Is affirmative action in the admission process about to end?

[Dedikated2liftn]

For me, the emphasis of affirmative action should be taken off of race and placed much more heavily on economic background. Additionally, I understand that the two variables correlate in a lot of cases; however, there are plenty of examples where they do not. Furthermore, to the poster who said that affirmative action should help oppressed people rise to positions of power, I agree with you 100%; however, as I said earlier, the aforementioned statement is much more applicable to one's economic background than racial background. On a personal note, it does sting when you find out that a racial minority with similar stats is getting showered with tons of scholarship money while you get to float the entire bill yourself (I'm fairly certain I wouldn't feel the same way if AA was purely economically based; at least it's much more justified in that instance). But right now, that's the way the system works; ideally, all one can really do is focus on himself and not get caught up in comparing his situation to that of others.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[neurocirujano]

I know right. Even in a state where AA was banned (CA), people STILL believe urms at the UCs got in because of it.

I thought prop 209 was ruled unconstitutional?

 

[Ahmed786]

.

 

[mterp45]

I withdraw my first statement, but hold to my second. Is it not reverse discrimination?

Discrimination? You want to complain about discrimination? If you ask me, affirmative action is 130% fair. African Americans experience discrimination throughout their lives. You have to think about institutionalized racism/oppression which is undeniably very much prevelant in our society, and the immeasurable impact that it has had and will have on their lives no matter which social economic category they fall into.

 

[flaahless]

For me, the emphasis of affirmative action should be taken off of race and placed much more heavily on economic background. Additionally, I understand that the two variables correlate in a lot of cases; however, there are plenty of examples where they do not. Furthermore, to the poster who said that affirmative action should help oppressed people rise to positions of power, I agree with you 100%; however, as I said earlier, the aforementioned statement is much more applicable to one's economic background than racial background. On a personal note, it does sting when you find out that a racial minority with similar stats is getting showered with tons of scholarship money while you get to float the entire bill yourself (I'm fairly certain I wouldn't feel the same way if AA was purely economically based; at least it's much more justified in that instance). But right now, that's the way the system works; ideally, all one can really do is focus on himself and not get caught up in comparing his situation to that of others.

Why? Especially if you have no idea how that particular applicant earned that scholarship dough. And to assume they received their scholarship because of their race is... well... yeah.

Anyways, I agree for the most part. I don't think race should be a major determining factor in med school admissions. But I also don't think that it is being treated that way. Sure the numbers are lower for urm applicants but does that mean they are any less qualified or capable, and are being given an advantage so they can compete with those who are overrepresented in medicine? I don't think so.

I thought prop 209 was ruled unconstitutional?

Having a race quote and/or alloquoting points to members of a particular race was ruled unconstitutional in med school admissions.

Prop 209 banned AA, yet people still cry "race" when they see a successful urm at the UCs.

 

[Twiigg]

What if they decided that homosexuals were an underrepresented minority?

I bet homosexuality would greatly increase.

 

[deleted74029]

Prop 209 banned AA, yet people still cry "race" when they see a successful urm at the UCs.

Reminds me of when I was in high school, people starting saying that I cheated on the dang ACT just cause my score was in the 30s. Theres about 9 or 10 other white kids who got the same score but I'm the one who cheated. Didnt bother me much though. Only thing that bothered me was this notion that lots of people had that a black kid can't be smart.

 

[Quix]

What if they decided that homosexuals were an underrepresented minority?

I bet homosexuality would greatly increase.

Eh, if people are willing to eat a poop hotdog I'm sure they could eat one made from meat.

 

[Twiigg]

Discrimination? You want to complain about discrimination? If you ask me, affirmative action is 130% fair. African Americans experience discrimination throughout their lives. You have to think about institutionalized racism/oppression which is undeniably very much prevelant in our society, and the immeasurable impact that it has had and will have on their lives no matter which social economic category they fall into.

Still, the media makes inequality and racism out to be much more than it really is.

Interesting statistic:

When asked if they thought the government's response to New Orleans would have been different if there had been a higher representation of whites in danger:

• <1/5 of whites said it wouldn't have gone any differently
• 74% of African-Americans said it would have

 

[flaahless]

What if they decided that homosexuals were an underrepresented minority?

I bet homosexuality would greatly increase.

They are, and they are oppressed, thus AA applies to them as well.

 

[neurocirujano]

Eh, if people are willing to eat a poop hotdog I'm sure they could eat one made from meat.

 

[Quix]

Still, the media makes inequality and racism out to be much more than it really is.

Interesting statistic:

When asked if they thought the government's response to New Orleans would have been different if there had been a higher representation of whites in danger:

• <1/5 of whites said it wouldn't have gone any differently
• 74% of African-Americans said it would have

Not so sure about this one. You are conflating actual racism with perceptions of racism, and these are very different things.

 

[Twiigg]

They are, and they are oppressed, thus AA applies to them as well.

Woah there. I don't see anybody trying to apply for URM status because they are homosexual.

 

[Twiigg]

Not so sure about this one. You are conflating actual racism with perceptions of racism, and these are very different things.

Oh I wasn't using the statistic to make a point. I genuinely thought it was interesting.

 

[flaahless]

Still, the media makes inequality and racism out to be much more than it really is.

Interesting statistic:

When asked if they thought the government's response to New Orleans would have been different if there had been a higher representation of whites in danger:

• <1/5 of whites said it wouldn't have gone any differently
• 74% of African-Americans said it would have

Whoa. I actually think the media and society do their best to act like racism isn't a problem.

 

[neurocirujano]

Whoa. I actually think the media and society do their best to act like racism isn't a problem.

Just wondering... are you a "minority?"

 

[neurocirujano]

Woah there. I don't see anybody trying to apply for URM status because they are homosexual.

Homosexuals will never be able to gain URM status because anyone could decide to be of that orientation for a year or two just to be able to declare they are an underrepresented minority. Besides, I would bet they aren't even a minority, it's just that so many people are in the closet still.

 

[flaahless]

Woah there. I don't see anybody trying to apply for URM status because they are homosexual.

Ohh my bad, I guess that means that homosexuals aren't oppressed minorites.

 

[deleted74029]

Still, the media makes inequality and racism out to be much more than it really is.

Interesting statistic:

When asked if they thought the government's response to New Orleans would have been different if there had been a higher representation of whites in danger:

• <1/5 of whites said it wouldn't have gone any differently
• 74% of African-Americans said it would have

White people are generally pretty careful about what they say when it comes to racism because they do, in fact, face much harsher consequences when one slip up is made. So of course they aren't gonna say race was a factor. Same thing with the election. Nobody is gonna come out and say they won't vote for obama cause hes black. Well....some will. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wk25Am6Jo0s

 

[flaahless]

Just wondering... are you a "minority?"

Just wondering... why is that relevant?

 

[redlight]

[Offtopic]What I think is funny is how medical schools divide races into Black White and ASIAN. I do not understand how Asians can be considered an ethnicity when there can be blacks whites etc living in Asia.[/Offtopic] (I'm Asian)

 

[Dedikated2liftn]

Why? Especially if you have no idea how that particular applicant earned that scholarship dough. And to assume they received their scholarship because of their race is... well... yeah.

Anyways, I agree for the most part. I don't think race should be a major determining factor in med school admissions. But I also don't think that it is being treated that way. Sure the numbers are lower for urm applicants but does that mean they are any less qualified or capable, and are being given an advantage so they can compete with those who are overrepresented in medicine? I don't think so

.

Honestly, no one is going to be told that he's receiving a scholarship based on race; however, you'll see terms like "diversity scholarship" and such, so one can make a reasonable assumption. More specifically, I've got a friend who's currently an African-American anesthesiologist who plainly admits that he got a full ride due to his stats (slightly above average for that time) and racial background (well he assumes such). Additionally, I don't think it's fair to pretend that this doesn't happen. While I admit to having made an assumption (you're right, I can't be 100% certain, but as I mentioned before, I think a lot of people receiving these scholarships aren't 100% certain), we can look objectively at the situations like these and realize that this kind of thing is prevalent in medical school admissions.

BTW: So who wants to put a bet on when this will thread will close due to a flame war? I'm guessing around page four, lol.

 

[flaahless]

Eh, if people are willing to eat a poop hotdog I'm sure they could eat one made from meat.

Ahaha

 

[neurocirujano]

Just wondering... why is that relevant?

It's not. That's why I'm just wondering.

I'm assuming you are, though, just guessing from your signature.

Black pride! White pride! Asian pride!

Doesn't one of those just stick out a little?

 

[Twiigg]

BTW: So who wants to put a bet on when this will thread will close due to a flame war? I'm guessing around page four, lol.

This really was not my intent in starting the thread. So, let's all stay friends!

 

[flaahless]

Honestly, no one is going to be told that he's receiving a scholarship based on race; however, you'll see terms like "diversity scholarship" and such, so one can make a reasonable assumption. More specifically, I've got a friend who's currently an African-American anesthesiologist who plainly admits that he got a full ride due to his stats (slightly above average for that time) and racial background (well he assumes such). Additionally, I don't think it's fair to pretend that this doesn't happen. While I admit to having made an assumption (you're right, I can't be 100% certain, but as I mentioned before, I think a lot of people receiving these scholarships aren't 100% certain), we can look objectively at the situations like these and realize that this kind of thing is prevalent in medical school admissions.

BTW: So who wants to put a bet on when this will thread will close due to a flame war? I'm guessing around page four, lol.

Come on man, don't draw vast conclusions from anecdotes. Especially if n=1.

Anyways, there are scholarships that are reserved for urm students. You are correct. But you can't assume that each urm received on of them, maybe they received a different scholarship of some sort.

 

[deleted74029]

 

[redlight]

Still, the media makes inequality and racism out to be much more than it really is.

Interesting statistic:

When asked if they thought the government's response to New Orleans would have been different if there had been a higher representation of whites in danger:

• <1/5 of whites said it wouldn't have gone any differently
• 74% of African-Americans said it would have

im sure you're in a position to say exactly how big of a deal inequality and racism is in this country..

honestly, if it wasnt a big deal, would we be having this conversation on a premed forum?

can i get a source for these stats? and how many people took part in them, and where these people were from?? etc. etc. alone, those numbers mean little to nothing.

and do i think race had anything to do with fema's response? no idea. i had nothing to do with the response, and i wasnt there to experience anything that happened down there, so i just dont know.

 

[flaahless]

Ahahahahaha. This is funny on so many levels.

 

[redlight]

It's not. That's why I'm just wondering.

I'm assuming you are, though, just guessing from your signature.

Black pride! White pride! Asian pride!

Doesn't one of those just stick out a little?

lol, im not sure what you were trying to say by asking which one stands out..
black pride stands out for me because i'm black (i start to wondering what black pride means to me as a black person).. ha id imagine everyone would have different reasons for picking w/e based on their background and experiences, but not necessarily due to race or ethnicity like my case..

 

[redlight]

haha the copyright stuff makes it seem so fake to me

 

[Twiigg]

im sure you're in a position to say exactly how big of a deal inequality and racism is in this country..

honestly, if it wasnt a big deal, would we be having this conversation on a premed forum?

can i get a source for these stats? and how many people took part in them, and where these people were from?? etc. etc. alone, those numbers mean little to nothing.

and do i think race had anything to do with fema's response? no idea. i had nothing to do with the response, and i wasnt there to experience anything that happened down there, so i just dont know.

Political science textbook. I'll try and find its exact source when I have time.

 

[parto123]

However, AA is often misconstrued as a mere means to give minorities an advantage in the admissions process.

Huh? This is a bizarre statement. No one even argues with the notion that AA is used specifically in order to give minorities an advantage in the admissions process. Schools have fought all the way to the Supreme Court in order to preserve the right to use AA in admissions. In one of the AA Supreme Court cases, those IN FAVOR of AA argued that if AA wasn’t used to give minorities boosts medical school admissions there would be some years where fewer than 10 blacks would be admitted to medical school in the whole country. In the recent law school case, Michigan demonstrated how they needed to give blacks additional points on the LSAT (11 on average) because only around 29 blacks per year score above 165/3.5 (and all those black applicants went to better schools).


“On average, according to briefs filed in Grutter, African-American students score 9.6 points lower than white students on the LSAT -- a significant gap that would often mean rejection at many of the more selective law schools. In last year's incoming law school class, according to the Law School Admission Council brief, 4,461 law school applicants scored 165 or higher on the LSAT and had a grade point average of 3.5 or more. Of those 4,461, only 29 were black. "The raw numbers are startling," says Dellinger, but they necessitate taking race into consideration.”

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1046833605120

 

[flaahless]

Huh? This is a bizarre statement. No one even argues with the notion that AA is used specifically in order to give minorities an advantage in the admissions process. Schools have fought all the way to the Supreme Court in order to preserve the right to use AA in admissions. In one of the AA Supreme Court cases, those IN FAVOR of AA argued that if AA wasn’t used to give minorities boosts medical school admissions there would be some years where fewer than 10 blacks would be admitted to medical school in the whole country. In the recent law school case, Michigan demonstrated how they needed to give blacks additional points on the LSAT (11 on average) because only around 29 blacks per year score above 165/3.5 (and all those black applicants went to better schools).


“On average, according to briefs filed in Grutter, African-American students score 9.6 points lower than white students on the LSAT -- a significant gap that would often mean rejection at many of the more selective law schools. In last year's incoming law school class, according to the Law School Admission Council brief, 4,461 law school applicants scored 165 or higher on the LSAT and had a grade point average of 3.5 or more. Of those 4,461, only 29 were black. "The raw numbers are startling," says Dellinger, but they necessitate taking race into consideration.”

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1046833605120

Wtf? What's your point?

 

[neurocirujano]

Wtf? What's your point?

I think he's trying to say that this...

AA is often misconstrued as a mere means to give minorities an advantage in the admissions process.

is a completely bogus statement.

And I agree.

How is it not a means to give minorities an advantage in the admissions process? That's exactly what it is.

 

[parto123]

Wtf? What's your point?

You: AA is often misconstrued as a mere means to give minorities an advantage in the admissions process.

Me: The facts clearly demonstrate that AA is exactly a means to give minorities an edge.

You: WTF?

So where exactly did i lose you?

 

[neurocirujano]

You: AA is often misconstrued as a mere means to give minorities an advantage in the admissions process.

Me: The facts clearly demonstrate that AA is exactly a means to give minorities an edge.

You: WTF?

So where exactly did i lose you?

Flaahless are you drunk?

 

[redlight]

well i think AA is supposed to level the playing field.
in order for that to happen, sure, someone has to get a 'boost,' right?
but thats a by product of the real goal.. to level the playing field and to help solve some of the inequities and blah blah blah...
is AA the perfect solution to those goals? obviously not
should we get rid of it because of how unfair it is to the [insert theoretically small number of people it affects]? probably
but until someone can propose a better method, AA will stand.

but, like i said b4, get rid of AA and nothing will really change.
people love using it as a scapegoat when we really don't know it's exact impact.

 

[flaahless]

You: AA is often misconstrued as a mere means to give minorities an advantage in the admissions process.

Me: The facts clearly demonstrate that AA is exactly a means to give minorities an edge.

You: WTF?

So where exactly did i lose you?

Your first two sentences.

Anyways, AA is not merely a "lets help minorities" policy. It's a means to counter the oppressive nature and abuses of an unfair government and capitalistic society. It applies to all groups that are oppressed, ethnic or not. Interesting factoid, to this day, the group that has benefitted the most from AA is caucasian women! They were oppressed, AA opened the door for them and now things are better. The playing field is not even, but it's a lot better than say 1975.

Many people think it's a policy for ethnic minorities because African Americans have historically been the most vocal activist group in the history of the US and the most vocal proponents of AA. Case in point, your example that compared the data of "blacks vs. whites." Where is the data comparing veterans, disadvantaged applicants, disabled applicants etc.? Conveniently absent. Again, AA is more than a race thing. That's my point.

 

[flaahless]

Flaahless are you drunk?

not yet. But hopefully soon.

 

[flaahless]

well i think AA is supposed to level the playing field.
in order for that to happen, sure, someone has to get a 'boost,' right?
but thats a by product of the real goal.. to level the playing field and to help solve some of the inequities and blah blah blah...
is AA the perfect solution to those goals? obviously not
should we get rid of it because of how unfair it is to the [insert theoretically small number of people it affects]? probably
but until someone can propose a better method, AA will stand.

but, like i said b4, get rid of AA and nothing will really change.
people love using it as a scapegoat when we really don't know it's exact impact.

Thank you.

And I dont think of AA as a boost to otherwise underqualified individuals that many people make it out to be. IMO, AA doesn't give a boost, but rather removes the handcuffs of oppression and allows individuals to succeed on their own merit.

It's not a... "I can't make it on my own, I need a boost" type of thing. It's a, "I'm handcuffed and unable to do well, release the cuffs and I'll be a beast" type of thing. Hence, although "AA benefactors" may come in with lower numbers, but they seem to do just fine from then on.

 

[parto123]

Your first two sentences.

Anyways, AA is not merely a "lets help minorities" policy. It's a means to counter the oppressive nature and abuses of an unfair government and capitalistic society. It applies to all groups that are oppressed, ethnic or not. Interesting factoid, to this day, the group that has benefitted the most from AA is caucasian women! They were oppressed, AA opened the door for them and now things are better. The playing field is not even, but it's a lot better than say 1975.

Many people think it's a policy for ethnic minorities because African Americans have historically been the most vocal activist group in the history of the US and the most vocal proponents of AA. Case in point, your example that compared the data of "blacks vs. whites." Where is the data comparing veterans, disadvantaged applicants, disabled applicants etc.? Conveniently absent. Again, AA is more than a race thing. That's my point.

A lot of what you wrote is factually wrong or severely overstated, and can also be conclusively disproved by the good deal of information that came out in all the AA cases.

1) Affirmative action is not to counter oppression. It is for the purpose and sole purpose of fostering an environment of racial diversity in schools. Look up the grutter case on wiki for a quick explanation.
2) While its true that schools do give admission advantages for being socioeconomically disadvantaged or who suffered hardship, the advantage schools (this applies to college, med school and law school) give an applicant for being black is far far greater. Fact is, in all these schools, middle and upper class blacks are admitted with much lower numbers than disadvantaged asians and whites. One stated reason the cal state schools couldn’t transfer to admission based on applicants being disadvantaged is because they found that there were enough disadvantaged whites and Asians with superior numbers that it wouldn’t even be able to admit any upper class blacks.

 

[asm436]

it's strange to me that people are so bitter about the benefit of affirmation action for minorities. I think women of all races are the greatest benefactors of affirmative action. And I also think that the focus is easily placed on the perceived advantage of AA for minorities, and the racist and sexist practices that led to its implementation are ignored. One, very naive person may have argued that these practices are no more...until observing the 2008 democratic primaries. I think the widely ignored resistance to both race and gender progression has become more apparent. Just my $0.02.

P.S. While I did not benefit from a "Diversity Scholarship" or the like...it is a donor's prerogative to designate money to any group they see fit. Unless you know where the money is coming from...and really unless it's coming from your parents' pockets, you can't really be upset about how it's dispersed. I can't count all the Jewish related or Confederate history associations for which I didn't qualify...nothing to be hurt by.

 

[parto123]

but, like i said b4, get rid of AA and nothing will really change.

Alot would change- there would be hardly any blacks in medical school. This isnt a mystery. The average black med students has a 25 MCAT and a 3.2 science gpa.


http://www.aamc.org/data/facts/2005/mcatgparaceeth.htm

 

[TheRealMD]

Thank you.

And I dont think of AA as a boost to otherwise underqualified individuals that many people make it out to be. IMO, AA doesn't give a boost, but rather removes the handcuffs of oppression and allows individuals to succeed on their own merit.

It's not a... "I can't make it on my own, I need a boost" type of thing. It's a, "I'm handcuffed and unable to do well, release the cuffs and I'll be a beast" type of thing. Hence, although "AA benefactors" may come in with lower numbers, but they seem to do just fine from then on.

Who put on the handcuffs? When? Where is the oppression coming from? Is it internal? Is it external?

 

[parto123]

Hence, although "AA benefactors" may come in with lower numbers, but they seem to do just fine from then on.

Professor sanders of UCLA wrote a paper about AA and black law school graduates and their subsequent failure in the legal world (high bar failure rates, high attrition rates etc.). It received a lot of mainstream media attention.

http://www.law.ucla.edu/sander/systemic/final/sanderfinal.pdf

 

[flaahless]

A lot of what you wrote is factually wrong or severely overstated, and can also be conclusively disproved by the good deal of information that came out in all the AA cases.

1) Affirmative action is not to counter oppression. It is for the purpose and sole purpose of fostering an environment of racial diversity in schools. Look up the grutter case on wiki for a quick explanation.
2) While its true that schools do give admission advantages for being socioeconomically disadvantaged or who suffered hardship, the advantage schools (this applies to college, med school and law school) give an applicant for being black is far far greater. Fact is, in all these schools, middle and upper class blacks are admitted with much lower numbers than disadvantaged asians and whites. One stated reason the cal state schools couldn’t transfer to admission based on applicants being disadvantaged is because they found that there were enough disadvantaged whites and Asians with superior numbers that it wouldn’t even be able to admit any upper class blacks.

Hahaha, umm... you're wrong.

1. Your definition of affirmative is wrong. It's not to increase racial diversity, "Affirmative Action is a policy implemented to counteract the abusive nature of an oppressive government and capitalistic society, and to give oppressed groups the opportunity to achieve positions of power." ~ Dr. Maulana Karenga, One of the original founders of AA. Civil rights activist. My dean, professor, mentor, LOR writer... he's very highly decorated person google him if you want.

2. You mention it's factual evidence that blacks are given an advantage over all other groups... blah blah blah... and the data is where? Med school admissions don't release information about disadvantaged applicants and how their stats deviate from the "norm." So for you to make such a claim is fraudulent.

 

[flaahless]

Who put on the handcuffs? When? Where is the oppression coming from? Is it internal? Is it external?

In the case of caucasian women... caucasian men handcuffed them.

In the case of veterans... uncle sam.

In the case of disabled individuals... social prejudices against them

In the case of ethnic minorities... all of the above.

 

[TheRealMD]

In the case of caucasian women... caucasian men handcuffed them.

In the case of veterans... uncle sam.

In the case of disabled individuals... social prejudices against them

In the case of ethnic minorities... all of the above.

Are you being funny?

Hahaha, umm... you're wrong.

1. Your definition of affirmative is wrong. It's not to increase racial diversity, "Affirmative Action is a policy implemented to counteract the abusive nature of an oppressive government and capitalistic society, and to give oppressed groups the opportunity to achieve positions of power." ~ Dr. Maulana Karenga, One of the original founders of AA. Civil rights activist. My dean, professor, mentor, LOR writer... he's very highly decorated person google him if you want.

Do you not think it's a bad idea to assume that AA then is the exact same as AA now?

 

[TehDoc]

I might be wrong but sometimes I think some people on SDN are closet racist unwilling to accept "black" people actually get accepted into medical schools without AA.