39 49 51 39 Case 85 57 28 67 33 40 Ohio 103 63 39 61 38 41 Okla 58 39 19 67 33 42 Oregon 75 51 24 68 32 43 Penn 115 53 62 46 54 44 Pitt 78 52 26 67 33 45 Temple 125 72 53 58 42 46 PR 42 18 24 43 57 47 S Carol 56 41 15 73 27 48 Meharry 51 24 27 47 53 49 Tenn 80 46 34 58 43 50 Baylor 95 49 46 52 48 51 UT Hou 84 36 48 43 57 52 UT-SA 94 50 32 53 34 53 Virg 90 52 38 58 42 54 Wash 55 32 23 58 42 55 W Va 51 31 20 61 39 56 Marque 80 50 30 63 38 % % 4666 2626 2020 56 43
.Code:Total Af/Am Hisp Af/Am % Hisp % 1 Alaba 60 2 2 3 3 2 Arizona 60 0 6 0 10 3 Loma 95 6 5 6 5 4 UCLA 88 4 11 5 13 5 UCSF 85 1 3 1 4 6 UOP 141 3 16 2 11 7 USC 144 5 5 3 3 8 Colo 50 0 2 0 4 9 Conn 39 1 0 3 0 10 Howard 82 40 4 49 5 11 NOVA 93 2 9 2 10 12 Florida 83 7 13 8 16 13 Georgia 63 3 3 5 5 14 S. Illi 50 3 3 6 6 15 Illi 68 7 5 10 7 16 Indiana 101 1 0 1 0 17 Iowa 80 2 6 3 8 18 Kent 56 6 1 11 2 19 Louisv 84 8 1 10 1 20 Louisi 60 1 0 2 2 21 Maryl 130 9 3 7 2 22 Boston 115 3 11 3 10 23 Harvard 35 1 1 3 3 24 Tufts 166 14 3 8 2 25 Mercy 78 4 3 5 4 26 Mich 105 10 6 10 6 27 Minn 96 1 6 1 6 28 Miss 35 5 0 14 0 29 MisouKC 104 2 3 2 3 30 Creigh 85 1 6 1 7 31 Neb 45 0 3 0 7 32 Nevada 78 0 4 0 5 33 UMDNJ 87 5 3 6 3 34 Colum 77 5 3 6 4 35 NY 228 3 13 1 6 36 SUNY SB 39 0 1 0 3 37 SUNY B 88 0 1 0 1 38 N Carol 76 10 2 13 3 39 Case 85 0 2 0 2 40 Ohio 103 3 3 3 3 41 Okla 58 0 2 0 3 42 Oregon 75 0 0 0 0 43 Penn 115 4 7 3 6 44 Pitt 78 1 8 1 10 45 Temple 125 4 14 3 11 46 PR 42 0 42 0 100 47 S Carol 56 2 1 4 2 48 Meharry 51 48 0 94 0 49 Tenn 80 10 0 13 0 50 Baylor 95 13 30 14 32 51 UT Hou 84 1 14 1 17 52 UT-SA 94 1 7 1 7 53 Virg 90 2 5 2 6 54 Wash 55 1 4 2 7 55 W Va 51 2 4 4 8 56 Marque 80 0 5 0 6 % % 4666 267 315 6 7
This shouldn't even be a discussion.
SIMPLY PUT NO PERSON SHOULD BE JUDGED BY THE COLOR OF THEIR SKIN/ETHNICITY ON ANY PHYSICAL OR MENTAL ABILITIES WHETHER BENEFECIAL OR HARMFUL TO THAT PERSON BECAUSE THE COLOR OF SOMEONES SKIN/ETHNICITY DOES NOT GIVE THEM ANY MORE ABILITY OR DISADVANTAGE OVER ANOTHER.
