Hey I appreciate your sentiment about Socioeconomic status but you obviously do not know the meaning of URM (WHEN USED ON THESE FORUMS) it means underepresented in the health care field. As if to say their are 100 white doctors and 10,000 white people and their are 10 black doctors and 8,000 black people this is a simple way to show you the imbalance though it is not to accurate scale, this is the imbalance that these acts (Affr. Act.) try to equalize.
I am well aware of what URM is, whom it applies to, and what it is trying to do. I'm saying I disagree with its sentiment, although I understand its intention. Black people feel more comfortable around black doctors, I am aware of this and have heard personal experiences. However, it doesn't justify taking a less competent doctor in place of a more competent one simply because he's a different racial profile. As an educated URM, I'd rather have a genius Asian doctor that doesn't relate to me at all but will cure me rather than a doctor of my ethnic profile that constantly has to get referrals because he doesn't know the intricacies of my disorder. A simple metaphor would be House M.D., where House doesn't even associate with his patients, but he cures them. In the end, that's all that matters to me. "Comfortableness" in the 15 minutes I talk to the doctor is far from my primary concern. On the extreme side of things, I'd rather have a doctor whom I never see but treats me correctly than a doctor that holds my hand while I die.
Me entiendes?
And please dont insult African American triumps and quote a great Civil rights activist (MLK) in such a way. How did you insult you ask, you insult by assuming the Affr.Act. is the answer to every AA's daily struggle, I dont see you getting up in arms about the years of Jim Crow, rodney king beatings, racial profiling in stores,waiters not taking African american tables because they "Wont Tip well" (Im a waiter BTW) once all the many other issues are resolved you can attack the few advantages African Americans have (and i just named a few dont want to be to lengthy).. But anyway
I was not insulting MLK, I was actually complementing him and all he has done for us in helping achieve the closer-to-ideal country that we live in today. If you think I'm insulting him or the movement, you're interpretation of my quoting was dead wrong.
I actually used this quote in my WS, thanks MLK!
Basically, if there are no
legal or
religious persecutions, stereotyping and racial profiling is absolutely a piece of human nature. The only way to modify them is to change the stereotype or the racial profile, which does not take government intervention but
personal intervention. Insinuating that Aff. Act. aids in their struggles is not only incorrect, in a legal sense it's reverse discrimination. In your personal example, ought we give the child of a bitter old white man Aff. Act. because the waiters don't wait on him because they know he doesn't tip well and is verbally abusive? How about when you avoid serving college kids, because they stereotypically do not tip well? Should all college kids and their children receive benefits from their 'persecution'?
Your example is a dead end and a utopia that doesn't have a defined fix but a undefinable, scattered one.
Oh, and if you want a fix, it's coming. Once the older generations who weren't exposed to the racial days are dead, and most of our population has 'homogenized', the whole racial URM thing should go out with the times. It would definitely be better than the 15/16 Caucasian digging through their family tree to find out that their great great great grandmother slept around with an Indian, giving them 1/16 Native American and a full ride to many schools.
Thanks, grandmama.
TL;DR - Time heals, not affirmative action. In the short half-century since social reform, the societal change is astronomical. We will get there, eventually. Outside involvement is like poking a zit, all it does is get redder and redder until it pops and bleeds everywhere. Until then, so long, and thanks for all the fish.
On topic:
I used hours/wk for descriptions that I was near the character limit on and activities I wasn't certain of my total hours on-site.
I used total hours for descriptions I had room to put it in and was aware of exactly how many hours I had accumulated.
I can see AdComs not caring much about
how many hours, but moreso
what can you say about those hours. So hording or lying about hours will not only be useless, but dangerous towards you application.
So yes, go ahead and do that, more seats for me!
