Ignore Afirmative Action

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Originally posted by pathdr2b
FYI, I'm "much lighter" than most middle easterns folks I know.
That's not surprising since the average African-American is almost 1/4 Caucasian (and that's just the average). The majority of African-Americans are bi-racial mostly due to the Caucasian slave masters forcing themselves on Black African females during slave times....and also, in part to recent bi-racial relationships of this past century.

Members don't see this ad.
 
Originally posted by Dmcpharmd2be
And when did this STOP being the school's decision. It's like this d*mn smoking ban the Dallas city council has just put in place. Why should my smoking a cigarette bother you, and if it does WHY NOT GO SOMEWHERE ELSE? It's up to the restaurant's owner to make that decision, to go smoking and nonsmoking or just nonsmoking. If you don't like smoke at all, go to a completely nonsmoking restaurant. Same applies here, stop b*tching and moaning about this process, in the end it's not up to you. If you don't like a particular school's admission screening policy, then guess what DON'T ENDORSE THEM BY APPLYING. And if not applying throws off your life plan, then stop crying and apply
I can't tell if you're for or against AA...but your logic doesn't make sense. Does that imply that during Jim Crowe laws, that African-Americans should have just stopped bitching and moaning about it being illegal for them to attend school?! And if they didn't like that, then they should have just moved on and not cried about it? These schools are receiving public funds...they should not discriminate against *anyone*, regardless of race.

Anways, we *can* do something about changing AA to not discriminate based on race! Write the AMA ([email protected]) and Congress ( http://www.house.gov/WriteRep/ ):

Here are the current AA options that are on the AMA website:
Option 1: Maintain four current categories:
Black, Mexican American, mainland Puerto Rican, and Native American

Option 2: Add racial and ethnic groups to the current categories and maintain a definition

Option 3: Substitute a strong statement on diversity for a URM definition

Option 4: Maintain a commitment to the four historically identified groups and issue a strong statement on diversity

Option 5: Replace the URM definition with a new designation, those "underrepresented in medicine."

"Underrepresented in medicine" means those racial and ethnic populations that are underrepresented in the medical profession relative to their numbers in the general population.


The AMA is actually asking people to respond to this document via [email protected].

Here's what I wrote (if anyone else is writing them, feel free to copy anything below):


For those that don't agree with affirmative action, option 1 & option 4 aren't an improvement and option 2 makes it worse.

Option 5 isn't looking at it from the correct statistical standpoint:

If the system is to be improved, you really can't look at a straight % of URM's in this country anyways.....a fairer observation would be to look at those that are actually interested in competing for med school... and of that segment, you have to look at those that are as qualified when compared to everyone else that is also competing for a spot.

Here's an analogy: females make up a tiny percentage of Green Berets. One reason is because even though females make up 50% of the population, they are not interested in competing for the Green Berets. Also, just because there are those females that do compete, doesn't mean that they're going to be as qualified in PROPORTION to the males that compete to get in. Females historically don't do as well when competing against males in an athletic capacity, etcetera.

I'm not inferring that the URM's who are competing for spots aren't *capable* of doing as well as non-URM's, but historically & currently, they don't do as well academically.
~~~~~~~~~~

I think there are a lot of problems with the current form of AA, but I also see the other side and agree that some form of AA is good.

Obviously the current system of "Affirmative Action" or "Reverse Discrimination" (depending on your point of view) isn't working:

A) Under-Represented-Minorities (URM's) think that they need Affirmative Action (AA) to succeed, but resent being given a stigma and thought of as "being let into college with lower standards" if they get into a university such as Harvard (or any college for that matter) because it could never be proven otherwise.

B) The majority of Americans are against it because Caucasians and Asians think lower standards should not apply to someone just because of their race.

There seem to be two major problems that resulted in having to have AA in the 1st place:

1) In this country, African-Americans and other minorities have a higher percentage of poor people and as a result, end up in school systems with lesser facilities.

2) African-Americans and other minorities think that "whites" in the system are prejudiced towards them.

Concerning issue #1, this is an economic problem and could be dealt with by changing Affirmative Action to take income into consideration (for all races), like many other low-income programs do, such as "HEAD START" which start helping students before they're even in kindergarten.

In addition, if a true "disadvantage" status could be proven (the same as a low-income status has to be proven to get financial aid), then it should also be the major, if not only, status taken into consideration for lower admissions standards. For example, you could prove this status through financial, court/legal documents, police, & doctor reports... (a poor child of any race, a child has hopped from 1 foster home to the next, or has been abused, or has physical malformations). Eddie Murphy's children wouldn't qualify as being "truly disadvantaged", but foster kids from a poor White family from the hills of TN or children of a poor Asian family from the ghettos of NYC could qualify...& that's a more fair system.

Concerning issue #2, there are steps of anonymous test-taking methods or other methods that could be implemented to prevent any racist teachers ("white" or "black") from raising or lowering test scores of students based on their race. Not that this even happens, but as long as African-Americans think that it happens, then their continual perception of being "victims" is part of the problem.

The reason why I think this solution is a fair compromise is that it will still affect African-Americans and other minorities to a greater extent since their experience of prejudice and their percentage of poor are greater than non-minorities'. Therefore, it will not neglect the fact that URM physicians are necessary for serving the URM community, and it will significantly reduce the "stigma" associated with African-Americans getting into universities.

And such a solution will also take into account poor non-minority children and disadvantaged children of all races.
 
Path - If you REALLY want us to ignore AA, then I suggest you delete this entire thread (if you're really serious about your plea).....because this thread is only lending more attention to the subect.....




Originally posted by pathdr2b
Or at least what people think about it! Many threads on SDN are full of debates on the legality of AA. Many more URM's are trying to defend it. My question is why?

Debating AA is such a waste because as the law stands now it is legal!!! Furthermore, as a URM I don't give a da@# what people think of how I got to where I am or how I'm getting into medical school. Bottom line, I'm going to continue to do the best I can to become the best Physician/Scientist I can. By definition, that will make me more than qualified to get the job done!

Instead of debating AA, we should all just focus on getting the best grades and MCATs we can but understand that not everyone will be successful in getting accepted into medical school. I venture to say that those that waste their time debating the unfairness of AA might be better off using that time to study!!!
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Originally posted by INeedAdvice
Eddie Murphy's children wouldn't qualify as being "truly disadvantaged", but foster kids from a poor White family from the hills of TN or children of a poor Asian family from the ghettos of NYC could qualify...& that's a more fair system.
[/B]

I dunno, INeedAdvice, have you seen "Pluto Nash" or "I Spy"? I'd say there's a good chance his children have been physically or at least emotionally attacked by their peers.

I agree with your proposal regarding the AA system. This has been suggested several times in AA threads I've posted in and I believe it is called a "race-neutral" means of promoting diversity. It has been completely ignored by the pro-AA supporters on this board. I think their thinking is way too reactionary to accept any compromise on this issue.
 
DAMN, I thought CRY ME A RIVER was only the name of song. LOL it's funny that you presume to know where I stand on this POINTLESS argument. I hate fueling this dumb thread by addressing your thick headed fury. So here is where I stand, I'm very middle ground on this subject my friend. I HONESTLY DO THINK THAT AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IS "REVERSE DISCRIMINATION" BY NATURE. Come on, we all knew this. Even the founders of this policy thought so. READ PEOPLE! BUTT..I do think it serves a purpose. If they got rid of it, or if they kept it...I wouldn't really give a damn either way my friend. Assuming the school liked the idea of a diverse student body. Do you really think if they took it off the application's legal fine print, they would seize (in reality) to PRACTICE AA ? And yes, your right it's not fair. Neither, is Social Security, Unemployment or Welfare. Not only is that my opinion, it's tough ****. Your pissed b/c you think that your being shut out. If that's true, then your at the bottom of that school's decision list. If you were really a SUPERIOR APPLICANT, I PROMISE YOU affirmative action wouldn't hurt you either way. If it does, then your application more then likely was mediocre at best, and the school decided to take a gamble on another candidate. They figure neither one of you was a shoe in, so why not fill their quotes. Dude, do you think that a medical school TURNS AWAY IT'S BEST TALENT to offer a seat to another, just b/c they are a minority. HELL NO!!! But the guys that could or might be successful, yeah their seats are in question. B/C to the ADCOM it's a gamble either way. Sure, some majority members think AA is unfair. Their reasoning, if they received a 4.0 and the minority (who was selected) received a 3.79, they should've been selected. I got news for you, 4.0s, top of the class, good family or Medical background and a perceived genuine desire to practice medicine <------many of these people, really smart people FAIL, QUIT OR ARE ASKED NOT TO RETURN, ALL THE TIME! It's really not that uncommon. So having that knowledge, you tell me and them WHO THEY SHOULD'VE SELECTED? And you have to understand, an ADCOM's goal is to select an applicant who they PREDICT, will succed in their school. And if you honestly don't know or agree with that, DUDE U BETTER FIND REAL QUICK. So why you're going around b*tching that you should have gotten into a particular school for whatever reason, you need understand that if you were really that f*cking good...U WOULD HAVE GOTTEN IN. Talk to an adcom member or rep in complete discretion. I PROMISE YOU, that I would be vindicated. Wait, vindicated that would have you assume that I'm looking for your approval, AND I MOST CERTAINLY AM NOT! NO ONE OWES ANYONE ANYTHING. That's why I could careless either way. :laugh: oh, and about this Jim Crow law, dude give it a rest. Okay, here is the real difference since you claim that I made no sense before. Their b*tching and moaning wasn't just that, IT CAME WITH ACTION!!! Dude, you are NOT giving any action to this debate by making smart a*s posts on this site. So if your not doing anything about it, then guess what?!?!? YOUR JUST B*TCHING AND MOANING. Stop crying, what am I or anyone on this site going to do for you. You do realize that the address you inserted was studentdoctor.net, not studentdoctor.gov right?! What are you hoping for an upraising?! Please, we're all nerds who study all day, and most likely share nothing in common other then the pursuit of our passion, Medicine. And this is for everybody, if you think I've insulted you in anyway, sorry. But, I think bickering over this is stupid. Instead of trying to be objective and open minded. You people would rather cry about everything. So stop crying, DO SOMETHING. Write your senators or house reps, organize a premed assoc. and lobby, get involved if it really matters. But the sad truth about all of this, most of you won't do any of those things. No, you would rather try and show every one else on here how superior your intelligence is, by creating cute lil well grammared sentences. Hiding behind open-ended thoughts. All for clandestine reasons of your own, which are clueless at best. Let's try and bury this evil hatchet man. Hey let me ask you folks something, and be honest with me. I want to take a poll. During your interview, If asked by an ADCOM rep, what you think of Affirmative Action. How many of you would honestly repeat (close to verbatim as possible) your view on Affirmative Action as you've posted on this thread? I want you to think about it, your answer could make or break that well sought after seat. SO HOW MANY OF YOU, WOULD DO IT?

And b-t-w InNeedAdvice, I have no beef with you. I think you just misunderstood where I was coming from.
 
Geneman:

<<Admissions isn't a perfect meritocracy, but that doesn't mean we throw meritocracy out the window. Just the opposite, we devise ways to make it as close to ideal as possible -- not implement devices (i.e., AA) that irreparably alter the system from meritocracy to monster-tocracy.>>

But do adcoms really want a meritocracy? Is that what they think is the best thing for medicine? The AAMC president didn't seem to think so either (the link to his address two years back was on one of these threads and mentioned what he viewed as essential elements for being a doctor). Now, I'm not saying that AA is the best method...or even a good method. In fact, if AA were to be taken out, but race still informally considered, that'd be fine with me too. But I think it's crucial for everything about a person to be considered, not just grades and MCAT (but I'm not saying that you're saying this...). And I think that race is still an important factor to be considered.

Originally posted by Garibaldo
If you take account of the fact that being a minority has a high correlation with being disadvantaged, then giving advantages to disadvantaged students would promote diversity indirectly. That would race-neutral because disadvantaged whites would not be punished.

...cut...

See, the number of people applying to each school doesn't reflect the percentages of those different groups in the population. Let's say that the current population of blacks in America makes up 16% of the total population. The proportion of the applicants that are black may be only 4-5% of the admissions pool. If we are going to keep our percentage of blacks in medicine equal to the percentage in the general population, it will pretty much guarantee 100% acceptance to the 4-5%. This is a quota system and it is against the law. Howard university should look out! Whitey is coming!

For the first comment, in a system where less than 40% of black applicants are getting in to medical school, I'm not seeing how disadvantaged whites are being punished.

Secondly, like I said earlier....blacks only make up less than 7% of medical school admits. We're 13% of the population. There are certainly enough applicants to make it so that we do make up 13% of the med school admits, but med schools don't accept that many. I believe it's because they're trying to get the best possible candidate for the position, what do you think Garibaldo?
 
SistaKaren awesome post... Objective, information not propaganda, reason from passion. Not that it matters, but you're all right by me
:clap:
 
oh, and about this Jim Crow law, dude give it a rest. Okay, here is the real difference since you claim that I made no sense before. Their b*tching and moaning wasn't just that, IT CAME WITH ACTION!!! Dude, you are NOT giving any action to this debate by making smart a*s posts on this site. So if your not doing anything about it, then guess what?!?!? YOUR JUST B*TCHING AND MOANING. Stop crying, what am I or anyone on this site going to do for you. You do realize that the address you inserted was studentdoctor.net, not studentdoctor.gov right?! What are you hoping for an upraising?! Please, we're all nerds who study all day, and most likely share nothing in common other then the pursuit of our passion, Medicine. [...] So stop crying, DO SOMETHING. Write your senators or house reps, organize a premed assoc. and lobby, get involved if it really matters. But the sad truth about all of this, most of you won't do any of those things.
I don't think students just bitch and not take any action. We bitch and take action. :laugh:

It took about 3 minutes for me to highlight the speech above concerning affirmative action and to fire it off in an email to the ama and to that other site.

Seriously, only 3 minutes, so I'm sure others have done it as well.

Since we're all nerds, that makes it easier for us to navigate the internet. :D
 
Originally posted by SistaKaren

But do adcoms really want a meritocracy? Is that what they think is the best thing for medicine?
I think adcoms are selfish and want what's best for them. This would be not having Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton marching and organizing a protest on their front lawn claiming that they don't admit enough blacks. :laugh:
 
Originally posted by SistaKaren
But do adcoms really want a meritocracy? Is that what they think is the best thing for medicine? The AAMC president didn't seem to think so either (the link to his address two years back was on one of these threads and mentioned what he viewed as essential elements for being a doctor).

Hi Karen. Thanks for the first insightful post in a while. :clap:

That is the right question and a fair (and perhaps the only) argument that, I think, one can make in favor of AA. (Garibaldo/Ryo, what do you think?) It acknowledges that AA is, in effect, reverse discrimination and anti-meritocracy but posits that the benefits to society far outweigh the flaws of the program. It is a philosophical argument (i.e., no real right or wrong), not a scientific one (i.e., rational people will agree).

=====

To illustrate: ("points" reflect productive contributions to the class and society)

Applicant A (non-URM) is rated 5 points on a scale including stats, EC's, interviews, etc.

Applicant B (URM) is rated 4 points on the same scale.

But by taking Applicant B into the next class, the entire class gains a bonus of 2 "culturally awareness" points. In this case, the sum of the parts is greater than the whole.

=====

In my opinion, I do agree that being in a diverse class probably does enhance the overall experience of each student. But I have a few issues with this.

First and foremost, I don't believe in punishing innocent individuals (in particular, on the basis of race) for the benefit of society. This smacks of communism and does not gel with my (and most of this country's) philosophies. The phrase "benefitting society" goes against the American way and individual freedoms.

Second, by "diverse", what is being referred to? Racial diversity? Socioeconomic diversity? Cultural, experiential, etc.? AA goes about pursuing diversity (i.e., racial diversity) in a very divisive and crude manner. It seems kind of paradoxical to correct racial injustices with racial injustices. Race-neutral methods need to developed, refined, and implemented.

Third, just like the infamous Laffer's curve, there is a point where the continued distortion of meritocracy for the sake of diversity is harmful. IMO with history as my guide, that point is much closer to pure meritocracy than it is to "matching applicants in proportion to society's demographics".

-geneman
"that's my story and i'm sticking to it"
 
Originally posted by geneman
Hi Karen. Thanks for the first insightful post in a while. :clap:

That is the right question and a fair (and perhaps the only) argument that, I think, one can make in favor of AA. (Garibaldo/Ryo, what do you think?) It acknowledges that AA is, in effect, reverse discrimination and anti-meritocracy but posits that the benefits to society far outweigh the flaws of the program. It is a philosophical argument (i.e., no real right or wrong), not a scientific one (i.e., rational people will agree).

Thanks :) I would say that some philosophers believe in an objective right or wrong, though :)

First and foremost, I don't believe in punishing innocent individuals (in particular, on the basis of race) for the benefit of society. This smacks of communism and does not gel with my (and most of this country's) philosophies. The phrase "benefitting society" goes against the American way and individual freedoms.

Second, by "diverse", what is being referred to? Racial diversity? Socioeconomic diversity? Cultural, experiential, etc.? AA goes about pursuing diversity (i.e., racial diversity) in a very divisive and crude manner. It seems kind of paradoxical to correct racial injustices with racial injustices. Race-neutral methods need to developed, refined, and implemented.

Third, just like the infamous Laffer's curve, there is a point where the continued distortion of meritocracy for the sake of diversity is harmful. IMO with history as my guide, that point is much closer to pure meritocracy than it is to "matching applicants in proportion to society's demographics".

The first point is definitely true. I don't think you can argue about that. However, I wonder if we are moving towards having a society in which goals that benefit it at large are paramount to others. There is much discussion about reform of the health care system....prescription drug plans...that would benefit society as a whole. I don't think it's completely incompatible with the American way.

Second point: I definitely agree that AA doesn't, in itself, promote diversity. There are other measures that are used to supplement it in order to ensure this. But I wonder how much racial injustice is happening in the current system, though.... And as for race-neutral methods, I don't think it can happen if you're still going to interview students or are going to request them to write personal statements about themselves. The latter doesn't necessarily reveal the applicant's race, but it can depending on what the applicant talks about.

Third point is true as well. But I definitely don't think we're at that point in med school admissions. They certainly aren't accepting any URM that walks through the door....they are still very selective of them. Which I think speaks well for the selection process.

Nirvana: haha..that could very well be true for all I know! Edit: now looking at this it would seem that I'm endorsing the idea that AA lets unqualified applicants in....which I'm not. But I wanted to say that it may be true that they aren't doing it for the altruistic reasons that they say..
 
Originally posted by Dmcpharmd2be
OMG are you people still on this, LORD GET OVER IT. Stop looking up past post, and throwing in your two cents of sacrarium. I can't believe you children will be doctors one day. Grow up!!! People who are for AA don't give a d*mn about the opinions of those who are against it, and vice verse. Shut the h*ll up already. It's pointless, and it's pretty damn sad that some people on here (whom I use to consider pretty intelligent and having some substance) are so stupid. N E way, grow up and later

:laugh: i love it
 
Originally posted by Nirvana
I think adcoms are selfish and want what's best for them. This would be not having Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton marching and organizing a protest on their front lawn claiming that they don't admit enough blacks. :laugh:

your comment reflects your ignorance.

Karen makes one comment across the racial lines and all of you are cheering....this thread as many of you are so fake.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
LOVEDOC
Nirvana &
SistaKaren u guys are cool. Not b/c you agree or disagree with me (unlike some of the people on this post, I'm not trying to play survivor. I'm not trying to form allegiances). but b/c you guys are cool and don't think like troglodytes. It's nice that yall aren't on here crying, and getting p*ssy towards anyone who disagrees with you. ALL OKAY IN MY BOOK :clap: To all those cry babies, DIE ALREADY!!! +pissed+ We need the beds! :laugh: L8er
 
Originally posted by LoveDoc
your comment reflects your ignorance.

Karen makes one comment across the racial lines and all of you are cheering....this thread as many of you are so fake.
Lighten up. :rolleyes:
 
OK GROUP HUG? :clap:

Before SDN goes down tomorrow. geez....i'm getting goose bumps.
 
Originally posted by SistaKaren

But do adcoms really want a meritocracy? Is that what they think is the best thing for medicine? The AAMC president didn't seem to think so either (the link to his address two years back was on one of these threads and mentioned what he viewed as essential elements for being a doctor). Now, I'm not saying that AA is the best method...or even a good method. In fact, if AA were to be taken out, but race still informally considered, that'd be fine with me too. But I think it's crucial for everything about a person to be considered, not just grades and MCAT (but I'm not saying that you're saying this...). And I think that race is still an important factor to be considered.

I agree that it's crucial for everything to be considered (even race in some areas). However, I don't understand why considering disadvantaged status on its own is being met with so much resistance? Currently, most of the students who enter academic institutions through AA policies are middle-class or upper-class blacks. This indicates that the policy isn't doing a very good job of targeting disadvantaged black students to begin with.

For the first comment, in a system where less than 40% of black applicants are getting in to medical school, I'm not seeing how disadvantaged whites are being punished.

I did a quick websearch on I found some statistics for admissions at several schools:
http://www.sandiego.edu/~e_cook/vault/medical/

You're not seeing how whites are being punished because a student who doesn't get in (because a URM took that spot) isn't informed of that fact. In fact, there's no way they can pinpoint one specific student and one specific URM and say that one was displaced by the other. However, the fact remains that the admission of an URM who would not have been admitted to the school if AA was not a policy necessarily had to take a space from another student.

Also, your comment takes as a premise that black students have the same stats (GPA + MCAT) as white students. If you look at the admission data in the above link, you'll see that they don't. It's been known for quite a while that black students don't do as well in undergraduate grades as their white and Asian counterparts. Given this fact, 40% admission is considerably high.

Secondly, like I said earlier....blacks only make up less than 7% of medical school admits. We're 13% of the population. There are certainly enough applicants to make it so that we do make up 13% of the med school admits, but med schools don't accept that many. I believe it's because they're trying to get the best possible candidate for the position, what do you think Garibaldo?

Again, look at the data I presented in the link (I'll try to find more data soon). It suggests that medical schools already give a significant advantage to minority students. I think the reason they didn't try to match the population percentages is due to the fact that many URM applicants have scores that are so far below their white\Asian peers that they can't justify making that decision purely on race. So, they are factoring in merit heavily, but race is also factored in heavily. I think it's wishful thinking to think that each black admit is equal to one black doctor who will be serving a black patient in a poor community. What about all the black doctors who will be working in middle to upper income hospitals and communities?

Arguements in favor of AA should ideally address the issue as a whole and not focus on anecdotal or case subjects. While you may think AA works for medicine, how about other fields where race doesn't affect the product of one's labor? How about undergraduate institutions and the hundreds of majors they represent? Should race be considered for math, physics, engineering majors, etc?

This article was an interesting read. I'd suggest you take a look, because it highlights other factors involved in performance.

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/99aug/9908stereotype.htm

Second point: I definitely agree that AA doesn't, in itself, promote diversity. There are other measures that are used to supplement it in order to ensure this. But I wonder how much racial injustice is happening in the current system, though.... And as for race-neutral methods, I don't think it can happen if you're still going to interview students or are going to request them to write personal statements about themselves. The latter doesn't necessarily reveal the applicant's race, but it can depending on what the applicant talks about.

If you believe that admissions committees are racist, then why would they choose to use affirmative action policies in the first place? Why are california schools currently breaking the law by using affirmative action policies?

This group claims that race-based admissions are alive and well in California despite 209.

http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/prop209.htm

Dmcpharmd2be, kinda hothead, eh? Your claim that your opinions have nothing to with people agreeing or disagreeing with you are laughable. How surprising that the pro-AA people are "cool", and the anti-AA people are "troglodytes" who should "die already".

Lovedoc, you claim that many of "us" in the thread are "fake" (we all know who you're talking about) and then ask for a group hug? So, to summarize, the pro-AA people are bigots, troglodytes, fakes and we should die? Okay.
 
Originally posted by Garibaldo
I agree that it's crucial for everything to be considered (even race in some areas). However, I don't understand why considering disadvantaged status on its own is being met with so much resistance? Currently, most of the students who enter academic institutions through AA policies are middle-class or upper-class blacks. This indicates that the policy isn't doing a very good job of targeting disadvantaged black students to begin with.

Well, it's not that I'm resisting it. I'm not convinced that schools don't take this into account on its own. AA on its own wasn't supposed to target disadvantaged black students, was it? I think it's a big flaw in the policy.

I did a quick websearch on I found some statistics for admissions at several schools:
http://www.sandiego.edu/~e_cook/vault/medical/

You're not seeing how whites are being punished because a student who doesn't get in (because a URM took that spot) isn't informed of that fact. In fact, there's no way they can pinpoint one specific student and one specific URM and say that one was displaced by the other. However, the fact remains that the admission of an URM who would not have been admitted to the school if AA was not a policy necessarily had to take a space from another student.

Also, your comment takes as a premise that black students have the same stats (GPA + MCAT) as white students. If you look at the admission data in the above link, you'll see that they don't. It's been known for quite a while that black students don't do as well in undergraduate grades as their white and Asian counterparts. Given this fact, 40% admission is considerably high.

hmm..these stats are definitely discouraging. But this is the thing...most adcoms (not too sure about med schools) don't accept X amount of people each year. They accept a certain amount while assuming that Y amount is going to decline and go to another school. The X amount is very fluid. That said, it doesn't seem too likely to me that someone is going to reject/waitlist a non-URM because they decided they wanted another URM instead. Why not accept both?

And no, I definitely don't take it as a premise that black students always have the same stats as non URMs. BUT you don't know anything else about them to conclusively decide that they shouldn't have been in that class...well, actually I suppose you could look at the USMLE pass rates...which aren't encouraging. But I think that suggests a flaw in the application of AA.

Again, look at the data I presented in the link (I'll try to find more data soon). It suggests that medical schools already give a significant advantage to minority students. I think the reason they didn't try to match the population percentages is due to the fact that many URM applicants have scores that are so far below their white\Asian peers that they can't justify making that decision purely on race.

Yup. That's the point I'm trying to make.

So, they are factoring in merit heavily, but race is also factored in heavily. I think it's wishful thinking to think that each black admit is equal to one black doctor who will be serving a black patient in a poor community. What about all the black doctors who will be working in middle to upper income hospitals and communities?

Not only is it misleading, it's totally wrong to expect that of all black applicants. If you let us in, then you should be ready for us to decide to do whatever we want with our careers. I think it would be great if we all went back to a poor community (I'd like to do so and I think many of my peers would too), but the fact of the matter is, that shouldn't be an expectation of a black med student unless they signed a contract about it upon entry.

Arguements in favor of AA should ideally address the issue as a whole and not focus on anecdotal or case subjects. While you may think AA works for medicine, how about other fields where race doesn't affect the product of one's labor? How about undergraduate institutions and the hundreds of majors they represent? Should race be considered for math, physics, engineering majors, etc?

Honestly? I haven't thought about it. I'm still undecided about it at the undergrad level (I think it's good in theory, but I'm worried about its application). I thought we were specifically talking about medical school, so that's what I've geared my conversation towards.

This article was an interesting read. I'd suggest you take a look, because it highlights other factors involved in performance.

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/99aug/9908stereotype.htm

Actually, I've read that article! I read it for a class last year. Not only that, I've been wanting to look that article up for some time now, so I'm glad you brought it up.

If you believe that admissions committees are racist, then why would they choose to use affirmative action policies in the first place? Why are california schools currently breaking the law by using affirmative action policies?

?? I don't believe that adcoms are racist. Where'd that come from?
 
Originally posted by SistaKaren
Well, it's not that I'm resisting it. I'm not convinced that schools don't take this into account on its own. AA on its own wasn't supposed to target disadvantaged black students, was it? I think it's a big flaw in the policy.



hmm..these stats are definitely discouraging. But this is the thing...most adcoms (not too sure about med schools) don't accept X amount of people each year. They accept a certain amount while assuming that Y amount is going to decline and go to another school. The X amount is very fluid. That said, it doesn't seem too likely to me that someone is going to reject/waitlist a non-URM because they decided they wanted another URM instead. Why not accept both?

That Y is still determined with race-based policies, so my point still applies. Why not accept both? Because there aren't that many spaces.

And no, I definitely don't take it as a premise that black students always have the same stats as non URMs. BUT you don't know anything else about them to conclusively decide that they shouldn't have been in that class...well, actually I suppose you could look at the USMLE pass rates...which aren't encouraging. But I think that suggests a flaw in the application of AA.

That's right, you don't know anything else about that except their stats. Their stats (especially GPA), however, will often reflect medical school success. Someone who has a low GPA necessarily hasn't put forth the required effort to do well in their college courses. Why should we assume that they'll do better in more rigorous medical school courses?

Not only is it misleading, it's totally wrong to expect that of all black applicants. If you let us in, then you should be ready for us to decide to do whatever we want with our careers. I think it would be great if we all went back to a poor community (I'd like to do so and I think many of my peers would too), but the fact of the matter is, that shouldn't be an expectation of a black med student unless they signed a contract about it upon entry.

That's exactly my point. The fact that you can't guarantee or force them to do such a thing is precisely why we don't need to reflect the proportion of URMs in the general populace in each med school class. URMs are not spread out evenly around the country. Blacks, for example, are much more concentrated in urban areas like Detroit, D.C., Oakland, etc. So, since we can't guarantee that a URM will necessarily go to these areas, we shouldn't think that having 13% of the class composed of blacks students will necessarily translate into good representation of blacks in hospitals in these areas. So, let's not be too quick to conclude that AA brings minorities to where they're needed.

I don't believe that adcoms are racist. Where'd that come from?

I got that impression from this:
"But I wonder how much racial injustice is happening in the current system, though.... And as for race-neutral methods, I don't think it can happen if you're still going to interview students or are going to request them to write personal statements about themselves. The latter doesn't necessarily reveal the applicant's race, but it can depending on what the applicant talks about."

Who exactly would be exercising this "racial injustice" in this quote? I assumed you were talking about admission committees since you were talking about personal letters and interviews. Am I missing something?
 
Originally posted by SistaKaren
Not only is it misleading, it's totally wrong to expect that of all black applicants. If you let us in, then you should be ready for us to decide to do whatever we want with our careers. I think it would be great if we all went back to a poor community (I'd like to do so and I think many of my peers would too), but the fact of the matter is, that shouldn't be an expectation of a black med student unless they signed a contract about it upon entry.

What happened to your belief of "benefitting the community at large"? Sure sounds to me like you support individual freedoms here.

I guess, when it's convenient (AA), you'll go one way and, when it's not (where blacks work), you'll go the other. :confused:
 
Originally posted by Dmcpharmd2be
LOVEDOC
Nirvana &
SistaKaren u guys are cool. Not b/c you agree or disagree with me (unlike some of the people on this post, I'm not trying to play survivor. I'm not trying to form allegiances). but b/c you guys are cool and don't think like troglodytes. It's nice that yall aren't on here crying, and getting p*ssy towards anyone who disagrees with you. ALL OKAY IN MY BOOK :clap: To all those cry babies, DIE ALREADY!!! +pissed+ We need the beds! :laugh: L8er

You remind me of a cheerleader -- loud mouth and no brain. :love:
 
Hey whatever gets you thru the day dude! If you want to believe I'm an idiot, then suit yourself. Im not sure how you ascertained any real sense of my intelligence thru one post, but that's cool. Pathetic people seeking external gratification never bothered me. haha wait wait wait...Now it sounds like I'm scorn, and I honestly could care less. Thanks for sending me a message, it's always nice to hear from you folks. So N E way, have a good one my bitter friend....later :laugh:


But maybe your right, I mean President Bush use to be a cheerleader! ;)
 
MD'05 I completely agree with you. But, your making too much sense for some of these guys. The problem is, there's no drama in your post. Gotta have drama to fill the appetite of these people. The children are hungry, feed them. But what do I know, I'm a cheerleader. SPARTAN SPRINT! :D
 
Originally posted by MD'05
I hate to burst all y'alls bubbles, but the affirmative action issue was brought to the forefront again because Baby Bush needed a diversion to stem the negative tide of American opinion that is forming against the war with Iraq. So let us unite as Americans - Black, White, and Brown - and email BB at [email protected] and let him know that we do not want our people's lives sacrificed for oil! And that he needs to worry about his alcoholic daughter and schizoid niece and keep his nose out of matters that don't concern the rich and privileged (such as AA). Thank you and to all a good night!

Oh shyte. Dear God, I hope Garibaldo doesn't see this. Man, why did you have to bring Bush's alcoholic daughters and his crackhead niece into this. They haven't done anything but enjoy the fruits of alcohol ladened binges and narcotic induced bliss.
 
Top