Doesn't affirmative action enhance stereotypes in admissions?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ratman7
  • Start date Start date
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Members don't see this ad.
efle said:
There's nothing wrong with that, the rich need care too. It's only worth getting upset if you see schools stop making effort to also educate some doctors that feel differently and will treat the non rich
Click to expand...

@efle, disagree with you vigorously here. Are you really saying it is OK for medical schools to train physicians for the wealthy just as long as they make sure they train a few just for the poor folks? And from that point of view, why should minority physicians be any more obligated to treat the poor than their non-minority brethren?

Didn't someone say once that a society is only as rich as reflected by how it treats those who are afflicted with disability and/or without means?
 
Nietzschelover said:
@efle, disagree with you vigorously here. Are you really saying it is OK for medical schools to train physicians for the wealthy just as long as they make sure they train a few just for the poor folks? And from that point of view, why should minority physicians be any more obligated to treat the poor than their non-minority brethren?

Didn't someone say once that a society is only as rich as reflected by how it treats those who are afflicted with disability and/or without means?
Click to expand...
Medical schools don't train physicians to treat a certain social class of people. People are people. He's saying (I think) that physicians that only want to treat a certain group of people is not necessarily a bad thing. Would you say it's wrong for physicians to only cater to poor or underserved populations? What about only serving their own race? Gender? Sexuality?

The problem I think you have is where the physician's motivation is derived. I can only assume you're not a consequentialist.
 
Nietzschelover said:
@efle, disagree with you vigorously here. Are you really saying it is OK for medical schools to train physicians for the wealthy just as long as they make sure they train a few just for the poor folks? And from that point of view, why should minority physicians be any more obligated to treat the poor than their non-minority brethren?

Didn't someone say once that a society is only as rich as reflected by how it treats those who are afflicted with disability and/or without means?
Click to expand...
I certainly believe people need not be locked in to anything. People may switch from plans of Derm to rural or inner city family practice and vice versa, fine by me, and regardless of their skin color or SES.

My reasoning is more like so: Applicant Group A is many white children of physicians who grew up with privilege, scored very well on the MCAT, and got A's at their Ivy undergrad paid for by mom and dad. They have a very low percent chance of ending up serving the underserved, and are a major chunk of the people who go on to practice elective/cosmetic plastics, derm and other competitive specialties, or primary care in the very nice parts of the country. Applicant Group B is minority children who grew up in poverty and have spent a lot of time volunteering with the underserved, but scored in the high 20's MCAT, and had some very low early college grades followed by a solid upward trend at their local public school. This group is far more likely to return to serve the underserved and far less likely to set up shop in the richest part of town or have a career performing nose jobs.

I think it is fine for med schools to admit candidates from Group A. Good chance they would only want to work in the nice part of a nice city, but that's fine, there's some need for doctors there. I only take issue if I start to see schools stop admitting from B.
 
efle said:
I certainly believe people need not be locked in to anything. People may switch from plans of Derm to rural or inner city family practice and vice versa, fine by me, and regardless of their skin color or SES.

My reasoning is more like so: Applicant Group A is many white children of physicians who grew up with privilege, scored very well on the MCAT, and got A's at their Ivy undergrad paid for by mom and dad. They have a very low percent chance of ending up serving the underserved, and are a major chunk of the people who go on to practice elective/cosmetic plastics, derm and other competitive specialties, or primary care in the very nice parts of the country. Applicant Group B is minority children who grew up in poverty and have spent a lot of time volunteering with the underserved, but scored in the high 20's MCAT, and had some very low early college grades followed by a solid upward trend at their local public school. This group is far more likely to return to serve the underserved and far less likely to set up shop in the richest part of town or have a career performing nose jobs.

I think it is fine for med schools to admit candidates from Group A. Good chance they would only want to work in the nice part of a nice city, but that's fine, there's some need for doctors there. I only take issue if I start to see schools stop admitting from B.
Click to expand...

I don't know how much of the above you intended to be hypothetical, but I don't like your construction above any better. You're suggesting or at least colluding with a segregated system, and even more, a segregated system that relies on a certain segment of the physician base (the disadvantaged one) serving the disadvantaged.

As for your Applicant Group A pool, I would agree that a large group of applicants/matriculants come from a pool similar to what you describe (I would expand to advantaged applicants from top 50 Univs and top 50 LACs), but I think your assumption that most or the majority out of that pool do not want to serve the underserved and are gunning for the specialties you noted is false (or at least I hope it is false). And, aside from your comments about MCAT scores and such for the B Group, I can't imagine that a significant number of those wouldn't be interested in working and living in the "nice part of town," if only for the the overly simplistic reason that part of pursuing a MD is to get themselves out of the "bad part of town."
 
Womb Raider said:
Medical schools don't train physicians to treat a certain social class of people. People are people. He's saying (I think) that physicians that only want to treat a certain group of people is not necessarily a bad thing. Would you say it's wrong for physicians to only cater to poor or underserved populations? What about only serving their own race? Gender? Sexuality?

The problem I think you have is where the physician's motivation is derived. I can only assume you're not a consequentialist.
Click to expand...

I'm an existentialist...and post-structuralist (obviously).
 
Nietzschelover said:
I don't know how much of the above you intended to be hypothetical, but I don't like your construction above any better. You're suggesting or at least colluding with a segregated system, and even more, a segregated system that relies on a certain segment of the physician base (the disadvantaged one) serving the disadvantaged.

As for your Applicant Group A pool, I would agree that a large group of applicants/matriculants come from a pool similar to what you describe (I would expand to advantaged applicants from top 50 Univs and top 50 LACs), but I think your assumption that most or the majority out of that pool do not want to serve the underserved and are gunning for the specialties you noted is false (or at least I hope it is false). And, aside from your comments about MCAT scores and such for the B Group, I can't imagine that a significant number of those wouldn't be interested in working and living in the "nice part of town," if only for the the overly simplistic reason that part of pursuing a MD is to get themselves out of the "bad part of town."
Click to expand...
I am not speaking in hypotheticals. If it were true that people from group A will willing in large numbers to serve the under served (and if patients were will to go to them for treatment, an already covered issue) then I would agree with you. But gyngyn and goro in discussions on this have said the data very much shows that those who are highly likely to serve these populations are the ones who are/were members of these populations. Admitting minority/low SES applicants is the best way to provide for currently under served minority / low SES populations.
 
Womb Raider said:
Are those ethical theories? I was more asking about what branch of ethics you prefer, not philosophy.
Click to expand...

What are my choices, lol?

By training, I'm a phenomenologist.....the bridge between existentialism and post-structuralism.

I guess I am a determinist in the sense that I believe everyone has a story and that everyone's story by definition makes sense. I don't believe some deserve less care or inferior care on the basis of the fate of their story. While you might want to come down hard on a woman or couple that has a bunch of children they can't afford and can't support (financially or otherwise), and we could debate that, their children certainly aren't responsible for how they came into the world, and in my view they are no less deserving of top-end care than my own children.
 
efle said:
I am not speaking in hypotheticals. If it were true that people from group A will willing in large numbers to serve the under served (and if patients were will to go to them for treatment, an already covered issue) then I would agree with you. But gyngyn and goro in discussions on this have said the data very much shows that those who are highly likely to serve these populations are the ones who are/were members of these populations. Admitting minority/low SES applicants is the best way to provide for currently under served minority / low SES populations.
Click to expand...

So if the docs from Group A did serve the underserved, are you arguing that there would be no need to facilitate entry into the profession from minority/low SES applicants? Your analysis just doesn't taste right, and even if it is right, certainly doesn't seem like something we should accept as right.
 
Nietzschelover said:
While you might want to come down hard on a woman or couple that has a bunch of children they can't afford and can't support (financially or otherwise), and we could debate that, their children certainly aren't responsible for how they came into the world, and in my view they are no less deserving of top-end care than my own children.
Click to expand...
Interesting. So if you are fortunate enough to make enough money so that you can start saving up to fund (or partially aid) your childrens' education, will you be giving that money to all children pursuing education? Or only your own children?
 
Nietzschelover said:
So if the docs from Group A did serve the underserved, are you arguing that there would be no need to facilitate entry into the profession from minority/low SES applicants? Your analysis just doesn't taste right, and even if it is right, certainly doesn't seem like something we should accept as right.
Click to expand...
Group A is the best group of applicants because they have the best scores and best EC's, shadowing hours, experience, etc... The only thing the sub-par group (group B) has going for them is that they're more likely to serve a particular group of the population. If this distinction goes away, then yes, of course we will stop giving a boost to inferior applicants. This is a good thing.

*Edit* low SES might be different, I'm mainly talking about URMs.
 
Womb Raider said:
Interesting. So if you are fortunate enough to make enough money so that you can start saving up to fund (or partially aid) your childrens' education, will you be giving that money to all children pursuing education? Or only your own children?
Click to expand...

Actually, it's worse (or better depending on pov) than you suggest, and explains why a thread like this exists. The advantage is generational...not just what I can provide my kids but also what they get by virtue of my parents and their other grandparents. Not sure why you would suggest that my position entails having to pay for the other children's educations. In any case, we're talking about medical care, not Ivy League schools or luxury vehicles, and in my view medical care should be a fundamental service available to everyone.
 
Womb Raider said:
Group A is the best group of applicants because they have the best scores and best EC's, shadowing hours, experience, etc... The only thing the sub-par group (group B) has going for them is that they're more likely to serve a particular group of the population. If this distinction goes away, then yes, of course we will stop giving a boost to inferior applicants. This is a good thing.

*Edit* low SES might be different, I'm mainly talking about URMs.
Click to expand...

And I don't think the idea that group B is going to serve "their kind" (doesn't feel right when put that way, does it?) is the reason or certainly not the only reason they get a boost. And we're only going to provide incentives to "inferior" physicians to work with the underserved? What about the URMs who overlap with group A?
 
Essentially agree with the above. If low SES/minority no longer had a different chance of going to serve the under served, and those patients no longer showed preference to such docs, then I would want to see it become race-blinded admissions. If there was evidence that skin color and background contributed beyond the two things I mentioned it may change my view - unlike womb my definition of right/wrong can be changed by introducing new contextual information.
 
efle said:
Essentially agree with the above. If low SES/minority no longer had a different chance of going to serve the under served, and those patients no longer showed preference to such docs, then I would want to see it become race-blinded admissions. If there was evidence that skin color and background contributed beyond the two things I mentioned it may change my view - unlike womb my definition of right/wrong can be changed by introducing new contextual information.
Click to expand...

I hear you, but this really strikes me as bizarre. You're essentially endorsing and providing cover for a segregated system of care, and to a large extent, along notoriously racial/ethnic/economic lines.
 
efle said:
unlike womb my definition of right/wrong can be changed by introducing new contextual information.
Click to expand...
Lol what makes you think my definitions of right/wrong are final?
Nietzschelover said:
Actually, it's worse (or better depending on pov) than you suggest, and explains why a thread like this exists. The advantage is generational...not just what I can provide my kids but also what they get by virtue of my parents and their other grandparents. Not sure why you would suggest that my position entails having to pay for the other children's educations. In any case, we're talking about medical care, not Ivy League schools or luxury vehicles, and in my view medical care should be a fundamental service available to everyone.
Click to expand...
You said your kids are no more deserving of something than another kids were. So why would you give all of your money to your own kids instead of splitting it between other kids? Obviously you think they deserve it more based on something otherwise you wouldn't give it to them.
Nietzschelover said:
And I don't think the idea that group B is going to serve "their kind" (doesn't feel right when put that way, does it?) is the reason or certainly not the only reason they get a boost. And we're only going to provide incentives to "inferior" physicians to work with the underserved? What about the URMs who overlap with group A?
Click to expand...
1. It's not necessary that they "serve their own kind" just that they serve the groups that are traditionally underserved and need more help. If rich white boys were found to be more likely to serve the underserved, and that the underserved preferred them to other physicians, they would be the ones getting the advantage.
2. URMS that overlap with group A don't need an additional boost, why would they get one?
3. SES is different because poor kids usually don't have the educational advantages and opportunities that wealthier kids do. This is one of the few situations I feel a slight boost may be justified under certain conditions.
Nietzschelover said:
I hear you, but this really strikes me as bizarre. You're essentially endorsing and providing cover for a segregated system of care, and to a large extent, along notoriously racial/ethnic/economic lines.
Click to expand...
Exactly! Which is why this whole idea is backwards.
 
@Womb Raider (and yes, this stuff and posting in general is addictive)...

My kids landed where they landed. It's in that sense that they aren't more deserving. I'm not thereby arguing that they have to give that up, but more that others born into less fortunate circumstances shouldn't be blamed for their fate. And where you land when born essentially is fate.

And I wasn't suggesting that URMs who overlap with Group A should get a boost, but rather wondering whether you thought they should work with the disadvantaged. I don't buy the argument at all that less than stellar, but still capable, URMs should have to cut a deal to work with the underserved in order to gain admission...or rather, that certainly isn't the only reason they should get a boost. There's been quite a bit of discussion about the boost for Veterans. That doesn't have a thing to do with them making any promises to serve the underserved, nor is there any reason to think they would be more inclined to do so.
 
Nietzschelover said:
I hear you, but this really strikes me as bizarre. You're essentially endorsing and providing cover for a segregated system of care, and to a large extent, along notoriously racial/ethnic/economic lines.
Click to expand...
There is currently a patient demand for same-race docs, it is not really any more segregation than is religious families desiring to send their children to a christian affiliated school. If that type of self-imposed segregation can be eliminated on the patient end, then it can disappear from the admissions game. Its all about what leads to best care considering patient behaviors.

@wombraider you said you were a deontologist, that means your moral judgement is static and context independent. If you begin adjusting your definition of right by context you have become a consequentialist.
 
efle said:
@wombraider you said you were a deontologist, that means your moral judgement is static and context independent. If you begin adjusting your definition of right by context you have become a consequentialist.
Click to expand...
Nope. I never said I was a deontologist - you must have me confused with someone else.
 
Nietzschelover said:
I hear you, but this really strikes me as bizarre. You're essentially endorsing and providing cover for a segregated system of care, and to a large extent, along notoriously racial/ethnic/economic lines.
Click to expand...
It's not about a segregated system of care. It's just that underserved groups tend to live in specific areas and people aren't exactly lining up to help them. In fact, if they weren't undeserved, the context of these discussions would be completely different.
 
Nietzschelover said:
And I wasn't suggesting that URMs who overlap with Group A should get a boost, but rather wondering whether you thought they should work with the disadvantaged. I don't buy the argument at all that less than stellar, but still capable, URMs should have to cut a deal to work with the underserved in order to gain admission...or rather, that certainly isn't the only reason they should get a boost. There's been quite a bit of discussion about the boost for Veterans. That doesn't have a thing to do with them making any promises to serve the underserved, nor is there any reason to think they would be more inclined to do so.
Click to expand...
Yeah it's complicated and messy... On one hand, if the only reason someone gets accepted is BECAUSE they are more likely to serve the underserved, then on some level of course I want to make sure they end up doing that. Otherwise they take the spot from someone more qualified which doesn't seem fair.

Unfortunately this won't ever happen because:
A) We would need some type of objective "scoring" system for applicants. Not only is this a bad idea but I think it's impossible (you can't put a numerical value on qualities like altruism, probability of serving the underserved, etc... And any attempt to do so would be subjective, thus defeating the original purpose).
B) we won't force people to work in underserved areas. Forcing physicians to work in specific areas is a HORRIBLE idea. (My libertarianism is coming out).
 
Cyberdyne 101 said:
It's not about a segregated system of care. It's just that underserved groups tend to live in specific areas and people aren't exactly lining up to help them. In fact, if they weren't undeserved, the context of these discussions would be completely different.
Click to expand...

If the net result is a segregated system of care, and if policies collude with reinforcing that (directly or indirectly) then it is very much about segregated care. Create incentives for physicians from all groups to serve the underserved. Offer academic affiliations and benefits for those who agree to serve a particular rural or urban area.
 
Womb Raider said:
Yeah it's complicated and messy... On one hand, if the only reason someone gets accepted is BECAUSE they are more likely to serve the underserved, then on some level of course I want to make sure they end up doing that. Otherwise they take the spot from someone more qualified which doesn't seem fair.

Unfortunately this won't ever happen because:
A) We would need some type of objective "scoring" system for applicants. Not only is this a bad idea but I think it's impossible (you can't put a numerical value on qualities like altruism, probability of serving the underserved, etc... And any attempt to do so would be subjective, thus defeating the original purpose).
B) we won't force people to work in underserved areas. Forcing physicians to work in specific areas is a HORRIBLE idea. (My libertarianism is coming out).
Click to expand...

I think I very much agree with your last point, and my guess is that there are 40 MCAT folks just as there are 30 MCAT folks who might be interested in the incentives offered to want to work in underserved areas. Let's think of this another way....from the Adcom perspective. I presume that the heavy emphasis on demonstrating altruism and a willingness to help the underserved is NOT reserved for just the URM applicants, or just for the "inferior" applicants. And assuming I'm correct about that, why is that??? Why are med schools making that such a priority for ALL applicants/matriculants?
 
That wouldn't help as the added incentives would apply equally - that is, you'd likely increase both the URM and ORM interest in the under served and still end up with more URM heading there. To actually balance things out you'd have to do something like pay only white doctors extra for going to minority areas. And of course this does nothing to solve the issue that patients may refuse to see them. You'd need to first solve the overall troubled and mistrustful race relations in the country in order to have balanced race in underserved provide equal care as mostly URM in under served.
 
What Efle said is right. Giving incentives to work in specific areas probably won't fix the problem because half of the equation is providing physicians that the patients want to go to. This is a problem for society as a whole and, IMO, the only cure is time. In a generation or two it won't be nearly as bad.

If there is incentive to go/do anything, it should be family medicine.

Nietzschelover said:
I presume that the heavy emphasis on demonstrating altruism and a willingness to help the underserved is NOT reserved for just the URM applicants, or just for the "inferior" applicants. And assuming I'm correct about that, why is that??? Why are med schools making that such a priority for ALL applicants/matriculants?
Click to expand...

Two possible reasons.
A) because these values are traditionally thought of inherent qualities that physicians should possess
B) because the pool of adequate applicants is increasing faster than the pool of class spots. When this happens it allows schools to be more picky and thus pick out more and more qualities like this that are believed to be good things.
 
Last edited:
Nietzschelover said:
I think I very much agree with your last point, and my guess is that there are 40 MCAT folks just as there are 30 MCAT folks who might be interested in the incentives offered to want to work in underserved areas. Let's think of this another way....from the Adcom perspective. I presume that the heavy emphasis on demonstrating altruism and a willingness to help the underserved is NOT reserved for just the URM applicants, or just for the "inferior" applicants. And assuming I'm correct about that, why is that??? Why are med schools making that such a priority for ALL applicants/matriculants?
Click to expand...
Its not binary. Applicants may be universally expected to have some volunteering, but someone like me with a few hundred hours of tutoring at a high quality hospital is not the same as someone with a couple thousand hours working at outreach programs or understaffed clinics in the inner city.

And again I feel like you view it as adcoms having plenty of inner-city oriented types of both Type A and Type B to choose from, but from when the adcoms have gotten involved they've said the overwhelming majority of people with demonstrated inner city service have it on their resume because they came from and strongly identify with that population. Your theoretical alternative of white rich kid with strong scores who has thousands of hours serving in a black ghetto isn't really an available quantity.
 
Nietzschelover said:
If the net result is a segregated system of care, and if policies collude with reinforcing that (directly or indirectly) then it is very much about segregated care. Create incentives for physicians from all groups to serve the underserved. Offer academic affiliations and benefits for those who agree to serve a particular rural or urban area.
Click to expand...
I think you're missing the point. I'm going to use the Cambodian community as an example because people often view this as a black and white issue when there are other factors to consider. Cambodians, which are an underserved group, are more likely to trust physicians from their own community due to cultural reasons. And without more Cambodian doctors, this community will continue to be underserved. I mean, you can call it segregated care or whatever, but if UIM policies ultimately help the Cambodian community achieve better care, then we've made significant progress.
 
I've never bought the argument that diversity for diversity's sake is somehow valuable, prestigious and adds merit to a degree. Yes, I agree that there should be no discrimination in hiring, and that principle must be a two way street if we are to hope for egalitarianism. No discrimination against minorities, no discrimination against whites, and no discrimination against anybody regardless of their personal creed, belief, skin color, ethnicity, race or heritage.
 
So apparently, starting a flame war in a FB thread wasn't enough. You also had to resurrect this thread... Well at least this one is actually on topic...
 
Spector1 said:
I've never bought the argument that diversity for diversity's sake is somehow valuable, prestigious and adds merit to a degree.
Click to expand...
Then why aren't UC Berkeley and UCLA considered some of the best universities in the nation?! Checkmate, racetheists
 
Last edited:
efle said:
I got probation once for a post that literally had "/s" in it. Winged Scapula really doesn't do my humor
Click to expand...
I vaguely remember that thread, and I think some people got banned. I suspect she just got a little trigger-happy with the ban hammer and stuck your ass on probation haha.
 
efle said:
Then why aren't UC Berkeley and UCLA considered some of the best universities in the nation?! Checkmate, racetheists
Click to expand...

UC Berkeley is one of the top university in the nation - even when compared to private school. Just saying :/
 
moisne said:
UC Berkeley is one of the top university in the nation - even when compared to private school. Just saying :/
Click to expand...
I take it you stopped reading after that post
 
efle said:
Then why aren't UC Berkeley and UCLA considered some of the best universities in the nation?! Checkmate, racetheists
Click to expand...
What are you talking about? Those are both excellent schools...
 
You guys are killin me
 
efle said:
I got probation once for a post that literally had "/s" in it. Winged Scapula really doesn't do my humor
Click to expand...
I thought it was when you gave us a chemistry lesson 😛
 
Out of all the threads you guys could've bumped... Lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
  • Question Question
Did the repeal of affirmative action change diversity secondary prompts?
Replies
6
Views
1K
bananaboatt
bananaboatt
Q
Disciplinary Action
Replies
6
Views
1K
Mr.Smile12
Mr.Smile12
S
  • Locked
The Supreme Court struck down affirmative action
Replies
2
Views
3K
gyngyn
gyngyn
T
  • Question Question
Question about Institutional Action - I really messed up
Replies
17
Views
3K
Mr.Smile12
Mr.Smile12
2
  • Locked
Supreme Court Ruling, Race based admissions.
13 14 15 16 17
Replies
809
Views
51K
gyngyn
gyngyn
Top