Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
They're an ORM in an argument with URMs, and its based on the intent of affirmative action specifically in higher education.
It has everything to do with it.
-
CycleTrack and SDN are teaming up to make medical school admissions more transparent and accessible! Read the announcement to learn how we’re supporting the future of CycleTrack’s free application-tracking tools .
Are acceptances for minorities really that skewed?
Started by buymecookies
Get help with your application
Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.
They're an ORM in an argument with URMs, and its based on the intent of affirmative action specifically in higher education.
It has everything to do with it.
He's a raving lunatic.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Ok, so now that you had your butt handed to you on the SCOTUS case, you want to jump to something else? I'll paste it again: "This case is not about how the debate (over racial preferences) should be resolved," Justice Anthony Kennedy said in announcing the ruling."
D
deleted480308
got to disagree with you here, that alone is not justification any more than more engineers are male would be reason to give extra consideration to women...
In industry they do care and most companies go out of their way to higher female engineers.
Ironically enough they do both at the university education level and job level.
D
deleted480308
only so they can put on their pamphlets how diverse they are because we have marketed to people the imaginary concept that it matters......gender has no influence on engineering skill, as race has none on medical skill
No. Because the CEO actually gives a shet about gender equality and wants women to have a seat at the table. Mr. Tp is on a task force about how to encourage female engineers all the way from getting girls in middle school interested in engineering to how to make the plant more female friendly.
They have a goal about wanting to interview X percentage of women. Doesn't mean they will necessarily get the job, but at least get a shot
D
deleted480308
it's not gender equality to chase X percentage of applicants. it's gender equality to not care what their gender is when reviewing applicants.....I would assume that you, with your advocacy background, would see that
I just came here to say that MDforMee is getting burned like a wildfire...you guys carry on now. 
You cant create an environment conductive to gender equality without going out of your way to recruit women. Talk to female software engineers about this or go to a hackathon and see how they treat women. Same is true in engineering. Their work is undervalued and they are dropped usually to the "designer" position and people never assume they are actually lead engineers. This is because there are not enough women in these roles to begin with. Like minority recruitment its a problem that tries to shove a wedge in a self-perpetuating problem.
I just came here to say that MDforMee is getting burned like a wildfire...you guys carry on now.
He's being ignored because he's a little too ignorant of the URM issue.
You're still talking software engineering here, right?
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
D
deleted480308
teaching people to not discriminate promotes equality of treatment, literally having a separate and more intensive search for one gender than you have for the other is completely the opposite of equal treatment
I suppose one way to do it would be to review resumes without any names in order to reduce any gendered bias. The problem though is that not a lot of women go into engineering in the first place. So trying to inspire girls at the middle and elementary school is important. Also trying to make the workplace female friendly when they get there is also important. It can be as simple as making sure there are enough bathrooms or more complex like preventing sexual harassment.
D
deleted480308
I think those are very fair points and I agree with you on this
Is one of the root arguments that they don't want to go into engineering in the first place because they feel the role is essentially a man's through workplace culture/environment/precedent?
No it's not that simple. As young girls grow older they lose confidence in themselves, specifically in their math and science skills. Why does this happen? No one has the perfect answer. Maybe it has to do with the lack of toys aimed at girls that teach STEM skills? Maybe they start getting the message that other things are more important than their own education, specifically their appearance or how well liked they are. Maybe it has to do with a lack of role models (if you can't see it you can't be it)? I think it probably has to do with a lot of subtle messages that girls get.
Sooo you are accepting that you're wrong?
D
deleted480308
I think that it's true in a lot of fields...and I think it goes both ways for different things too. Not a whole lot of societal encouragement for men to be nurses and kindergarten teachers...and women fall behind the numbers of men in lawyers/doctors/engineers. It could be that we just choose things differently but I'm sure some of the reasoning of societal influence
You have reading to do. Start with learning the different motives behind AA in admissions to Universities vs. URM status in medical school admissions. When you've learned the difference, get back with us.
So, you're saying they don't want to go into engineering because they don't feel confident in their math and science skills?
I think there should be more male kindergarten teachers and nurses. There is no reason why they can't be excellent in those fields. My kindergarten teacher was a guy and he was the best.
I think men and women have equal aptitude at all careers and the discrepancy has to do more with historical trends and societal expectations than anything else.
I think that has a lot to do it.
QFT I'm so sick of hearing people talking about SCOTUS striking down affirmative action. Can people not read anymore??? Or are you just too lazy to read past the headline?
Very true. As much as sexual harassment is lampooned, esp. in medicine, there are definite biases against women, esp. in certain specialties - i.e. Surgery.
They look at the headline and draw conclusions. Just like those who think doctors are making million dollar salaries from payments from Medicare.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
The whole "diversity for the sake of diversity" argument is very weak. It surprises me how many people at the physician level of intelligence buy it.
It will be a good day for the medical field when admission is granted to the most qualified applicant in every case.
It will be a good day for the medical field when admission is granted to the most qualified applicant in every case.
Yes and if I see another comment or headline talking about published doctor salaries I'm jumping off a roof. Reading comprehension is a dying skill
Drives me nuts as well. Does no one read SCOTUSblog??
Very true. I know Winged Scapula has brought up some crap she has had to deal with as a female surgeon. Le sigh. Eventually I think things will improve, but I'm the eternal optimist.
Hmm... i wonder how male dominated psych is.
Rofl @DermViser. Either you're lying about being a resident or you're by far the most immature MD I've met on this forum. Talk about getting their panties in a wad.
A lion does not concern himself with the opinion of the sheep my hysterical friend, but please, please continue!
Speaking of self-perpetuating... Your idea of hurting group A to help group B does wonders to perpetuate racial hatred. Very socialistic.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
So, let me get this straight.
You guys want to discriminate against certain races until the physician demography matches the public demography (e.g. if 10% of Americans are black we make 10% of physicians black).
Not only this, but we are doing this so that blacks go to black doctors, Whites go to White doctors, Asians go to Asian doctors, all because, of course, same-race physicians "have been shown" to provide better care.
This sounds like a great step forward for the American culture. Perhaps, we could make black-only buses and white-only restaurants, because, of course (studies have shown!!!1111), whites would rather be served by white waiters and blacks are more likely to trust a black person (bus driver) with their life than a white guy.
It's funny... You guys claim to want to eliminate racial discrimination and promote equality, yet, ironically your actions all point toward the opposite.
A lion does not concern himself with the opinion of the sheep my hysterical friend, but please, please continue!
+1sb247 said:
Lucca said:
Speaking of self-perpetuating... Your idea of hurting group A to help group B does wonders to perpetuate racial hatred. Very socialistic.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
So, let me get this straight.
You guys want to discriminate against certain races until the physician demography matches the public demography (e.g. if 10% of Americans are black we make 10% of physicians black).
Not only this, but we are doing this so that blacks go to black doctors, Whites go to White doctors, Asians go to Asian doctors, all because, of course, same-race physicians "have been shown" to provide better care.
This sounds like a great step forward for the American culture. Perhaps, we could make black-only buses and white-only restaurants, because, of course (studies have shown!!!1111), whites would rather be served by white waiters and blacks are more likely to trust a black person (bus driver) with their life than a white guy.
It's funny... You guys claim to want to eliminate racial discrimination and promote equality, yet, ironically your actions all point toward the opposite.
First thing I thought too! I love that blog when it comes to explaining cases (and getting things right).
I'm a minority, got in with stats lower than most of the whites/asians. Top 5 in my class. Maybe I didn't deserve to get in, but I deserve to be here now.
Where did I say I support affirmative action? Please quote me where I say that.
I think that's a really easy position to have when you are 1) in the majority 2) have no interest in the big picture of public/community health. Thankfully, medicine doesn't have such a limiting perspective. The skills to be a great physician are sooooo much more than gpa, mcat and step scores, no matter what color or gender you are. Medicine has acknowledged that and they are in a mad dash to revamp admissions and curriculum to emphasize soft skills and teamwork just as much as book learning. Being a doctor is more than scores.
It's funny to me that people want to give preference to certain ethnicities for admissions, but rarely do any real work in the community to help the root of the problem.
I tutor at community colleges in poor areas, mentor black students, host cv workshops with black scholarship programs, and work with mesa programs.
What do you do?
I tutor at community colleges in poor areas, mentor black students, host cv workshops with black scholarship programs, and work with mesa programs.
What do you do?
You didn't get the memo? Apparently how great of a doctor and the strength of your clinical skills is completely predicted by your undergraduate GPA and standardized test scores.
Using URM kids to put more notches in your gunbelt for the sake of getting ahead med school admissions hardly gives you moral credibility on this issue.
Very unfortunate. "Being a team player" should have very little importance for being a doctor. If the medical field continues to allow physicians to be stripped of their autonomy and status as head of the medical team, the field will no longer attract the brightest and most talented people. It's a scary thought.
Haha maybe that's what people infer from the stated goals but it's not the intention. The policy acknowledges the fact that many (not all) minority patients are distrustful of white people and prefer doctors of color that may be able to relate to their culture. If you spoke Spanish wouldn't you prefer a doctor that understands you? But it doesn't just benefit patients of color. I think it benefits society when you have more examples of minorities in respectable positions in societies. Many people aren't exposed to minorities beyond positions of labor. Would you want your kids to grow up in a world where the only black person they know is the nanny?
I'm not saying I support race based admissions, I'm just saying it's not so black and white and i support the overall end result.
Why don't people cry so much about legacy admissions? There was actually an article about it in the times today. You know why? You can't point a finger and see who is obviously a legacy admit - and legacy admissions make money.
Last edited:
Okay, I'm done with you.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Damn how did I get in? My med school must have missed that memo!
Ok this really made me laugh!
Do you have any clinical experience beyond watching ER? Medicine is all about team work and communication. That kind of attitude is why a surgeon accidentally amputates the wrong foot or no one corrects the doctor giving an antibiotic a patient is allergic to. You are in for a rude awakening IF you ever become a doctor.
And maybe it is because they are naturally less gifted at math - and they lose the ability to follow along in the ever-increasingly difficult lectures? Even if it's unfair, that doesn't mean it's not true.
And they are just naturally better at cleaning. Oh please
Similar threads
