Males as minority applicants?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

cmuhooligan

Full Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2005
Messages
312
Reaction score
2
I was wondering what ya'll have heard about male applicants being treated with the same critria as minority applicants? As a male i cant help but hope that it is true, but on the same hand it doesn't seem that fair!

Members don't see this ad.
 
actually, I've heard about this too...as much as I'm not wild about it, I suppose since women have enjoyed minority status in male-dominated fields, men should be able to enjoy the same priviledge for psych (because I hear some classes are 80% women).
 
How about being a minority because of age or marital status? lol At 27 I sometimes feel like the minority being surrounded by 22 and 23 yr olds.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Twiggers: you'd be surprised. Most psych programs have mean ages around 26-27 years! I will be 26 next month and I am married! Don't feel alone......
 
White males hold approx. 80% of tenured positions in higher education, 92% of the Forbes 400 executive/CEO-level positions; they make up 80% of the House of Reps and 84% of the US Senate and 100% of US Presidents. Yet they constitute only 33% of the population.

Sue, D. W. (2003). Overcoming our racism: The journey to liberation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Paendrag: Assuming you agree that the current situation is not acceptable, what alternatives do you propose to remedy the situation?
 
Several schools I've applied to actually earmark 2-3 spots for a particular minority group.
 
Yup...some program they have where they "guarantee" 2-3 spots for a particular minority. It is an area of US where the minority population is quite well represented. It is advertised on their website, and in addition when I emailed the faculty members the majority of them asked me if I was this minority and if so encouraged me to apply for these spots.In addition, they have approx. 10 spots and that means 30% automatically go to this minority group.
 
Paendrag said:
I don't agree that the current situation is not acceptable. The demographics of this country have shifted remarkably over the last 50 years, as has the culture. Yes, much of the wealth still resides with the dominant racial group/gender, but that will change, is changing, with time and opportunity. Artifically forcing it through affirmative action programs is wrong. Having federal funds ear-marked for women-owned businesses is wrong. This is not the way. It is blatant discrimination.

Why would the situation change? In the absence of affirmative action what social force would oppose the further consolidation of power and wealth by the mostly white, mostly male dominant status groups? From where does the “opportunity” arise? Are we counting on our woefully unequal education system (in which educational resources are disproportionately allocated to wealthy communities) or our tax structure (terrifically regressive) to help talented, economically disadvantaged children succeed? It is true that ethnic and gender disparity in the US has declined but it has most of these gains have occurred after the 1967 executive order that enacted affirmative action. Take affirmative action away and you take away the most effective tool for encouraging social equality we possess.

It is not discriminatory to recognize that potential is unequally nurtured in our society and to account for this inequality when making admission decisions. Furthermore, graduate programs have a responsibility to try to populate the field of clinical psychology with a diverse group of clinicians and researchers. Diversity within our field is necessary if we are to respond effectively to the shifting demographics you mention in your response.
 
Paendrag said:
No one should gain points based on gender, race, religion, ethnicity, etc. . .


Yes, because racism, sexism, etc. does not exist :laugh:
 
Paendrag said:
Of course it does.
That was a sarcastic remark. Prejudice will continue to exist as long as this country exists. This is not necessarily a bad thing but requires a system of checks and balance, e.g. affirmative action. :)
 
As for now, I must hit the book. Exams are coming up.
 
Paendrag said:
Because the population and global culture has changed substantially. Because, it is no longer acceptable to not let people into school or into a job because of their skin color or religion.

Explicit racism may not be a large factor in the lingering inequality, but institutional and implicit racism remains. Whether you exclude a minority applicant because of his skin color or you exclude him because of the substandard education he recieved at an underfunded school, the result is the same.


Paendrag said:
Our tax structure is regressive? Explain that. We have a progressive income tax system. The truly poor pay no income taxes.

Less than 50% of the average individual's total tax burden is collected through federal income taxes. The remaining tax burden is collected through VAT, property tax, and licensing fees. Even proportional versions of these taxes are regressive since the poor and middle class end up paying a larger proportion of their income than the rich whose income is disproportionately allocated to untaxed purchases (i.e. financial products).


Paendrag said:
I have much less problem with AA based on socioeconomic status than I do based on race/gender. For example, an African American from a household raking in 300K a year should not be getting preferential treatment over a white kid living on welfare.

On this point we can agree


Paendrag said:
I think the gains are much more complicated than that.

They may be, but I haven't heard an convincing argument for the past 3+ decades of social change that does not involve AA as a central feature. Furthermore, there are plenty of examples of countries in which legal equality was granted but social eqality was not legally promoted. I cannot name a single one of these countries that has made the sorts of gains in 38 years as the US has with its AA policy.


Paendrag said:
Two wrongs don't make a right.

What is wrong with accounting for unequal opportunity?
 
just FYI the average income for a family in the U.S. is 40K, not for an individual.
 
I myself am not an advocate of AA, neither are the majority of people I have had this conversation with who are African American, Asian American, Native American, etc. etc.
I feel that an admissions program (for any type of academic admissions) should be based on merit. Unless it is a requirement to list my ethnicity I will leave it blank.
I honestly don't think there is any equality in letting a student with a 3.0 into a program when 10 other people with a 4.0 are right there waiting and have worked their butts off...but they don't get in. SO you went to an inner city school? Does that mean that you didn't have the opportunity to work hard and get a 4.0? Parents are unemployed and can't afford the tuition? Well guess what.....so are alot of Caucasian parents. Get some scholarships, and some student loan s and join the rest of the poor students out there.

I'm sorry if I've offended anyone, but I am really just sick of preferential treatment being given when it is not deserved.

And hey.....women are minorities are they? If you look at the amount of money a woman in the workforce makes, compared to the amount a man makes in the same position.....it's almost the same argument. I don't see schools running around saying they have X amounts of spots open for women.
 
For the record, I am white, and always checked the white box on my application forms. I believe it would have been irresponsible for me not to. By being silent on the subject of my race I would have been denying that race matters (not just in American society, but in every society). In effect, my silence would be a vote in favor of the status quo.

There are lots of reasons why race stats are important -- they allow us to monitor very real disparities (in terms of education and income level, incarceration rates, etc. etc.). Why do these disparities exist? Since no-one here is explicitly suggesting the innate superiority of one group over another, it would appear to reflect an uneven playing field. Indeed, no-one here denies that racism exists. However, some whites argue that if we ignore it, it will go away (how long are you willing to wait?), that things are already moving along nicely (most minorities would not agree), that people are masters of their own fate.

By couching the debate in terms of "equal opportunity for all" you are actively perpetuating the lie that there is an even playing field to begin with. There isn't (as Paendrag already acknowledged). Whites are clearly privileged in all facets of society. Whites have always had affirmative action! When whites succeed, they should acknowledge that they benefit from historical circumstances and their majority status (effectively, the power to define reality). Sure, hard work is important, but if it were truly the only determiner of success, the current inequities simply would not exist.

When one group begins from a privileged position, equal (i.e., undifferentiated) treatment of all groups does not constitute fair treatment.
 
"There are more poor, uneducated white people in the country than poor, uneducated minorities."

That is very misleading, of course if you are looking at the number as a whole there will be more whites, because they constitute the vast majority of the population, roughly 75%, if you look at the numbers by porportion, it's not even close!
 
This thread is starting to read like an APA publication... 2 wrongs never make a right; we should have all learned that in pre-school.

:cool:
 
Top