Are acceptances for minorities really that skewed?

[sat0ri]

---

Members do not see this ad.

The irony.

Btw I'm black.

Btw I'm not rich.

Btw you're a hypocrite.

Btw I set your ass up.

Me, like One comment before: "I'm familar with that. But what I'm wondering is, if your AA and grew up in an affluent family, with superior education, and in a gentrified town, do you get the boost? You said it is not based on skin-color, so I'm trying figure out what is. SES seems like the reasonable explanation. But if all those things are controlled for (which I'm attempting to do with my hypothetical) and they still get a boost, then it does seem like it is in fact skin color that is making the difference."
This is so idiotic that you think you've accomplished anything. And how am I a hypocrite???

 

[MDforMee]

I'm getting more and more convinced you have no idea what is going on around you. Affirmative action in California has not existed for some time so a continued ban doesn't mean much. Med schools don't see AA as well so the point is moot. If there was AA then I wouldn't have been one of 15 natives on my campus at a UC.

Quick, you'd better write the ap news to tell them of their glaring error, too!

California Affirmative Action Bill Sparks Pushback From Asian-Americans

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Nearly 20 years after California became the first state to ban the use of race and ethnicity in college admissions, a proposal to reinstate affirmative action has sparked a backlash that is forging a new divide in the state's powerful Democratic Party and creating opportunity for conservatives.

 

[BamaNicole]

Quick, you'd better write the ap news to tell them of their glaring error, too!

California Affirmative Action Bill Sparks Pushback From Asian-Americans

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Nearly 20 years after California became the first state to ban the use of race and ethnicity in college admissions, a proposal to reinstate affirmative action has sparked a backlash that is forging a new divide in the state's powerful Democratic Party and creating opportunity for conservatives.

so again....we need to work on some reading comprehension....THERE IS NO AA AND HASN'T BEEN FOR 20 YEARS.

There is no AA in med school admissions as well. So stop complaining, comparing yourself to people and making yourself a martyr.

Geez.....if you don't focus on what you need to do to gain admissions and stop making excuses for everything you're going to be your own worst enemy.

 

[dyspareunia]

so again....we need to work on some reading comprehension....THERE IS NO AA AND HASN'T BEEN FOR 20 YEARS.

There is no AA in med school admissions as well. So stop complaining, comparing yourself to people and making yourself a martyr.

Geez.....

It doesn't matter what you call it, there is AA in med school admissions. How else would URMs be getting in with significantly lower stats on average?

 

[BamaNicole]

It doesn't matter what you call it, there is AA in med school admissions. How else would URMs be getting in with significantly lower stats on average?

There are ORMs that get in with significantly lower stats. How do you explain that?

 

[MDforMee]

so again....we need to work on some reading comprehension....THERE IS NO AA AND HASN'T BEEN FOR 20 YEARS.

There is no AA in med school admissions as well. So stop complaining, comparing yourself to people and making yourself a martyr.

Geez.....if you don't focus on what you need to do to gain admissions and stop making excuses for everything you're going to be your own worst enemy.

It disturbs me that you converse with people on a pre-professional forum in the ways that you do. Something tells me that you're going to have problems with people down the road in the real world.

Anyhow, since I've corrected you twice now, and because you still seem to think that my reply to your post stating

I still think its funny that people are crying about affirmative action in med school admissions. You'd think that schools had quotas to fill....which is not true.

should have nothing to do with this month's repeal of an Affirmative Action recall in California, let me again correct you (the third time, now) and post a great summary of Affirmative Action's place in Medical School admissions.

Affirmative Action and Medical School Admissions
Valarie Blake, JD, MA

Are medical schools allowed to consider race and ethnicity in their admissions process? Since 1978 and the landmark case of Regents of University of California v. Bakke, the answer has generally been a nuanced yes, but the issue has been hotly debated again; the Supreme Court heard the latest challenge to affirmative action in higher education— Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin—on October 10, 2012. As Grutter v. Bollinger, the last high court review of this topic, was only a decade ago, speculation abounds about whether the court intends to overturn the status quo by banning race as a legitimate admissions factor [1]. This article will highlight the decisions of all three relevant Supreme Court cases and situate the debate about affirmative action within the context of medicine and medical education in the U.S....

And another...


Affirmative Action in U.S. Medical Schools
Affirmative action is a deliberate race-conscious recruitment goal
designed to equalize access within a set time frame to the high-status
jobs and professions such as medicine, from which Blacks have been un-
fairly excluded for many generations. The concept is based on the premise
that relief from illegal racial discrimination is not enough to remove the
burden of second-class citizenship from Blacks and other underrepresented
minority groups in the United States. In the case of Blacks, for exam...


I'll run out of posting space if I paste the entire articles, above. I'll leave it at that.

Also, I think that you'll find that ethnicity-based admissions in higher education DIRECTLY affects the medical school applicant pool.

Run along, now.

 

[sat0ri]

There are ORMs that get in with significantly lower stats. How do you explain that?

http://www.amsa.org/AMSA/Homepage/about/priorities/diversity.aspx
Section "Affirmative Action Past& Present" Clears up that quotas are not used, but it is a "plus factor"

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/reu/program_overview.php
under commitment to diversity it explicitly says affirmative action. This is sort of unrelated to med school admission, but just to give you an idea it's definitely out there (wrong or not is being debated here)

 

[WillburCobb]

It disturbs me that you converse with people on a pre-professional forum in the ways that you do. Something tells me that you're going to have problems with people down the road in the real.

It's weird because I get the exact same feeling about you...

 

[MDforMee]

It doesn't matter what you call it, there is AA in med school admissions. How else would URMs be getting in with significantly lower stats on average?

She got caught in a few unfounded, loud-mouthed rants and is backtracking/twisting things around, IMO

 

[487806]

Why? Why would you do this? If you joined this site in October 2013 then you have been around long enough to know how this is going to turn out.

Rather than thinking about "this African American applicant will have this much of a higher chance of getting in than an Asian of equal stats", think of it like "The diversity I bring is very valuable to the field of medicine and admissions committees recognize that".

While these two posts pretty much sealed the thread early on, premeds have nothing better to do but to throw garbage, logical fallacies, and flames at one another to extend this thread to 10+ pages. Preallo will always remain the same unfortunately

 

[WillburCobb]

(S)he got caught in a few unfounded, loud-mouthed rants

Familiar territory?

 

[WillburCobb]

While these two posts pretty much sealed the thread early on, premeds have nothing better to do but to throw garbage, logical fallacies, and flames at one another to extend this thread to 10+ pages. Preallo will always remain the same unfortunately

I kinda like it for that. It helps me trudge through the work week.

 

[487806]

I kinda like it for that. It helps me trudge through the work week.

No it's annoying and drives long-term and productive members away.

 

[WillburCobb]

No it's annoying and drives long-term and productive members away.

It's a step-up from half-assed trolls like rifle.

 

[487806]

It's a step-up from half-assed trolls like rifle.

Lesson learned: full-assed >> 2 half-assed!

 

[WillburCobb]

Lesson learned: full-assed >> 2 half-assed!

Purdy much.

 

[medskoolmaybe]

In June 2003, the AAMC Executive Council adopted the following: "'Underrepresented in medicine' (URM) means those racial and ethnic populations that are underrepresented in the medical profession relative to their numbers in the general population."

The focus of the committee's work was the continued viability of AAMC's then-current definition of "underrepresented minority" (or "URM") as including only African-Americans, Mexican-Americans, Native Americans, and mainland Puerto Ricans. The re- examination of this definition resulted from: (1) the efforts of persons from racial and ethnic groups not included in the URM definition who sought access to the benefits thought to be available to those categorized as URMs (for example, special recruitment programs) and (2) efforts to make AAMC data congruent with recent changes in data collection practices as described in the federal government’s Office of Management and Budget Directive 15.

One of the constraints on a permissible admissions program set out by the Court is the prohibition of "racial balancing" as a purpose.

Consequently, because striving for "population parity" is tantamount to seeking a goal of "racial balancing," both the AAMC and its member medical schools must avoid this formulation as the animating force of our efforts. Instead, institutional language and thinking about the purpose of affirmative action must focus on the educational benefits of diversity. Using this concept, and consistent with the Court recognizing the military and business communities' need for a diverse workforce and leadership cadre, the AAMC views the educational benefits of diversity as including its contributions to improving both the cultural competence of the physicians our schools educate and improving access to care for underserved populations.

The revised AAMC definition accomplished three important objectives:
1. A shift in focus from a fixed aggregation of four racial and ethnic groups to a continually evolving underlying reality. The new definition accommodates including and removing underrepresented groups on the basis of changing demographics of society and the profession.
2. A shift in focus from a national perspective to regional or local perspective on underrepresentation.
3. Stimulating data collection and reporting on the broad range of racial and ethnic self- descriptions.

The AAMC definition revised in 2003 should assist medical schools in understanding and responding to their local circumstances. However, in its reference to "underrepresentation," the new definition may be viewed as encouraging “racial balancing,” which is expressly prohibited. For this reason, it can no longer serve the intended purpose fashioned for it pre-Grutter, namely, as the driver of institutional admissions policies.

Rather, medical schools should base their admissions policies on an explicit articulation of legitimate aspirations: to achieve the educational benefits of a diverse student body, including enhancing the cultural competency of all the physicians it educates and improving access to care for underserved populations.

https://www.aamc.org/download/54278/data/urm.pdf

i think its clear based on some of the arguments or "solutions" being thrown around that some of the people in this thread have never read this or sought a definition/explanation beyond URM = minorities (or URM=black people, which is what some in this thread seem to be suggesting).

also, thanks to the troll who started this thread 4 real.

 

[MDforMee]

It's weird because I get the exact same feeling about you...

 

[WillburCobb]

View attachment 180695

Ah, so that's what kind of college you help get URMs into.

 

[sat0ri]

So when you say you help URMs get into college you mean clown college?

Let's not fly off the handle and disrespect the good work of the clown community now...

 

[487806]

Let's not fly off the handle and disrespect the good work of the clown community now...

The clowns enter the battle. Joker is displeased.

Although da penguin can intervene!

I have no idea what I'm saying anymore...

 

[WillburCobb]

I have no idea what I'm saying anymore...

Fits with the thread.

 

[MDforMee]

Ah, so that's what kind of college you help get URMs into.

Homie the Clown? Do you not know?

 

[deleted407021]

Homie the Clown? Do you not know?

In Living Color was always like the ghetto (suck it, thread), slightly older version of MadTV, in my opinion.


Also, OP banned.

 

[MDforMee]

OP banned.

Goodnight, sweet prince

 

[touchpause13]

Bye Felicia

 

[chenzt]

So you didn't read them?

Let me help you... here's one:
... Were a public university to defend its use of a race-based admissions policy "on the ground that it was designed to benefit primarily minorities (as opposed to all students, regardless of color, by enhancing diversity), we would hold the policy unconstitutional," (Scalia)

1. The statement was from Scalia's concurring opinion joined only by Thomas, thus not a plurality opinion nor a binding precedent.
2. "Benefit primarily minority" - unless you can successfully argue that the majority does not benefit from the enhanced diversity, you won't even win Scalia's vote.
3. Majority of medical schools are private.

I think dermviser's interpretation is quite sound and this ruling was quite narrow. Next time why don't you also try to quote the dissenting opinion and pretend it's the SCOTUS's judgement.

 

[terp720]

Bye Felicia

i got it this time!

 

[MDforMee]

1. The statement was from Scalia's concurring opinion joined only by Thomas, thus not a plurality opinion nor a binding precedent.
2. "Benefit primarily minority" - unless you can successfully argue that the majority does not benefit from the enhanced diversity, you won't even win Scalia's vote.
3. Majority of medical schools are private.

I think dermviser's interpretation is quite sound and this ruling was quite narrow. Next time why don't you also try to quote the dissenting opinion and pretend it's the SCOTUS's judgement.

Encouraging a debate with someone doesn't mean that you do all of the work in arguing both sides.

The ruling wasn't narrow, either. It was 6-2.

 

[chenzt]

Encouraging a debate with someone doesn't mean that you do all of the work in arguing both sides.

The ruling wasn't narrow, either. It was 6-2.

The scope of the ruling was narrow. Oy.

Six justices agreed that states are legally allowed to have amendment that bans affirmative action, not the merit of affirmative action itself. The opinions that they had to reach the conclusions are quite fractured, with the plurality opinion supported by Kennedy, Roberts and Alito. Scalia and Thomas filed a concurring opinion and the same for Breyer as well. So there were three different rationales to reach the conclusions.

Supreme Court in 1977 explained that “When a fragmented Court decides a case and no single rationale explaining the result enjoys the assent of five Justices, the holding of the Court may be viewed as that position taken by those Members who concurred in the judgments on the narrowest grounds.” So yes, I think the ruling was quite narrow.

Scalia's opinion was supported by one other justice. Therefore, it was just the usual raving lunatic at work.

 

[touchpause13]

@MDforMee SCOTUS blog. Read it.

 

[MDforMee]

The scope of the ruling was narrow. Oy.

Six justices agreed that states are legally allowed to have amendment that bans affirmative action, not the merit of affirmative action itself. The opinions that they had to reach the conclusions are quite fractured, with the plurality opinion supported by Kennedy, Roberts and Alito. Scalia and Thomas filed a concurring opinion and the same for Breyer as well. So there were three different rationales to reach the conclusion.

Supreme Court in 1977 explained that “When a fragmented Court decides a case and no single rationale explaining the result enjoys the assent of five Justices, the holding of the Court may be viewed as that position taken by those Members who concurred in the judgments on the narrowest grounds.” So yes, I think the ruling was quite narrow.

The Scalia's opinion was supported by one other justice. Therefore, it was just the usual raving lunatic at work.

I'd be happy to have a conversation about the ins and outs of this case with you another time. I'm watching a sporting event, now.

I'll work up a decent reply tomorrow when I have the chance.

 

[WillburCobb]

I'd be happy to have a conversation about the ins and outs of this case with you another time. I'm watching a sporting event, now.

I'll work up a decent reply tomorrow when I have the chance.

Sorry, NASCAR isn't a sport.

 

[DermViser]

It's weird because I get the exact same feeling about you...

Don't worry he'll be struttin on the wards thinking he's so great clinically bc his MCAT score (or at that time, his USMLE Step 1 score) speaks for itself.

 

[WillburCobb]

Don't worry he'll be struttin on the wards thinking he's so great clinically bc his MCAT score (or at that time, his USMLE Step 1 score) speaks for itself.

I think at best he'll be struttin' on the wards as a CNA...maaaabey as a 2 year RN if he gets his **** together.

 

[Gifted Hands]

Encouraging a debate with someone doesn't mean that you do all of the work in arguing both sides.

The ruling wasn't narrow, either. It was 6-2.

No one can even have a meaningful debate with you because you are both ill informed and freakishly confident about things you are completely, utterly wrong about. It's disturbing

 

[Gifted Hands]

I think at best he'll be struttin' on the wards as a CNA...maaaabey as a 2 year RN if he gets his **** together.

Humming the tune to "run this town"

 

[487806]

The best joke is OP got banned and @MDforMee is the lone warrior keeping the thread alive.

 

[BamaNicole]

@MDforMee SCOTUS blog. Read it.

that would take effort and not agree with what he's trying to say.

 

[touchpause13]

that would take effort and not agree with what he's trying to say.

Of course it's much easier just to read headlines and draw conclusions that fit into your own personal view of the world.

 

[deleted407021]

The best joke is OP got banned and @MDforMee is the lone warrior keeping the thread alive.

The whole thing was way too wordy to be very entertaining, anyway. It was like an opinion editorial compilation.

 

[487806]

The whole thing was way too wordy to be very entertaining, anyway. It was like an opinion editorial compilation.

I was about to join the party... got bored after reading < 1/2 of the first page...

 

[WillburCobb]

The whole thing was way too wordy to be very entertaining, anyway. It was like an opinion editorial compilation.

But this had politics, math, penises, and vaginas! I've struggled very hard to find things of such interest in one singular place.

 

[deleted407021]

I was about to join the party... got bored after reading < 1/2 of the first page...

People put a lot of energy into this thread. Much more than you would usually find is such *****ic threads.

But this had politics, math, penises, and vaginas! I've struggled very hard to find things of such interest in one place.

"Acadmeic" fraternities might be the next best place to look.

 

[chenzt]

I was gone one day for my second look. Came back, noticed a new thread I've never seen with 400+ posts, thought "someone must've necrobumped some old thread". Upon careful examination, noticed a post date of 4/25.

 

[WillburCobb]

People put a lot of energy into this thread. Much more than you would usually find is such *****ic threads.


"Acadmeic" fraternities might be the next best place to look.

Meh, where I'm from frats just drink and people just end up dead in the river or on the train tracks.

 

[deleted407021]

Meh, where I'm from frats just drink and people just end up dead in the river or on the train tracks.

At my UG, there's always that one person who never comes back from spring break.

I was gone one day for my second look. Came back, noticed a new thread I've never seen with 400+ posts, thought "someone must've necrobumped some old thread". Upon careful examination, noticed a post date of 4/25.

That happened to me about a month ago. I was offline for like 1 day, and I came back to find a thread with 1000+ posts. I forget what it was about. OP banned, too, probably.

 

[WillburCobb]

At my UG, there's always that one person who never comes back from spring break

Sadly 9/10 times this occurred pretty early in the school year.

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

 

[487806]

I was gone one day for my second look. Came back, noticed a new thread I've never seen with 400+ posts, thought "someone must've necrobumped some old thread". Upon careful examination, noticed a post date of 4/25.

That happened to me about a month ago. I was offline for like 1 day, and I came back to find a thread with 1000+ posts. I forget what it was about. OP banned, too, probably.

Apologies for unintended profanity in advance.

The above two memes explain this sudden 1K explosion of such threads. A shame.