(consequences of) the female/male ratio in American clinical psychology

[justme08]

So in other words. Don't put me into a bucket just because you put yourself and everyone else into one. If you say that you need to be part of the group to treat a certain group, don't take offense when someone tells you that you can't treat people from a group other than your own.



.

TexaninDC that was an excellent post. I think you summed up nicely part of the disconnect I was feeling by some people's assertions. The more we try to put others in a box, or limit them, the more we limit ourselves And, the feeling I get is that some haven't even come to realize that yet.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[phillydave]

People of diverse backgrounds can bring diverse perspectives to programs due to their unique experiences related to their status in society. To deny the fact that someone who is born to a household that makes $25,000 in a predominantly latino neighborhood can bring things to the table that someone born into a household making $250,000 a year cannot is sooo false.

You are the one speaking on economic status, not I. As I said before, to assume that minorities are always poor (which to make your arguments, one must) is naive.

You are so privileged, or quite frankly ethnocentric/racist/heterosexist, that you can't even see the fact that people who come from a different background than you are simply different.

Right. Simply different. A person who is simply different does not necessarily have the ability to make rich and meaningful contributions or ability to better facilitate change simply because they are different.

I never said anything or even mentioned that minorities have all had similar poor and inner-city experiences. In contrast to that, I elaborated on a previous post that Mark ridiculously brought up about kid rock and tiger woods.

This was not ridiculous at all. You just failed to make the connection.

However, an ethnic minority status (which is what I assume you were speaking of) isn't related to economic status. On the contrary, the higher up in society a minority is, the more a minority feels pressure due to their status and the less they are around people like them. Many minorities feel as if they have to be even better than the priviledged around them to be even considered on par. For example, gay parents have to be even better parents to be at least welcomed in neighborhoods, in my opinion. I also feel (and have been told by significant others/friends/aquaintances) that black people have to be even better academically to be considered on par with their privileged friends due to the stigmatization that is instilled institutionally by our society.

No one here is arguing against the existence of institutionalized racism. Your uncited and anecdotal evidence above does not give reason to think that every minority person who fits your above descriptions is more qualified or even qualified at all.

So basically I'm saying even if a minority comes from a wealthy family, they still are berated by discrimination on a daily basis. A prime example is in Washington DC last year when the black professor was trying to get into his home and the white police came over, automatically suspected him as trying to break into someone else's house and he was arrested. He was wealthy yet he still experienced discrimination due to his minority status.

Okay... So? What does this anecdote prove? What does this have to do with anything?

 

[PsychApps2009]

Right. Simply different. A person who is simply different does not necessarily have the ability to make rich and meaningful contributions or ability to better facilitate change simply because they are different.

This. Thank you.

Okay... So? What does this anecdote prove? What does this have to do with anything?

I'm guessing he wants to highlight the point that minorities "still are berated by discrimination on a daily basis". Which I can understand and mostly agree with (as I don't think that discrimination is felt consciously on a daily basis)... as to what the larger point is... I've already gotten lost in this thread because of all the unhelpful stuff that went on before.

Maybe it's to emphasize that "People of diverse backgrounds can bring diverse perspectives to programs due to their unique experiences related to their status in society." .... But we hardly disagree on that point.... as diverse backgrounds include more than a minority background and unique experiences do not have a value (positive/useful or negative/useless) automatically attached to them (unless of course one makes various incorrect assumptions).

EDIT - I actually re-read the earlier conversation.... and I think a lot of us are misinterpreting what people say.

Specifically it was said by Wapote that: "If they can do the work, but someone is a tiny bit better, like maybe 20 points on the GRE, maybe you should reconsider the minority who can bring much to the table that another person couldn't." This was interpreted as the idea that "...minorities are somehow inherently able to "bring much to the table" that a non-minority cannot wholly due to their minority status". Re-reading it, I don't necessarily think that is what the original comment meant per se in an overall blanket sort of way (as in this hypothetical situation the minority applicant maybe does actually have some unique helpful experience that the other applicant simply does not have). And to go to bat for both sides, that interpretation of the original comment by MarkP in no way read (as it was asserted) that "People of privilege are so much better because they can bring everything to the table a minority can and more.", nor have any of his comments "[put] down minorites and their experience".

We really need to take a step back because we may be arguing for no reason except (very) poor wording ^^.

 

[bmorepsych]

TexaninDC that was an excellent post. I think you summed up nicely part of the disconnect I was feeling by some people's assertions. The more we try to put others in a box, or limit them, the more we limit ourselves And, the feeling I get is that some haven't even come to realize that yet.

+1

 

[cara susanna]

You're right. It's totally not fair. Its also not fair for the majority of high density ethnic minority neighborhoods to have statistically significantly less funding, poorer quality of education materials, and less educated teachers than predominantly white areas (of course there are exceptions like Appalachia and others). Its also not fair that a much higher percentage of GLBT students drop out of highschool than their heterosexual counter parts because of harrassment and such. But its just the way the cookie crumbles ya know? And I think AA plays an important role in balancing the equation. Even though AA isn't perfect as it stands now, it's the best we've got at the moment.

I still disagree. I can see the SES argument, but not the race one.

 

[AlaskanJustin]

Ya, T4C, take that... do you think you understand the Gay experience?? Cause you don't... What if he is gay, black, or latino... that doesn't mean that he gets what it is like to be gay, black, or latino outside of his own context.

(REDACTED... Thanks T4C)

Mark

I had to ROFL a lot on this one... not at you mark but at the original logic of the person saying this. i guess they don't teach basic logical theory in UG anymore? i laugh at two things a) the assumption (lack of logic) that A cannot understand/empathize/interpret B unless A = B, and b) the assumption (again lacking logic) that because B1 = B2, then B1 has/experiences the same SUBJECTIVE reality as B2.

idk, just thought that was pretty funny.

 

[deleted176373]

I had to ROFL a lot on this one... not at you mark but at the original logic of the person saying this. i guess they don't teach basic logical theory in UG anymore? i laugh at two things a) the assumption (lack of logic) that A cannot understand/empathize/interpret B unless A = B, and b) the assumption (again lacking logic) that because B1 = B2, then B1 has/experiences the same SUBJECTIVE reality as B2.

idk, just thought that was pretty funny.

I couldn't decide if it was funny or downright sad.

Mark

 

[deleted176373]

Just thought I'd add my two cents. ...we won't have arguments like these and I won't have to be put into a bucket. Thanks.

Excellent post! I couldn't agree more. To my credit, I've mastered two languages: English and Redneck... (Joke, as I know some think I have a Confederate flag flying over my house and an orange Dodge Charger in the driveway.) Seriously, I speak a fair amount of Spanish and French, just not fluently. All the room for syntax was taken up by the 12+ computer languages I learned as a kid.

Mark

 

[phillydave]

We really need to take a step back because we may be arguing for no reason except (very) poor wording ^^.

Well yes, poor wording antagonized by poor logic. I certainly understand the inherent value within anecdotes that point to experiences of discrimination, however, the citation of these anecdotes have little to do with what is being argued. And yes, Wapote completely misread and misinterpreted Mark's other statement when he read "People of privilege are so much better because they can bring everything to the table a minority can and more." One didn't have to re-read the original post to assert that the previous summary of Mark's post was mystifyingly inaccurate.

 

[PsychApps2009]

Well yes, poor wording antagonized by poor logic.

Yes indeed (and biased interpretations IMO by certain people).

I certainly understand the inherent value within anecdotes that point to experiences of discrimination, however, the citation of these anecdotes have little to do with what is being argued.

I personally don't really like anecdotes as a form of proving something. Though, anecdotes can be useful in disproving some theories (e.g., 'no pigs can fly' would be disproved if only one pig was seen actually flying). Otherwise... I don't see much use for them and often find people use them to try and illustrate a situation unnecessarily and at times recount events inaccurately (as people only hear/remember what they want to).

And I completely agree with you, that anecdote had little to do with what was being argued - which is why I went back and re-read where this argument started cause I was like, huh? Maybe I missed something?

One didn't have to re-read the original post to assert that the previous summary of Mark's post was mystifyingly inaccurate.

And totally agreed (but to clarify, I didn't have to re-read for that reason either). I'm actually surprised more people didn't point out how inaccurate those assertions were before. I was just referencing it to highlight his incorrect interpretation (or poor logic) as I didn't want to imply that Mark was the only one who may have 'misread' something etc.

 

[phillydave]

Yes indeed (and biased interpretations IMO by certain people).

I personally don't really like anecdotes as a form of proving something. Though, anecdotes can be useful in disproving some theories (e.g., 'no pigs can fly' would be disproved if only one pig was seen actually flying). Otherwise... I don't see much use for them and often find people use them to try and illustrate a situation unnecessarily and at times recount events inaccurately (as people only hear/remember what they want to).

And I completely agree with you, that anecdote had little to do with what was being argued - which is why I went back and re-read where this argument started cause I was like, huh? Maybe I missed something? (i.e., I was being slightly sarcastic in my response above about their point lol).

And totally agreed (but to clarify, I didn't have to re-read for that reason either). I'm actually surprised more people didn't point out how inaccurate those assertions were before. I was just referencing it to highlight some poster's poor logic as I didn't want to imply that Mark was the only one who may have 'misread' something etc.

Yeah totally, I didn't mean to make it seem like I was disagreeing with your posts, I second everything you've said so far. I think my initial harsh reaction to Wapote's posts was because he didn't seem to read what others were actually saying and was using irrelevant stories to support something that wasn't being talked about. I could tell dozens of stories off the top of my head about African Americans in the city of Philadelphia being treated completely unfairly by the city government, school systems, and most frighteningly, the police. These same people wouldn't necessarily be better psychologists because of their experiences, however, of course, they could relate better to others who have had the same experiences; but that's not the point.

 

[PsychApps2009]

Yeah totally, I didn't mean to make it seem like I was disagreeing with your posts, I second everything you've said so far. I think my initial harsh reaction to Wapote's posts was because he didn't seem to read what others were actually saying and was using irrelevant stories to support something that wasn't being talked about.

No worries - I wasn't sure and just wanted to clarify . And I haven't seen any of your posts as harsh... you can't imagine how frustrated this thread has made me not just because of the name calling but exactly because of what you point out here. Actually I was about to come back and add to the end of my last post that there is always the chance that Mark didn't misread anything at all; as Wapote hasn't actually addressed directly whether he agree/disagrees with our main point (which was Mark's recent point too).

Edit: In other news, I'm not even sure what the focus of this thread is any longer. At first gender, then other minorities and diversity (and clinicians in that respect), and then affirmative action (which for the record I don't necessarily disagree with) ... man... I think I'm ready to bow out.

 

[robinsena]

Find a way in, whether you're Latino or not, and you'll succeed at recruiting your target population. Learn the language is my best advice. The more non-minority researchers take active interest in working with minority populations, we won't have arguments like these and I won't have to be put into a bucket. Thanks.

Speaking of language, that may actually play a bigger part in discrimination than race itself at times. My parents had to deal with a lot of disrespect and outright lack of courtesy when they first immigrated to the US. They still do at times. It incenses me to no end, for example, when my parents ask me for assistance to call customer service and tell me that the service reps to take them seriously or is even outright rude to them because of their accent. The same reps magically become polite and deferential when I 'wow' them with my mastery of the English language. I hate how people magically deduce that if people have accents or struggle with expressing themselves verbally, that it is ok to treat them as if they were stupid. No surprise there are major help seeking issues in minority groups and Wapote's assertion that some clients may prefer therapists from similar backgrounds can come in play here.

Wapote hasn't actually addressed directly whether he agree/disagrees with our main point (which was Mark's recent point too).

Honestly, I've lost almost everyone's main points, underneath the all the passive-aggressiveness and sarcasm. I wonder if the discussion would have gone the same route had we been able to see other face-to-face... maybe some people would have still acted the same way. That would be quite telling.

We obviously have a tremendous amount of diversity on SDN, and within this little subforum. Looking at clinical experience alone, let's be mindful of the fact that we have independently-licensed practicing clinicians all the way down to HS students who may be participating in a discussion. We seem to have members of just about every in-group that exists. We will not always agree, but as professionals or pre-professionals, we should conduct ourselves accordingly.

Agreed. Also, I joined SDN partly because I want to learn from others interested in this field, but that happens when things are more civil.

 

[PsychApps2009]

Honestly, I've lost almost everyone's main points, underneath the all the passive-aggressiveness and sarcasm.

Understood and agreed. [ps - I didn't restate it as it was redundant... but for fun: "My main point was that privileged or not, it is false to assume that one experience over the other is somehow automatically richer in perspective and that there is not as much to gain from each individual regardless of their background." Philly's and Mark's were variations of this same theme.]

I wonder if the discussion would have gone the same route had we been able to see other face-to-face...Also, I joined SDN partly because I want to learn from others interested in this field, but that happens when things are more civil.

You make a really good point, and it probably would have gone differently (which is why I stated earlier that although the medium for this discussion is the internet, I was still surprised that people were so disrespectful). I feel (or I hope) that face to face people would have argued more civilly and potentially more productively (as it's a lot easier to be harsh when there is a barrier between people).

PS - The customer service thing you mention is so frustrating! I've noticed there is also a discrepancy between how csreps treat males and females on the phone (but assertiveness of the customer may be the mediating factor there...).

 

[KillerDiller]

To my credit, I've mastered two languages: English and Redneck... (Joke, as I know some think I have a Confederate flag flying over my house and an orange Dodge Charger in the driveway.)
Mark

Nah, if I recall correctly you drive a MINI Cooper.

 

[teo3099]

.

 

[aagman01]

I think this thread has pretty much run its course.

Here is a link that provides an overview on stereotype threat. I thought everyone in our field had some understanding of the research and implications of this wide body of knowledge, but from some of the posts I doubt that is the case. And before someone complains - yes this a site seeking to challenge stereotype threat. But the information/review they provide is accurate, and is based on empirical support:

http://reducingstereotypethreat.org/definition.html

I still disagree. I can see the SES argument, but not the race one.

 

[teo3099]

.

 

[cara susanna]

Not really sure how my being against affirmative action implies that I have no knowledge of stereotype threat. Which I presented on for a class today, btw.

 

[zzzz2]

I think this thread has pretty much run its course.

I feel like the party's just getting started.

 

[futureapppsy2]

(My post wasn't clearly worded, even to me... basic jist: I have no firm opinion on AA, either way.

Picking based on "fit," as ambiguous is that may be, is actually a good idea because it allows faculty to pick, based on any number of factors (from race to previous mentors to stats skills, etc., etc), is to pick the person who would do the best in that particular program and with that particular faculty member... Defining "fit," however is the hard part, and it varies by program, faculty member, and even year to year).

 

[cara susanna]

Right, which is why the affirmative action thing is even trickier in this situation. A professor can basically choose a student for whatever reasons he/she wants, so who is to say that race etc can't be one of those?

Again, I'm against AA, but it's a little less straightforward in the psych grad admissions context.

 

[Wapote84]

Wow... so much was posted since I was in school and work today


1. I'm tired of being passive aggressive, down right aggressive and arguing in a horrible tone, AND being attacked. I think this discussion we are having is great and probably one of the best threads I've seen on SDN so far (mostly because I'm so focused on multiculturalism in psychology). I know these topics are heated sometimes, but I think we should all read other people's posts twice before we answer and maybe we won't have any miscommunications ad I feel there have been quite a few as of yet. I think we can be much more productive if we try and keep the tone civil. We can disagree without being d1cks about it.

2. I know many of you feel that maybe AA isn't necessary; many of you feel that just because you are a member of the majority that you are very open to diversity and aren't discriminatory; and maybe some of you feel like discrimination isn't as big of a deal as many people make it out to be. But in reality, unconscious discrimination is one of the biggest problems in our current society. Microaggressions are very real, and most of us don't even know that we're doing it. Everyone is guilty of them, regardless of what you think. Check out PsychInfo for articles on microaggressions. I personally feel like some of these have been intertwined within this thread, which at times has been the contributing factor to my irritability with certain posts.

3. Of course everyone is an individual and can bring a unique perspective BECAUSE of their life experiences and backgrounds. I'm not saying that the experiences and possible contributions to a program of underrepresented minorities are better than those of people of privilege. However, I do think that because of their minority status in society that they can bring something to the table that is DIFFERENT than the rest of the applicants who are of privilege because they are a minority (also something that people of privilege cannot--also I'm sure there are experiences that people of privilege can bring to the table that minorities cannot, but with an over-representation of these people of privilege, bringing minorities and their unique experiences to the programs isn't a bad thing). I think these unique perspectives are valuable in the field whether that be research or clinical work with clients.

I also believe that (in addition to their unique [not better!] contribution to a program) people who are from underrepresented groups should be given a slight advantage in the admissions process due to the fact that they may have started 20 miles behind in the race to the finish line (which is getting an offer in a program, a good job, etc) which is something that people of privilege do not have to experience. I also want to point out that the more minority statuses that a person has makes it harder for them to get to the end of the race. I think the only way to help with the imbalance in our society related to minority groups is to offer them these advantages.

Now, I may get total **** for this, but I'm going to say it anyway. People who are in the majority (those with the most power in our society) don't want to give it up. Who would? I mean, why would a rich white christian man want to give his child's position in a spectacular school to a poor kid from the city? To a latino or other ethnic minority? To a gay couple's kid? He wouldn't because he is very interested in his child's education. But in reality this is exactly like AA in clinical programs. Why would you want to give your spot in a program to a minority person if their application was slightly less impressive than yours? You wouldn't. But in order for society to progress out of this situation, this has to happen. I feel like sometimes when people in power mention that they disagree with affirmative action, thats how I feel. I feel like they don't want to give power away. OF COURSE this isn't an explicit thought or emotional process, but a much more implicit process. They feel like this is a system that puts them at a disadvantage. Yeah it is. It sucks though doesn't it? This is what minorities have to deal with on the regular. Its not "fair" to those majority members, but I feel its balancing the power a bit. I dunno... thats my feeling about the issue.
p.s. SES aside, I still think AA should be implemented. SES is a major contributing factor, but the persons status as a minority should also play a part.

4. Also, I can see what Texan was saying about disliking the being labeled part. I feel that the American creation of the ethnicity "Latino" isn't the best way to deal with such a heterogeneous "group" of people, and you're right: one of the major reasons for the grouping is directly related to the language. But unfortunately thats how America sees the issue. I have a variety of latino friendsand aquaintances, mostly puerto rican, south american, and spanish. However, in my area of the country, people call them all mexican. Basically what I'm saying is that it sucks, but its true.

Another thing I wanted to mention is that even though people from a certain minority background have individual experiences as that minority, there are shared experiences that you can't deny are just that: shared. For example, even though you are a mexican american, TexaninDC, I'm sure you have shared experiences with other hispanics who may not be from the same background as you. Of course cubans in miami, puerto ricans in chicago and mexicans in SoCal have very different experiences as a hispanic in America, but there are still irrefutable experiences that are shared due to your minority status in the US. There isn't ONE latino... there is way to many differences within this "group" of people to say that. Being called a different nationality simply due to your language, being called racial slurs because of your status, etc are examples of this shared experience I'm talking about.

I have over and over again acknowledged that every person is unique with their own unique perspectives, but there is also a shared experience due to your social and or minority/majority status in a certain society.

Also, I don't think that you have to be a minority to treat minorities or that people of privilege can't treat minorities successfully. What I am saying is that there are clients that may request a person demographically more similar to them, and I also think they should have this choice if they request it. I also think that in some cases (NOT ALL to clarify) a minority clinician may be able to better service a person of their background than a clinician who comes from a radically different background than the client. ALSO I honestly believe that with more minority clinicians help seeking in the field would go up considerably due to the presence of minority clinicians. I think that a huge portion of those who do not go to seek out help in the field is because of distrust or a lack of understanding. I think building rapport with these individuals and communities would be much easier and expedited with people from these backgrounds in the field.

Do I think that minority clinicians should be forced to see minority clients and privileged clinicians see privileged clients? No. But should clinicians and clients have those choices? Yes. Should a client be forced to see a clinician they don't want? Nope.

Sorry if you don't like my anecdotes... if you don't like my way of communicantion... I dunno what to say Dont read it? LoL... it can;t be that distracting...

 

[robinsena]

Not really sure how my being against affirmative action implies that I have no knowledge of stereotype threat. Which I presented on for a class today, btw.

I don't know if anyone said that, and if they did I missed it. I wouldn't equate knowledge with class presentations. I've presented on a number of topics for clinical work, for research, for comps/quals, and none of that has led to any increase in wisdom/insight in those areas. Just more knowledge I've failed to integrate meaningfully. Not saying that's you, but I couldn't smile thinking how that statement wouldn't have worked for me.

It just occurred to me (slow on the uptake, I know), that AA can be so different in different settings so it may help to clarify. I have a feeling that a lot of people are thinking that AA is where one applicant gets picked over another solely because of race. I have heard of more 'tempered' attempts at AA. At an internship site I visited I found out they invited all minority applicants for an interview, but they do not 'bump out' any qualified majority applicants for an interview slot. Some people may think that is -still- unfair, but I guess to me that's better than just thinking of AA has complete preference for one person over at the cost of another. That probably still happens of course, just pointing out there are different ways of implementing AA.

 

[PsychApps2009]

Very well worded, Wapote. I thank you for taking the time to craft out that response (as I imagine it took some time to catch up with today's thread! ) - it definitely clarified a lot of things (for me at least) and I agree with you on most of the things you said.

"Latino" isn't the best way to deal with such a heterogeneous "group" of people, and you're right: one of the major reasons for the grouping is directly related to the language.

Oh and I know this is totally a tangent and not at all related to your point, but to educate the board a little further, Hispanic is actually the grouping term based on the common language of Spanish, whereas the term Latino is more all-encompassing (i.e., historically including people from Latin America to anyone with Latin roots).

I don't know if anyone said that, and if they did I missed it.

The person who brought up stereotype threat (aagman01) quoted cara right below his statement, which is what I imagine cara was responding to. Anyway, you made me laugh thinking about presentations in psych classes... good times.

 

[deleted176373]

I think we can be much more productive if we try and keep the tone civil. We can disagree without being d1cks about it.

Sorry, I have lost all respect for your opinion. Once you labeled me as a racist and heterosexist, your credibility went out the window. This latest post only serves as a clear reminder that some will do anything to protect their agenda and to preserve their ego from insult. It's one thing to disagree, it's completely another to malign those who disagree with you with false accusations.

I wish you the best of luck.

Mark

 

[futureapppsy2]

Of course everyone is an individual and can bring a unique perspective BECAUSE of their life experiences and backgrounds. I'm not saying that the experiences and possible contributions to a program of underrepresented minorities are better than those of people of privilege. However, I do think that because of their minority status in society that they can bring something to the table that is DIFFERENT than the rest of the applicants who are of privilege because they are a minority (also something that people of privilege cannot--also I'm sure there are experiences that people of privilege can bring to the table that minorities cannot, but with an over-representation of these people of privilege, bringing minorities and their unique experiences to the programs isn't a bad thing). I think these unique perspectives are valuable in the field whether that be research or clinical work with clients.

I have to say, I'm honestly confused by your dichotomy between "privileged" (white, heterosexual, male, etc) and " underrepresented minority." I fall into both the privileged (white, heterosexual) and underrepresented minority (physical disability) categories, so which one would you consider me to be? I'm honestly curious.

 

[phillydave]

2. I know many of you feel that maybe AA isn't necessary; many of you feel that just because you are a member of the majority that you are very open to diversity and aren't discriminatory; and maybe some of you feel like discrimination isn't as big of a deal as many people make it out to be. But in reality, unconscious discrimination is one of the biggest problems in our current society. Microaggressions are very real, and most of us don't even know that we're doing it. Everyone is guilty of them, regardless of what you think. Check out PsychInfo for articles on microaggressions. I personally feel like some of these have been intertwined within this thread, which at times has been the contributing factor to my irritability with certain posts.

Seriously - No one here has disputed the existence of discrimination. I have less of a problem with your volunteering to give us a free lecture on microagression, but a real problem with your chiding tone, as if we've all denied the existence of discrimination and it's your job to enlighten us.

3. Of course everyone is an individual and can bring a unique perspective BECAUSE of their life experiences and backgrounds. I'm not saying that the experiences and possible contributions to a program of underrepresented minorities are better than those of people of privilege. However, I do think that because of their minority status in society that they can bring something to the table that is DIFFERENT than the rest of the applicants who are of privilege because they are a minority (also something that people of privilege cannot--also I'm sure there are experiences that people of privilege can bring to the table that minorities cannot, but with an over-representation of these people of privilege, bringing minorities and their unique experiences to the programs isn't a bad thing). I think these unique perspectives are valuable in the field whether that be research or clinical work with clients.

Yes, I agree. Different perspectives are valuable.

Now, I may get total **** for this, but I'm going to say it anyway. People who are in the majority (those with the most power in our society) don't want to give it up. Who would? I mean, why would a rich white christian man want to give his child's position in a spectacular school to a poor kid from the city? To a latino or other ethnic minority? To a gay couple's kid? He wouldn't because he is very interested in his child's education. But in reality this is exactly like AA in clinical programs. Why would you want to give your spot in a program to a minority person if their application was slightly less impressive than yours? You wouldn't. But in order for society to progress out of this situation, this has to happen. I feel like sometimes when people in power mention that they disagree with affirmative action, thats how I feel. I feel like they don't want to give power away. OF COURSE this isn't an explicit thought or emotional process, but a much more implicit process. They feel like this is a system that puts them at a disadvantage. Yeah it is. It sucks though doesn't it? This is what minorities have to deal with on the regular. Its not "fair" to those majority members, but I feel its balancing the power a bit. I dunno... thats my feeling about the issue.
p.s. SES aside, I still think AA should be implemented. SES is a major contributing factor, but the persons status as a minority should also play a part.

A couple things:

You're speaking on behalf of a lot of people who may not actually feel the way you describe. You've labeled and stereotyped the majority. And to you that seems okay because they are the big, bad, evil, majority.

Also, while I agree that LGBTs are part of a minority and certainly have a unique experience, it's ludicrous to think that a "gay couple's kid"(your phrase) should receive preference because their parent's are gay. That makes no sense.

Lastly, I think you ignore SES a little too much. The impoverished have started 20 miles behind in all circumstances, regardless of race. And I'd say it's sad that AA doesn't take SES into consideration since the majority of people on welfare are caucasian.

 

[twilson]

Wapote,

I guess my biggest problem with your argument ( not with you ) is that you almost completely disregard SES. I was raised and still currently live in a state thats about 94% white. This state,also, is one of the poorest in the country. So what you are saying is that even though the vast majority of the state and its potential students are poor that those who are white should be chosen secondly to minorities who are just as poor?

 

[justme08]

There are so many things I’ve been tempted to say to Wapote, but haven’t, because really I don’t think it will make a difference. Wapote, you are the only one that can really answer this, for yourself I’m not asking for a response, but are you even open to other ideas?

Everything you have written tells me you are invested in this idea of victimhood. To the victim regardless if they are the victor should go the spoils. What happened to “I have a dream?”

I once inserted myself into a conversation, after leaving a sociology type class, amongst a group of African-American college students who were talking about the class, the class in which I spent much of the time arguing the minority opinion (not racial minority but minority point of view).

Needless to say they weren’t too thrilled with me, but I was able to get them to really think, and have an honest and respectful dialogue with me on why African-Americans should be given racial preference in college admissions. If they had the same books available to them as all other students, and attended the same classes, in fact what if they had others in their classes of Asian or Caucasian race, so same school, same teachers, same books, same neighborhoods, why were African-Americans being told they needed a handout to get in? Are you okay with being told less is basically expected of you because of your race [or substitute whatever you wish here]? Isn’t that ultimately in opposition to the dream?

As I said, I’m not going to get in a debate, you sound like you are entrenched in your views. Just thought I would throw some things out there [feel free to substitute African-American for whatever other group].

 

[Wapote84]

I have to say, I'm honestly confused by your dichotomy between "privileged" (white, heterosexual, male, etc) and " underrepresented minority." I fall into both the privileged (white, heterosexual) and underrepresented minority (physical disability) categories, so which one would you consider me to be? I'm honestly curious.

People with physical disabilities are an underrepresented minority.

 

[deleted176373]

People with physical disabilities are an underrepresented minority.

Well, while you're being the arbiter of who is and is not an unrepresented minority, tell us... Asians? Should they get affirmative action preference? If so, should they get more or less than other minority groups such as African-Americans, Mexican-Americans, sexual minorities, or other minority groups.

Is there a minority pecking order?!? Which minority status is more "valuable"? Is a triple minority (say a homosexual, Asian, woman) more worthy of affirmative action than a single minority (African-American, heterosexual, male)?

Perhaps you can help me understand the pecking order some...

Mark

 

[cara susanna]

I don't know if anyone said that, and if they did I missed it. I wouldn't equate knowledge with class presentations. I've presented on a number of topics for clinical work, for research, for comps/quals, and none of that has led to any increase in wisdom/insight in those areas. Just more knowledge I've failed to integrate meaningfully. Not saying that's you, but I couldn't smile thinking how that statement wouldn't have worked for me.

I wasn't trying to claim expertise, just saying I am familiar with the research.

And, yeah, aagman quoted me in his post, so I assumed he meant me. Plus, he has a history of disagreeing with what I say and then calling me ignorant.

 

[phillydave]

Sue & Sue strike again!

I missed the beginning of all this. But I can't help but laugh now that I read these Sue & Sue references!

 

[deleted176373]

I wasn't trying to claim expertise, just saying I am familiar with the research.

And, yeah, aagman quoted me in his post, so I assumed he meant me. Plus, he has a history of disagreeing with what I say and then calling me ignorant.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7S_XWuKpHc

Reminds me of this classic bit.

 

[TexaninDC]

Everyone is guilty of them, regardless of what you think….which at times has been the contributing factor to my irritability with certain posts.

Let me show you where you're guilty of doing the exact thing that's irritating you.

I'm not going to comment on the AA topic because I don't at all agree with any of it really. And I feel like there's no point in saying why so let's just leave it at that.

4. Also, I can see what Texan was saying about disliking the being labeled part. I feel that the American creation of the ethnicity "Latino" isn't the best way to deal with such a heterogeneous "group" of people, and you're right: one of the major reasons for the grouping is directly related to the language. But unfortunately thats how America sees the issue. I have a variety of latino friendsand aquaintances, mostly puerto rican, south american, and spanish. However, in my area of the country, people call them all mexican. Basically what I'm saying is that it sucks, but its true.

Ok. You're right. That's how "America" sees the issue (sarcasm). Who is America? The privileged majority? I hope you're including yourself with America because you're about to treat me that way in your statement below.

Another thing I wanted to mention is that even though people from a certain minority background have individual experiences as that minority, there are shared experiences that you can't deny are just that: shared. For example, even though you are a mexican american, TexaninDC, I'm sure you have shared experiences with other hispanics who may not be from the same background as you. Of course cubans in miami, puerto ricans in chicago and mexicans in SoCal have very different experiences as a hispanic in America, but there are still irrefutable experiences that are shared due to your minority status in the US. There isn't ONE latino... there is way to many differences within this "group" of people to say that. Being called a different nationality simply due to your language, being called racial slurs because of your status, etc are examples of this shared experience I'm talking about.

I have over and over again acknowledged that every person is unique with their own unique perspectives, but there is also a shared experience due to your social and or minority/majority status in a certain society.

I'm glad you used the term shared because I agree that experiences are shared. You are right, I do have shared experiences with Puerto Ricans in Chicago, Cubans in Miami, Salvadoreans in DC, and Mexicans in SoCal. You're argument here is that "being called a different nationality because of my language, being called racial slurs because of my status, etc are examples of this irrefutable shared experience." First of all, it's amazing that you think that these are the irrefutable shared experiences that I share with other Latinos. Secondly, it's amazing that you think that these experiences are unique to my ‘group.' If being called racial slurs, or being called a person of a different nationality MAKES me qualified to treat people I share this experience with, then by your argument, I share experiences with the Asian individual that gets called another nationality, the black individual that gets called racial slurs, the gay individual that's called derogatory terms, the Middle Eastern individual that get's called a terrorist, the woman who's discriminated on the basis of simply being a woman, the person with a physical or mental disability that's discriminated against because they're "different", or the white "privileged" individual that gets called racist because of his status, etc., because I share these experiences with them. Why do YOU put me into a group (Hispanic) and automatically say that because I share these experiences I am uniquely qualified to treat them better than someone who isn't part of the Hispanic group. If your basis for sharing experiences is race or any other variable rather than the experience itself, which isn't unique to any group, then that's where you're wrong.

Grouping individuals by minority/majority status is when you lose diversity in a group. At the end of the day, we share a lot more experiences with a lot if individuals than you seem to believe. By identifying what we share with individuals that are "different" than us, we allow for more diversity, as strange as that concept seems to be.


Secondly, you seem to say you understand the Latino experience by identifying "irrefutable" differences, without actually being part of the group. You state that you know this because of your friends and acquaintances that are Latino. So by being acquainted with some, then you MUST know the Latino experience. Why tell me you understand the Latino experience and then completely bash MarkP and T4C and tell them they don't understand the Gay experience. I'm sorry but you're a hypocrite.

What I am saying is that there are clients that may request a person demographically more similar to them, and I also think they should have this choice if they request it. I also think that in some cases (NOT ALL to clarify) a minority clinician may be able to better service a person of their background than a clinician who comes from a radically different background than the client. ALSO I honestly believe that with more minority clinicians help seeking in the field would go up considerably due to the presence of minority clinicians. I think that a huge portion of those who do not go to seek out help in the field is because of distrust or a lack of understanding. I think building rapport with these individuals and communities would be much easier and expedited with people from these backgrounds in the field.

I agree with this to some extent. I think you seem to associate need with recruiting individuals that ‘share' the experience of the people in need. If you look at Latinos in the United States who lack adequate health care and mental health care services, the overwhelming reason behind wanting adequate health care is having a provider that speaks the same language. Sure understanding cultural values unique to the population helps, but the overwhelming response is: "I need someone who speaks Spanish." I guarantee you, they'll prefer the White doctor that speaks Spanish because he grew up in SoCal and can help them over the Latino that doesn't speak Spanish (yet somehow irrefutably shares the same experience because he checks off the same census box). Sure they might at face value pick the Latino because s/he's Latino, but if the Latino doesn't fill the need, they'll go to the person that does. I think everyone here agrees that diversity in the field is important so that every client can have a choice of who they want to treat them. But I disagree that lumping me in a box and filling a quota of XYZ clinicians is the solution to the problem. And just to reiterate from my previous posts, it's probably more likely for individuals of the same SES status to share the same experiences; and my beliefs are that SES carries more weight than most other boxes. But we can debate that another day.

 

[phillydave]

W,

I am a liberal. I usually vote Democrat. But the way you wave your liberal "stick" in everyone's face is what's wrong with your arguments; not to mention your contradictions. You use McCain/Palin as a derogatory phrase, which just eats at your credibility when you attempt to validate your position. You may feel that everyone is attacking you and that is probably because everyone here feels attacked, stereotyped, labeled, or written off for being part of the "majority." It's okay to feel the proverbial liberal-guilt, but it's another thing to dismiss the ideas of your colleagues simply because they are unlike you.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Texan,

I agree with most of your post detailing Wapote's sins against rationality. However, he did state that, despite his experience with latino groups, that he cannot fully understand their experience. It's a true statement. The problem is that he is asserting that he can fully understand the gay male experience and that this translatable to other gay males and that this experience trumps other factors. Individuals, people. Individuals.

Exactly. All people of one group do not have the same experience.

 

[robinsena]

Exactly. All people of one group do not have the same experience.

Yes. But I'll add that in general, having been part of a minority group and having the experience of living in a different culture is irreplaceable in understanding the general feeling of trying to integrate different cultural values in an individual, which is why to an extent I agree that having diverse clinicians will probably facilitate access to care for diverse populations.

It's also why I think traveling abroad and living at least 6 months in a different country where they speak a different language should be strongly encouraged, if not mandatory, for anyone who really wants to claim they are committed to cultural competence. May sound extreme, but I have never been able to explain to someone fully what it feels like to be a minority unless he/she has gone through similar experiences. Those feelings and experiences can't be 'book-taught.'

 

[deleted176373]

Yes. But I'll add that in general, having been part of a minority group and having the experience of living in a different culture is irreplaceable in understanding the general feeling of trying to integrate different cultural values in an individual, which is why to an extent I agree that having diverse clinicians will probably facilitate access to care for diverse populations.

It's also why I think traveling abroad and living at least 6 months in a different country where they speak a different language should be strongly encouraged, if not mandatory, for anyone who really wants to claim they are committed to cultural competence. May sound extreme, but I have never been able to explain to someone fully what it feels like to be a minority unless he/she has gone through similar experiences. Those feelings and experiences can't be 'book-taught.'

Sage advice. It doesn't capture everything but so much can be learned through experiences like that.

Mark

 

[aagman01]

Amen to that - glad we can all have some common ground to support

Sage advice. It doesn't capture everything but so much can be learned through experiences like that.

Mark

 

[StudentBsMs11]

This thread makes me wince . . . However, I would gently like to point out that recent research (which I discovered on another thread discussing much the same topic) says that there is no significant difference in the number of women accepted by free-standing Psy.D, university professional school Psy.D, university department Psy.D, practice-oriented Ph.D, equal emphasis Ph.D, and research-oriented Ph.D programs. There is only one significant difference with regard to ethnic minorities and international students, which is that practice-oriented Ph.D programs take about twice as many international students as other clinical psychology programs.

The rates, by the way, are about 76% women and 23% ethnic minorities accepted by all types of programs. This seems relevant since I've heard it argued that professional school "diploma mills" are the ones accepting lots of women and damaging the field in some way.

Here's my reference:

Norcross, J. C., Ellis, J. L., & Sayette, M. A. (2010). Getting in and getting money: A comparative analysis of admission standards, acceptance rates, and financial assistance across the research-practice continuum in clinical psychology programs. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 4, 99-104.

 

[O Gurl]

Well, while you're being the arbiter of who is and is not an unrepresented minority, tell us... Asians? Should they get affirmative action preference? If so, should they get more or less than other minority groups such as African-Americans, Mexican-Americans, sexual minorities, or other minority groups.

Is there a minority pecking order?!? Which minority status is more "valuable"? Is a triple minority (say a homosexual, Asian, woman) more worthy of affirmative action than a single minority (African-American, heterosexual, male)?

Perhaps you can help me understand the pecking order some...

Mark

Oh, deary. You and that imaginary "minority pecking order" again. Mark, you are the ONLY person caught up on this bizarre idea. "Under represented" is situational. Hell, men (yes, white straight ones, too) are underrepresented in psychology (you know, how this whole topic started) so I am not sure why you have it fixed in your head that anyone is claiming that this term applies more heavily to one group or the other.

 

[O Gurl]

I once inserted myself into a conversation, after leaving a sociology type class, amongst a group of African-American college students who were talking about the class, the class in which I spent much of the time arguing the minority opinion (not racial minority but minority point of view).

Needless to say they weren’t too thrilled with me, but I was able to get them to really think, and have an honest and respectful dialogue with me on why African-Americans should be given racial preference in college admissions. If they had the same books available to them as all other students, and attended the same classes, in fact what if they had others in their classes of Asian or Caucasian race, so same school, same teachers, same books, same neighborhoods, why were African-Americans being told they needed a handout to get in? Are you okay with being told less is basically expected of you because of your race [or substitute whatever you wish here]? Isn’t that ultimately in opposition to the dream?

Glad you were able to get them to think and be respectful.

Anyway, I think there is a large misinterpretation of what AA (particularly in education) really does and who it benefits as evidenced by the framing as a "hand out." AA is an incentive for selection committees to be mindful of representation within their discipline for common sense reasons. I am unaware of any healthcare professional that I can point to and say: "he or she would not be here if it weren't for their minority status". To even think that would suggest that all "majority candidates" (in whatever context we were talking about) were more qualified and thus were no qualified minorities for selection. I actually find that to be offensive. In an ideal world we could operate under the "all you need is hard work" motto. But that requires us to make the naive assumption that decision-makers have no biases of their own. Our nation's history is rich with examples and facts to the contrary.

Wapote has covered in exhaustive detail how diversity among clinicians may play a role in therapeutic contexts. (Btw, never did he or she say it was right or wise for a patient to consider these factors, only that it DOES happen). However, there are other reasons why including an array of ethnic, racial, gender, SES, orientation, etc. perspectives keeps the field moving forward. It is no big secret that back when the vast majority of the world of psychology was homogenous, there was little-no thoughtful study of issues related women and other minorities. The field was stalled because of this. I personally, for example, am excited about the contributions of young generations of newly migrated and GLBT psychologists who may think to approach certain questions with a fresh perspective based on their experience. I think that is one way our field can remain relevant to the changing face of America.

 

[roubs]

Oh, deary. You and that imaginary "minority pecking order" again. Mark, you are the ONLY person caught up on this bizarre idea. "Under represented" is situational. Hell, men (yes, white straight ones, too) are underrepresented in psychology (you know, how this whole topic started) so I am not sure why you have it fixed in your head that anyone is claiming that this term applies more heavily to one group or the other.

He was saying such a pecking order is silly.

 

[O Gurl]

He was saying such a pecking order is silly.

It is. Very silly. Yet he insists on inserting it into any and all conversations about AA.

 

[deleted176373]

Oh, deary. You and that imaginary "minority pecking order" again. Mark, you are the ONLY person caught up on this bizarre idea. "Under represented" is situational. Hell, men (yes, white straight ones, too) are underrepresented in psychology (you know, how this whole topic started) so I am not sure why you have it fixed in your head that anyone is claiming that this term applies more heavily to one group or the other.

Seriously, you want to rehash this old thread... If I am the only person caught up with this idea you might want to talk to Princeton sociologist Thomas Espenshade and his colleague Alexandria Radford which according to R.K. Neili:

"They found that On an "other things equal basis," where adjustments are made for a variety of background factors, being Hispanic conferred an admissions boost over being white (for those who applied in 1997) equivalent to 130 SAT points (out of 1600), while being black rather than white conferred a 310 SAT point advantage. Asians, however, suffered an admissions penalty compared to whites equivalent to 140 SAT points...

The box students checked off on the racial question on their application was thus shown to have an extraordinary effect on a student's chances of gaining admission to the highly competitive private schools in the NSCE database. To have the same chances of gaining admission as a black student with an SAT score of 1100, an Hispanic student otherwise equally matched in background characteristics would have to have a 1230, a white student a 1410, and an Asian student a 1550." - How Diversity Punishes Asians, Poor Whites and Lots of Others By R.K. Neili , Ph.D. Funny, seems like a pecking order if you ask me... "but I am the only person "crazy" enough to hold such a bizarre belief" (even if that's not what I said). Don't blame me, blame the data.

How much you want to bet that if the same study was conducted of Graduate Clinical Psychology students that the outcomes wouldn't be much different with regard to GRE scores. Come back when you're ready to consider something other than Sue and Sue for your facts.

Personally, yes, I believe that having such a pecking order is silly, unfortunately that doesn't mean one does not exist, as the data clearly shows that educational institutions clearly have established such a pecking order. It is just as silly as thinking that minority status makes you a more effective therapist with members of a minority group. It might or might not impact your effectiveness, certainly cultural competence affects your effectiveness but minority status alone does not confer cultural competence.

Mark

PS - I apologize for the inarticulate nature of this post. I should have (if I cared about it) cited primary sources, but this isn't worth that much time. Second I want to be clear that I believe it is asinine to value one under-represented group over another.

PPS - Happy New Year to All.

 

[O Gurl]

Seriously, you want to rehash this old thread... If I am the only person caught up with this idea you might want to talk to Princeton sociologist Thomas Espenshade and his colleague Alexandria Radford which according to R.K. Neili:

"They found that On an "other things equal basis," where adjustments are made for a variety of background factors, being Hispanic conferred an admissions boost over being white (for those who applied in 1997) equivalent to 130 SAT points (out of 1600), while being black rather than white conferred a 310 SAT point advantage. Asians, however, suffered an admissions penalty compared to whites equivalent to 140 SAT points...

The box students checked off on the racial question on their application was thus shown to have an extraordinary effect on a student's chances of gaining admission to the highly competitive private schools in the NSCE database. To have the same chances of gaining admission as a black student with an SAT score of 1100, an Hispanic student otherwise equally matched in background characteristics would have to have a 1230, a white student a 1410, and an Asian student a 1550." - How Diversity Punishes Asians, Poor Whites and Lots of Others By R.K. Neili , Ph.D. Funny, seems like a pecking order if you ask me... "but I am the only person "crazy" enough to hold such a bizarre belief" (even if that's not what I said). Don't blame me, blame the data.

How much you want to bet that if the same study was conducted of Graduate Clinical Psychology students that the outcomes wouldn't be much different with regard to GRE scores. Come back when you're ready to consider something other than Sue and Sue for your facts.

Personally, yes, I believe that having such a pecking order is silly, unfortunately that doesn't mean one does not exist, as the data clearly shows that educational institutions clearly have established such a pecking order. It is just as silly as thinking that minority status makes you a more effective therapist with members of a minority group. It might or might not impact your effectiveness, certainly cultural competence affects your effectiveness but minority status alone does not confer cultural competence.

Mark

PS - I apologize for the inarticulate nature of this post. I should have (if I cared about it) cited primary sources, but this isn't worth that much time. Second I want to be clear that I believe it is asinine to value one under-represented group over another.

Uh huh. Isn't worth the time to provide a searchable reference so that people can actually read it, but worth it to post a muddled, Ivy-league name-dropping blurb?

Before I get to my thoughts on this nonsense, let me first be VERY clear in what I am saying to you in the context of your posts on this board. I am sure you are not the only person brooding over some perceived plot to elevate minorities in a systematic manner (with a not-so-subtle evil eye toward the browner ones- Blacks and Latinos), I am saying that you are the only person who inserted the conspiracy theory into this and any other discussion of AA. Quick review: one poster here mentioned that he is a white, straight male with a disability. Wapote pointed out that disabled persons are an underrepresented minority. You then took that as an opening to launch into a discussion of how many points are assigned to which minority group. THAT. IS. BIZARRE. Clearly it is something on the forefront of your mind, so let's discuss it.

Now, as for this sociologist you mentioned (who wasn't really the author of the study you quoted), his actual work examined 1) race-based affirmative action as in reference to athletes and then 2) race-based affirmative action at "selective" (Ivy league) universities. Uhh... I see 2 HUGE confounding factors that limit generalizability to clinical psychology programs. One being college athletics programs, which are notorious for valuing physical prowess over academics, and often even perpetuating it. Ever wonder why the star football player was never present for test day? Can't risk losing the guy who is raking in the big bucks for the university. It is about revenue and that is a very different issue than an attempt to give dark guys an education at the expense of others. The second is the microcosm of Ivy leaguers, which is a situation where even you must realize that background plays a huge part on any side. Admissions at such universities have long been impacted by family legacy, wealth (who can afford to pay that tuition?), and breeding (kids from prestigous private high schools probably get a few points, too). Admittedly, the vast majority of Latino and Black applicants are likely not coming in with those advantages. But if you mean to suggest that brown kids are getting admitted to Harvard and Yale with subpar GPAs and test scores maybe you should pull one of them aside (I can send you a couple numbers) and compare your stats. Or if you want to trade GRE scores or CVs I'd be happy to oblige. You may end up getting your feelings hurt.

 

[deleted176373]

Uh huh. Isn't worth the time to provide a searchable reference so that people can actually read it, but worth it to post a muddled, Ivy-league name-dropping blurb?

Yep, because this thread had already ran it's course and then some. For some reason though you want to re-hash it all again. So, yes, I was lazy enough to google quickly and add that in there.

Before I get to my thoughts on this nonsense, let me first be VERY clear in what I am saying to you in the context of your posts on this board. I am sure you are not the only person brooding over some perceived plot to elevate minorities in a systematic manner (with a not-so-subtle evil eye toward the browner ones- Blacks and Latinos), I am saying that you are the only person who inserted the conspiracy theory into this and any other discussion of AA. Quick review: one poster here mentioned that he is a white, straight male with a disability. Wapote pointed out that disabled persons are an underrepresented minority. You then took that as an opening to launch into a discussion of how many points are assigned to which minority group. THAT. IS. BIZARRE. Clearly it is something on the forefront of your mind, so let's discuss it.

No, not really in the forefront of my mind. Nor am I the problem here, Wapote said lots of inane things throughout his discussion. The point I was making is that diversity only seems worthy of discussion when it benefits particular groups and not others. I am unsure where you're going with the "browner" comment, as plenty of groups other than those who exhibit darker skin have been marginalized throughout history. I would hardly call my asking the question of how does one value "diversity" a conspiracy theory. What's bizarre is your single minded focus on skin color.

I hope you are not suggesting that I am some kind of racist?

Now, as for this sociologist you mentioned (who wasn't really the author of the study you quoted), his actual work examined 1) race-based affirmative action as in reference to athletes and then 2) race-based affirmative action at "selective" (Ivy league) universities. Uhh... I see 2 HUGE confounding factors that limit generalizability to clinical psychology programs. One being college athletics programs, which are notorious for valuing physical prowess over academics, and often even perpetuating it. Ever wonder why the star football player was never present for test day? Can't risk losing the guy who is raking in the big bucks for the university. It is about revenue and that is a very different issue than an attempt to give dark guys an education at the expense of others.

Why are you so fixated on skin color? I don't care whether it's about skin color, gender, ethnicity, age, sexual preference, or religion to be honest. Giving preferences on these things is wrong, just as it is wrong to give preferences for a lot of reasons that have little to do with academic ability.

The second is the microcosm of Ivy leaguers, which is a situation where even you must realize that background plays a huge part on any side. Admissions at such universities have long been impacted by family legacy, wealth (who can afford to pay that tuition?), and breeding (kids from prestigous private high schools probably get a few points, too). Admittedly, the vast majority of Latino and Black applicants are likely not coming in with those advantages. But if you mean to suggest that brown kids are getting admitted to Harvard and Yale with subpar GPAs and test scores maybe you should pull one of them aside (I can send you a couple numbers) and compare your stats. Or if you want to trade GRE scores or CVs I'd be happy to oblige. You may end up getting your feelings hurt.

Wow, so you want to turn this into a pissing contest where we both whip out our scores and see who's better? My stats have been posted here before, and I am sure that yours are better than mine... So what does that prove? That perhaps you didn't need AA to get ahead and that the whole AA system is based on the flawed premise that "darker skinned" people need a "level" playing field. I still can't wrap my head around you're single focus on skin color as the only proxy for diversity.

Look, I never have claimed to be the smartest guy in the room. I went to New York public schools, I graduated from a low prestige university in south Texas, but I'm smart enough to get into graduate school and I'm smart enough to complete my Ph.D. in Psychology. So it won't hurt my feelings if you are "smarter" than me. I am quite sure that I have the opportunity to be the dumbest person in the room far more often than you. All that means is I get to learn the most.

Mark

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I am quite sure that I have the opportunity to be the dumbest person in the room far more often than you.

Ok folks...let's get this back on topic and not a personal back and forth....eh?