Not mentioning ethnicity on applications - disadvantage?

[QuinnTheEskimo]

It wasn't discrimination against Asians, it was Affirmative Action for Blacks and Latinos that skewed the numbers. And ever since race-blind systems have been put in place, admissions of Latinos and Blacks have gone down drastically at these schools.

I guess you would prefer to keep Blacks and Latinos on the bottom of the economic and social totem pole forever if it meant that all Asians could climb to the top? I don't get it. What's your beef? You want to stratify a giant proportion of the country and push us into less competitive schools or no school at all?

What people fail to realize is that the purpose of AA for college admissions is to help the whole country, not just a few select individuals. The idea is that by elevating some people in the community to higher levels of education, the rest can benefit as they return to their communities and encourage others to follow in their footsteps. When that community then prospers, the whole country prospers as people become more economically successful.

Multiple studies have been published that show that going race-blind will up admissions of White students by 5% and Asian students by 6% while reducing Black students by 30% and Latinos by 27%. Is that what's best for a country that is 25% Black and Hispanic? Less educational opportunities?

Again, missing the point. I (and others here) want a system in which the top students, regardless of race, are able to rise. It's not that we want to "stratify a giant proportion of the country" (where did you even get that from?)

If I were URM, I would prefer a non-biased system in which it was clear I earned my position, fair and square, with no special consideration bestowed on me because of my skin color.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Harpsx]

Alright jumping into this thread! I think there's two debates going on here (URM vs. ORM and ORM vs ORM)!

I support the active recruitment of URMs. I think there are many historical and societal reasons that can absolutely disadvantage URM populations from seemingly having on average "less competitive" applications. I also wholeheartedly agree that there are great advantages to diversifying the class and the future physician population for patients, particularly for patients who identify with the same culture as URMs.

What I do question, is the discrepancy in competitiveness between white and Asian applicants.

LizzyM addressed the discrepancy earlier in this thread citing reasons such as visa status/communication issues etc. But what I don't understand (and this is a genuine question I'm not trying to be snarky!) is how exactly does international status/communication issues/motivation for medicine translate to an increase in competitiveness compared to white applicants as judged by MCAT/GPA? I'm not quite making the link of how because some Asians supposedly are not entering medicine for the right reasons means that Asians need on average higher MCAT/GPAs than a white applicant. Not just from a purely admission standpoint, but from an interview invitation stand point as well.

Further, unlike the historical relationship of distrust between URM populations and the majority population, this isn't entirely true of White-Asian populations. So in that regard, is there a significant advantage to having more competitive admissions for Asians than Caucasians to simply match the US population?

Also, is the amount of international Asian students that significant in terms of the overall Asian application pool? And shouldn't the MCAT somewhat correct for the Asians who have significant communication barriers?

 

[histidine]

Don't bother explaining this to the few people arguing against helping out URMs. Most of these counter arguments are self serving and just goes in circles. None of the posters against Affirmative Action even mention that whites are also at a disadvantage nor are they fighting to right that wrong, just the Asian side of the URM vs ORM debate.

Lol I'm all for diversity and URMs getting into medical school. But affirmative action is a band-aid on a greater problem, which is the segregation of our elementary, middle, and high school system by socioeconomic status and race.

 

[ChemEngMD]

Well, mentorship opportunities would be greatly beneficial, but engineering and pre-health are competitive fields where the curve is set by students coming from top tier high schools with excellent preparation. Psychology and business are generally not as competitive to get by with a B average. Average preparation may cut it for business and psych, but not for engineering and pre-health. Do you think that those URM students are being pushed out because of grades, or because of lack of career guidance? From my perspective, it seemed like they were pushed out because of grades. I can see career guidance motivating students to academically perform better though.

I don't think you can understate the psychological effects of being the only person of your ethnicity in a class can have.

I wish I could find the NPR radio story I listened to, but this article has some of the same stuff:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/opinion/sunday/intelligence-and-the-stereotype-threat.html?_r=0

"In a 1995 article in The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Professors Steele and Aronson found that black students performed comparably with white students when told that the test they were taking was “a laboratory problem-solving task.” Black students scored much lower, however, when they were instructed that the test was meant to measure their intellectual ability. In effect, the prospect of social evaluation suppressed these students’ intelligence."

Basically when Black students were told it was a "test" they under-performed compared to Whites but when given a different name they were statistically similar. Similarly they tested this with athletic ability and White participants under-performed Blacks when it was labeled a test of one's "natural physical abilities", but when it was labeled differently they were statistically the same. The effects that stereotypes can have on one's psyche are truly remarkable.

Sure you're saying the URM students get lower grades, but is it because they are unprepared, not as smart, or simply not made to believe that they are capable of doing well due to a lack of positive role models at that level of education? I don't think it's a question that can be easily answered one way or the other.

 

[histidine]

I don't think you can understate the psychological effects of being the only person of your ethnicity in a class can have.

I wish I could find the NPR radio story I listened to, but this article has some of the same stuff:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/opinion/sunday/intelligence-and-the-stereotype-threat.html?_r=0

"In a 1995 article in The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Professors Steele and Aronson found that black students performed comparably with white students when told that the test they were taking was “a laboratory problem-solving task.” Black students scored much lower, however, when they were instructed that the test was meant to measure their intellectual ability. In effect, the prospect of social evaluation suppressed these students’ intelligence."

Basically when Black students were told it was a "test" they under-performed compared to Whites but when given a different name they were statistically similar. Similarly they tested this with athletic ability and White participants under-performed Blacks when it was labeled a test of one's "natural physical abilities", but when it was labeled differently they were statistically the same. The effects that stereotypes can have on one's psyche are truly remarkable.

Sure you're saying the URM students get lower grades, but is it because they are unprepared, not as smart, or simply not made to believe that they are capable of doing well due to a lack of positive role models at that level of education? I don't think it's a question that can be easily answered one way or the other.

Wow, extremely interesting.

 

[ichor]

In 1871 anti-Chinese sentiment was intense in the west coast. Some years later, Japanese Americans were sent to internment camps because they were Japanese. Until recently, many states banned Filipino-Americans from marrying Whites . After 9/11, any person with brown skin that looked "Muslim" was under suspicion. Multiple Indians that wore turbans were assaulted because some uneducated fools thought they were Muslim. Muslims, many with brown skin, were stigmatized. I'm listing these to show that Asians have also been victims of racism in the United States, yet they are not considered victims of racism as other minorities are. This is why I was interested in making this thread less about why URMs get advantages in admissions, and more about why Asians get disadvantages. While other minorities are held to lower standards than whites, Asians are held to higher standards.

If your argument is that: Well, there are so few URMs applying that we are okay with setting a lower standard for URMs - fine. Then why are Asians, who are still fewer in number than whites held to a HIGHER standard?

If your argument is that: URMs have faced racism and have not had as many opportunities as Whites. Asians have also faced racism as I gave a few examples above.

If your argument is that: Asians are more likely to be forced into medicine by their parents. This is a stereotype and is not always true. Most of the Asians I know chose medicine on their own.

If your argument is that: Asians are more likely to be international students with visa problems. Potentially acceptable argument, assuming that AAMC doesn't classify Asian and Foreign separately. On a chart I posted earlier, it seemed like they considered "Asian" only the people who identify as Asian and are also perm resident/citizen. Asians on visas were counted as "Foreign". Not entirely sure on that though, maybe you may know better regarding this.

Either way, like I mentioned before, what probably bothers most Asians is not that URMs get in with much lower statistics. It's that Asians are held to much higher standards despite also being victims of racism and stereotypes. It's almost as if it's okay to have stereotypes about Asians (parents forced, academic robot, etc) .

You said it very well @MangoPlant.

While I personally don't think that URM should have this much of a benefit from just being URM, there are many people who have given very compelling arguments for it.

However, every single time that it's brought up that Asians are illogically held to a higher standard than whites, people have either ignored it or vomited some sort of stereotype about Asians. I have not seen ONE rational argument claiming why Asians have to achieve higher than whites to get the same results.

And another issue I have is how people are saying Asians aren't disadvantaged because there are so many Asians in med school. Recently I read about gunners at schools who rip important pages out of all the relevant science textbooks that the school libraries have. If a student still gets an A- in that class, does that mean the gunner didn't disadvantage them at all? No, it just means that the student had to work harder to achieve something, and that they could've done even better. The discrimination isn't seen in the ends, but in the means.

 

[histidine]

And another issue I have is how people are saying Asians aren't disadvantaged because there are so many Asians in med school.

Yeah referring back to that jewish quota which was established on the basis of antisemitism, one could say "oh, jews only make up 2% of the population, but we're giving you 5% of the seats in medical school! what's the big deal?"

That being said, being asian isn't thattttt much of a disadvantage compared to being white, and, at least in the med school arena, isn't indicative of racism against asians.

 

[SunsFun]

Why is it that when admissions were switched to race-blind in the UC system, the proportion of Asians drastically increased? There is no way to explain this besides discrimination in systems that look at race.

This sidesteps the whole argument I was making in the direction that has nothing to do with white vs. Asian admission statistics that was discussed.

 

[SunsFun]

At this point I feel like some people who are really keen on arguing that there is a lot of discrimination going on against Asian applicants comparing to white are just regurgitating the same exact MCAT/GPA data while breaking it down into smaller samples with larger statistically errors to show a greater discrepancy.

To me this is an example of cherrypicking data to support certain conclusion. If we are to be as objective as possible we should admit that even if there is a possibility of discrimation it is not the only explanation of this discrepancy and is in no way a certainty.

In my experience there is a higher percentage of Asian applicants applying to medical school because being a doctor is prestigious in their family/community. Most adcoms see this as inadequate reason to pursue medicine. Assuming that adcoms are just as likely to spot this attitude among Asian applicants as among white applicants, you would a expect a slightly higher percentage of Asian applicants to be rejected. This is one possible explanation. Is this what is happening for sure? No, but it is as much of a possibility as blatant discrimination against Asians.

Another possibility that I have already mentioned is that Asian features cause more subconscious negative bias the same way height or weight could. Since I don't have the data to see how many Asian candidates get interviewed in a first place and how many of those receive an acceptance, this is also a valid possibility.

The point is that there is not enough evidence to claim that the discrimination is happening and I don't understand why none of the people arguing for it, aside maybe from Eskimo, are interested in seeing more data before claiming something with certainty.

 

[GoodGuyGregory]

I have been lurking on here for a while and I've read all the arguments presented thus far. I'm going to take an impartial approach, because I'm genuinely curious.

First of all, let's all concentrate this discussion on White VS ORM applicants. Thus keep in mind that neither is more "disadvantaged" than the other (if anything, the ORMs more-so).

Now what can explain the discrepancy between the gap between admissions between these two groups?

It is interesting that the very top applicants in terms of statistics (GPA and MCAT scores) have the smallest discrepancy in admissions. Also note, there is a clear increasing trend in admission advantage as you go to the lower scores where ORMs have a lower and lower chance of success.

> Thus, assumptions about the ORM applicant population that would be distributed evenly throughout grades can be thrown out to some degree
> In my mind, one possible explanation for this trend is that ORMs are simply given higher cut-offs than whites. Given that this is an average of many universities, this would fit the trend.
> Another possible explanation is what LizzieM suggested that Asians are simply poorer communicators, thus VR scores and GPAs might reflect the poorer-communicating Asians getting rejected to a higher extent.

Also, unrelated, but:

Another possibility that I have already mentioned is that Asian features cause more subconscious negative bias the same way height or weight could. Since I don't have the data to see how many Asian candidates get interviewed in a first place and how many of those receive an acceptance, this is also a valid possibility.

Is this a for real possibility you're proposing?

 

[MangoPlant]

I guess you would prefer to keep Blacks and Latinos on the bottom of the economic and social totem pole forever if it meant that all Asians could climb to the top? I don't get it. What's your beef? You want to stratify a giant proportion of the country and push us into less competitive schools or no school at all?

Please show me where in ANY of my posts I suggested that I would like to "keep Blacks and Latinos on the bottom of the economic and social totem pole forever?" In case you haven't seen my previous posts, I'm asking that Asians not be discriminated against. This is NOT the same as asking that Blacks and Latinos be pushed down. Asking to stop discrimination against Asians != Asking for Blacks and Latinos to be stratified

What people fail to realize is that the purpose of AA for college admissions is to help the whole country, not just a few select individuals. The idea is that by elevating some people in the community to higher levels of education, the rest can benefit as they return to their communities and encourage others to follow in their footsteps. When that community then prospers, the whole country prospers as people become more economically successful.

A poor hard-working Black kid should get some slack when competing with his rich counterparts NOT because he is Black, but because he is hard working and has faced economic difficulties. Similarly, a poor hard working (white/asian/latino/native american/insert ethnicity) kid deserves the same slack when they are competing against rich counterparts who had access to many more resources.

Once again, I'm not interested in making it harder for Black/Latino applicants, I AM interested in stopping the discrimination that makes it harder for Asian applicants.

 

[MDforMee]

Please show me where in ANY of my posts I suggested that I would like to "keep Blacks and Latinos on the bottom of the economic and social totem pole forever?" In case you haven't seen my previous posts, I'm asking that Asians not be discriminated against. This is NOT the same as asking that Blacks and Latinos be pushed down. Asking to stop discrimination against Asians != Asking for Blacks and Latinos to be stratified

A poor hard-working Black kid should get some slack when competing with his rich counterparts NOT because he is Black, but because he is hard working and has faced economic difficulties. Similarly, a poor hard working (white/asian/latino/native american/insert ethnicity) kid deserves the same slack when they are competing against rich counterparts who had access to many more resources.

Once again, I'm not interested in making it harder for Black/Latino applicants, I AM interested in stopping the discrimination that makes it harder for Asian applicants.

Let me get one thing straight, first of all; you're blaming racism for why fewer asians are admitted to medical school than whites, all other things being equal?

 

[SunsFun]

I have been lurking on here for a while and I've read all the arguments presented thus far. I'm going to take an impartial approach, because I'm genuinely curious.

First of all, let's all concentrate this discussion on White VS ORM applicants. Thus keep in mind that neither is more "disadvantaged" than the other (if anything, the ORMs more-so).

Now what can explain the discrepancy between the gap between admissions between these two groups?

It is interesting that the very top applicants in terms of statistics (GPA and MCAT scores) have the smallest discrepancy in admissions. Also note, there is a clear increasing trend in admission advantage as you go to the lower scores where ORMs have a lower and lower chance of success.

> Thus, assumptions about the ORM applicant population that would be distributed evenly throughout grades can be thrown out to some degree
> In my mind, one possible explanation for this trend is that ORMs are simply given higher cut-offs than whites. Given that this is an average of many universities, this would fit the trend.
> Another possible explanation is what LizzieM suggested that Asians are simply poorer communicators, thus VR scores and GPAs might reflect the poorer-communicating Asians getting rejected to a higher extent.

Also, unrelated, but:



Is this a for real possibility you're proposing?

You find it probable that the cutoffs in the algorithm are different for white and Asians (blatant preference for whites over Asians) while completely dismissing the possibility of a slight subconscious preference for Western looks the same way taller guys are preferred during the interview?

 

[ChemEngMD]

Please show me where in ANY of my posts I suggested that I would like to "keep Blacks and Latinos on the bottom of the economic and social totem pole forever?" In case you haven't seen my previous posts, I'm asking that Asians not be discriminated against. This is NOT the same as asking that Blacks and Latinos be pushed down. Asking to stop discrimination against Asians != Asking for Blacks and Latinos to be stratified



A poor hard-working Black kid should get some slack when competing with his rich counterparts NOT because he is Black, but because he is hard working and has faced economic difficulties. Similarly, a poor hard working (white/asian/latino/native american/insert ethnicity) kid deserves the same slack when they are competing against rich counterparts who had access to many more resources.

Once again, I'm not interested in making it harder for Black/Latino applicants, I AM interested in stopping the discrimination that makes it harder for Asian applicants.

What you're missing is that doing race-blind admittance may help Asians, but it is DEFINITELY going to hurt Blacks, Latinos, and Native Americans. Period.

As someone stated previously, it's a zero sum game. You're definition of making it "fair" based solely upon numbers and ignoring social factors like race may make it fair for you, but it definitely won't for a lot of us.

Someone has to take a hit when there are limited spots for applicants - it can either be a group that is already over-represented, but has the potential to be even more represented, or it can be one of these groups that are highly underrepresented, and if programs to represent them are removed, they will become even less represented. White people are the majority so under either circumstance, they're still going to be doing pretty well. Which is worse? I guess it depends on what side of the fence you stand on, but I think most places of higher education have decided that preventing the underrepresented group from becoming even more underrepresented is more important than letting an already over-represented group become even more over-represented.

Yes, it sucks, but there is no easy way to make this "fair". A meritocracy would be great in a country that has moved beyond race, but the United States is far from that. It's not about Asians being discriminated against, it's about other larger minority groups being given opportunities.

Side Note: Doing race-blind admissions would be impossible. You would be able to easily determine my ethnicity based upon my Work and Activities section and it would be similar for a lot of other multicultural applicants.

 

[MangoPlant]

I have been lurking on here for a while and I've read all the arguments presented thus far. I'm going to take an impartial approach, because I'm genuinely curious.

First of all, let's all concentrate this discussion on White VS ORM applicants. Thus keep in mind that neither is more "disadvantaged" than the other (if anything, the ORMs more-so).

Now what can explain the discrepancy between the gap between admissions between these two groups?

It is interesting that the very top applicants in terms of statistics (GPA and MCAT scores) have the smallest discrepancy in admissions. Also note, there is a clear increasing trend in admission advantage as you go to the lower scores where ORMs have a lower and lower chance of success.

> Thus, assumptions about the ORM applicant population that would be distributed evenly throughout grades can be thrown out to some degree
> In my mind, one possible explanation for this trend is that ORMs are simply given higher cut-offs than whites. Given that this is an average of many universities, this would fit the trend.
> Another possible explanation is what LizzieM suggested that Asians are simply poorer communicators, thus VR scores and GPAs might reflect the poorer-communicating Asians getting rejected to a higher extent.

Also, unrelated, but:



Is this a for real possibility you're proposing?

You find it probable that the cutoffs in the algorithm are different for white and Asians (blatant preference for whites over Asians) while completely dismissing the possibility of a slight subconscious preference for Western looks the same way taller guys are preferred during the interview?

That's the type of discrimination I'm talking about. How is it the Asian person's fault in any way if an interviewer doesn't like his 'Asian features' ? If that interviewer cannot get over his/her racist tendencies, then he/she should not being interviewing applicants.

 

[SunsFun]

That's the type of discrimination I'm talking about. How is it the Asian person's fault in any way if an interviewer doesn't like his 'Asian features' ? If that interviewer cannot get over his/her racist tendencies, then he/she should not being interviewing applicants.

Its not that they don't like "Asian features" its that some people are not at all aware that this is going on. It is very hard to pick up on and almost impossible to rectify without suggesting some bizarre scheme that is completely unrealistic. Its like being mad about taller/better looking/athletic men in general getting promoted more and making more money. I am with you that it is not fair but it is something that our entire culture needs to get over and expect individual adcoms who are people like me and you to be above that is just naive.

 

[MangoPlant]

What you're missing is that doing race-blind admittance may help Asians, but it is DEFINITELY going to hurt Blacks, Latinos, and Native Americans. Period.

As someone stated previously, it's a zero sum game. You're definition of making it "fair" based solely upon numbers and ignoring social factors like race may make it fair for you, but it definitely won't for a lot of us.

Someone has to take a hit when there are limited spots for applicants - it can either be a group that is already over-represented, but has the potential to be even more represented, or it can be one of these groups that are highly underrepresented, and if programs to represent them are removed, they will become even less represented. White people are the majority so under either circumstance, they're still going to be doing pretty well. Which is worse? I guess it depends on what side of the fence you stand on, but I think most places of higher education have decided that preventing the underrepresented group from becoming even more underrepresented is more important than letting an already over-represented group become even more over-represented.

Yes, it sucks, but there is no easy way to make this "fair". A meritocracy would be great in a country that has moved beyond race, but the United States is far from that. It's not about Asians being discriminated against, it's about other larger minority groups being given opportunities.

Side Note: Doing race-blind admissions would be impossible. You would be able to easily determine my ethnicity based upon my Work and Activities section and it would be similar for a lot of other multicultural applicants.

I see what you mean. Correct me if I'm wrong, but your argument relies heavily on the idea that blacks and latinos are disproportionately in poorer neighborhoods/have less economic opportunity when compared with whites and Asians (which is probably true). So why not look at socioeconomic status instead of race? If it is true that blacks are disproportionately poorer than whites/asians then an affirmative action policy that only looks at socioeconomic status would still disproportionately help blacks/latinos. This way the poor black kid AND the poor asian kid who grew up as next door neighbors in a poor neighborhood both get the same benefits instead of the asian kid being held to an even higher standard than whites despite having had the same opportunities as his next-door neighbor.

I agree that doing race-blind admissions is impossible, but not having schools report race data would likely make them care less about the race of their class. Socioeconomic status based policies would still help blacks/latinos more than whites/asians because there are likely more poor blacks/latinos than whites/asians, but at least this way it is based on a legitimate measure of opportunities instead of assuming that "oh that kid is black so he probably didn't grow up in a good neighborhood"

 

[Womb Raider]

I'm curious to see a comparison of recent demographic (by race) statistics: practicing physicians in America vs. overall American demographics. Anyone know where to dig this up? I think the last census was in 2010?

 

[MDforMee]

I see what you mean. Correct me if I'm wrong, but your argument relies heavily on the idea that blacks and latinos are disproportionately in poorer neighborhoods/have less economic opportunity when compared with whites and Asians (which is probably true). So why not look at socioeconomic status instead of race? If it is true that blacks are disproportionately poorer than whites/asians then an affirmative action policy that only looks at socioeconomic status would still disproportionately help blacks/latinos. This way the poor black kid AND the poor asian kid who grew up as next door neighbors in a poor neighborhood both get the same benefits instead of the asian kid being held to an even higher standard than whites despite having had the same opportunities as his next-door neighbor.

I agree that doing race-blind admissions is impossible, but not having schools report race data would likely make them care less about the race of their class. Socioeconomic status based policies would still help blacks/latinos more than whites/asians because there are likely more poor blacks/latinos than whites/asians, but at least this way it is based on a legitimate measure of opportunities instead of assuming that "oh that kid is black so he probably didn't grow up in a good neighborhood"

Asians get shut out of admissions for real if they switch over to SES-based admissions.

 

[baboxxyun]

I don't think you can understate the psychological effects of being the only person of your ethnicity in a class can have.

I wish I could find the NPR radio story I listened to, but this article has some of the same stuff:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/opinion/sunday/intelligence-and-the-stereotype-threat.html?_r=0

"In a 1995 article in The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Professors Steele and Aronson found that black students performed comparably with white students when told that the test they were taking was “a laboratory problem-solving task.” Black students scored much lower, however, when they were instructed that the test was meant to measure their intellectual ability. In effect, the prospect of social evaluation suppressed these students’ intelligence."

Basically when Black students were told it was a "test" they under-performed compared to Whites but when given a different name they were statistically similar. Similarly they tested this with athletic ability and White participants under-performed Blacks when it was labeled a test of one's "natural physical abilities", but when it was labeled differently they were statistically the same. The effects that stereotypes can have on one's psyche are truly remarkable.

Sure you're saying the URM students get lower grades, but is it because they are unprepared, not as smart, or simply not made to believe that they are capable of doing well due to a lack of positive role models at that level of education? I don't think it's a question that can be easily answered one way or the other.

I think the underlying reason for all of this is that culturally, there is a difference in priorities between ethnic groups. Not that there is a difference in intelligence or that a group of people are being suppressed.
Asian and European cultures have always put a strong emphasis on any and all scholarly activity. And for Asians particularly, since confucian times, have always upheld education and academics on a pedestal in society. Latino and African cultures have always put a stronger emphasis on wellbeing of family bonds and interpersonal relationships. I am NOT saying these values are mutually exclusive to a set ethnic group. But rather, in the ranking of priorities, one culture ranks one as "more important" in the grand scheme of things. This has inevitably integrated into modern day values and core ethics and essentially dictates how a person of a particular background perceives and conceptualizes what is worth the his time and investment.

For instance, in the recent years many of the elite high schools (Stuyvesant is the only one that comes to mind) in NYC have been accused of administering admission exams that make it virtually impossible for URM students to do well. People argued that the opportunities that were given to each student were not the same and that the school to use affirmative action in admissions (most of the students enrolled were Chinese, Korean, or White). Instead, schools opened free exam preparatory programs that ALL students could enroll in to help prepare for the admissions exam. Despite this, URM enrollment never increased even when presented with the same opportunities.

The minute something is worth obtaining, any person will do what it takes and work for it. The difference is how important that something is.
If a homeless guy, football player, and your average joe were at the start line of a race, and there's a a plate of Mcdonalds fries at the end... Who do you think would try the hardest?

 

[ChemEngMD]

I see what you mean. Correct me if I'm wrong, but your argument relies heavily on the idea that blacks and latinos are disproportionately in poorer neighborhoods/have less economic stability when compared with whites and Asians (which is probably true). So why not look at socioeconomic status instead of race? If it is true that blacks are disproportionately poorer than whites/asians than an affirmative action policy that only looks at socioeconomic status would still disproportionately help blacks/latinos. This way the poor black kid AND the poor asian kid who grew up as next door neighbors in a poor neighborhood both get the same benefits instead of the asian kid being held to an even higher standard than whites.

I agree that doing race-blind admissions is impossible, but not having schools report race data would likely make them care less about the race of their class. Socioeconomic status based policies would still help blacks/latinos more than whites/asians because there are likely more poor blacks/latinos than whites/asians, but at least this way it is based on a legitimate measure of opportunities instead of assuming that "oh that kid is black so he probably didn't grow up in a good neighborhood"

You're wrong.

Here's the problem, while Blacks and Latinos may on average be at lower SES, there are still way more lower SES White people in terms of population. According to the US Census Bureau (http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/acsbr11-17.pdf) 11.6% of White people are poor, but since there are ~196 million of them then 22.8 million are living in poverty. Doing similar math for Blacks and Hispanics you'll find that there are 10 million and 11.7 million living in poverty respectively, so that means that the TOTAL population of people living in poverty is ~52% White. So moving to SES AA instead of race based AA will in fact help White people out more than any other demographic. That's just math.

Then you take into account the additional effects of being Black or Latino in this country (reason for current AA) such as lack of mentors and positive role models of one's race, which aren't as easily quantifiable, and you would find that this system would completely aide the majority.

 

[MangoPlant]

Asians get shut out of admissions for real if they switch over to SES-based admissions.

Is that chart the number of people with those respective degrees or their salary? The axis is not labeled so I'm unsure. However, I'm not so sure that Asians would get shut out completely like you say because the poor Asians would be able to compete more effectively than they can now. That chart is interesting, if you could explain what the axis is or link to the source that would be nice.

 

[GoodGuyGregory]

Who are you going to cry to when asians get shut out of admissions for real if they switch over to SES-based admissions?

Asians would get the door shut on them HARD if they did that.

I think you're missing the point. It's not about "his" particular race that's the issue, it's that one race in particular is being discriminated against. I think OP would be FOR reserving spots for those with low SES as opposed to having a race-based allocation system.

Also, the whole notion that any of this fixes diversity is so flawed.

> It assumes that diversity is based on what you look like/the color of your skin (where people are grouped into these bins of "asians", "Whites", etc.)
> It assumes that there are discrete homogenous groups of peoples like "asians" and "latinos," that must be mixed in for diversity. IE: It fails to recognize the vast diversity between asian people or latino people for instance.

A SES system I think would introduce MORE diversity than a race-based filtering system. You get diversity in LIFE EXPERIENCE as opposed to middle class students who look as different as possible. That's real diversity in my opinion, and I don't get why adcoms/admission staff don't see that.

 

[NuttyEngDude]

There is racism in America. It is a part of us as humans to be this way. I am convinced if we were all white then it would exist in another form such as "oh he's the red headed stepchild" and "gingers have no souls." There probably is in admissions of colleges, universities, and professional schools but the degree of it varies from geographic region to region and from school to school.

The problem is that it is a complex problem and everyone seems to want a simple solution to it. The current state that I've noticed is that various subgroups are blaming other subgroups, amounting to someone saying "XXXX has an unfair advantage." There are arguments that claim if we pretended race doesnt exist that the problem would fix itself, this is actually just preserving whatever the status quo is. It is also discussed in this concept: http://abagond.wordpress.com/2008/05/31/colour-blind-racism/

Another problem is the idea that because a certain racial group has a problem, there is a feeling that the problems of other racial group is minimized. For example, "You think you have it bad as a black/asian/latino/female/trans/etc? well trust me, it's much worse for me as a black/asian/latino/female/trans/etc." This of course has the end effect of preserving the status quo. In the end if you are at the top of the status quo this is the perfect situation to be in. What I see, is a "blame the victim" mentality especially with regards to latinos (and African americans) that they are in their own situations because of their own XXXXXXXX. This also applies to Asians to some extent in the sense that because there are so many other successful asians, what's YOUR problem?

The various statements made in this thread, especially from the point of view of members of the various minority groups, carry an element of truth. It is true, that asians do have a higher bar in society, it is the double edged sword of being the "model minority." The discrimination that asians face, and I've seen this at my undergrad is when they truly need help, they do not get it because they supposedly achieve despite hardships. This has caused an increased but ignored suicide rate in the United States ( some info here: http://suicideprevention.osu.edu/special-populations/minority-students/ ). The problem is exacerbated for asians who desire (on their own) to be medical doctors and have trouble along the way precisely because of the stereotypes that they are pushed into medicine. Here's some more info specifically on the model minority stereotype: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/10/education/10asians.html

And something that somewhat touches on this:


Another problem that asians face, is after they "make it" to med school, the sciences or beyond, they have a glass ceiling: http://www.nature.com/naturejobs/science/articles/10.1038/nj7430-125a

Across all sectors, Asians in US STEM careers are not reaching leadership positions at the same rate as white people, or even as members of other underrepresented groups2. In academia, just 42% of Asian men are tenured, compared with 58% of white men, 49% of black men and 50% of Hispanic men. Just 21% of Asian women in academia are tenured, the lowest proportion for any ethnicity or gender. They are also least likely to be promoted to full professor.

Another article, despite being over-represented in medicine ( http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/759734 ):

There are many Asian Americans in academic departments of surgery in the United States, but only a scant few have achieved the top leadership position of department chair, according to astudy publishedin the March issue of theAnnals of Surgery.

Latinos, who have recently become the largest minority group, surpassing African Americans, face institutional racism. Examples of this are attempts at english only laws that reach from official documents to elementary and secondary instruction. The problem is extremely apparent in the border states where "illegal immigration" is a big deal (politcally) because a child must worry that his or her family may be ripped apart. Some good information is here (pardon the poltiical bent in the editorial but the end result is the same with latinos getting an educational bum deal in the process):
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/history/arizona-strikes-again-now-it-i.html
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748703572504575213883276427528

Something that REALLY highlights the institutional racism is this documentary:
http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/precious-knowledge/
here is the trailer:


I will not comment on African Americans because I believe the problems they face are pretty well documented but if it is desired I can underscore what has been mentioned.

 

[MDforMee]

Is that chart the number of people with those respective degrees or their salary? The axis is not labeled so I'm unsure. However, I'm not so sure that Asians would get shut out completely like you say because the poor Asians would be able to compete more effectively than they can now. That chart is interesting, if you could explain what the axis is or link to the source that would be nice.

I edited it to become a picture attachment. It's a breakdown of income versus ethnicity from wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States#By_race_and_origin

Don't bother arguing with the chemeng guy, either.

I think that you'll find, as I have, that some of the biggest proponents of race-based admissions are some of the most flaming racists you'll ever meet.

Look at what chemeng just said, by the way; he's saying that if you're actually disadvantaged that you shouldn't be considered disadvantaged solely based on skin color. He is trying to help middle class (and above) black and hispanic kids at other's expense.

It's nothing new, really. It's been going on for years, but is socially acceptable, for whatever reason. This POS has a scholarship to medical school, too. Ironic, isn't it?

 

[MangoPlant]

You're wrong.

Here's the problem, while Blacks and Latinos may on average be at lower SES, there are still way more lower SES White people in terms of population. According to the US Census Bureau (http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/acsbr11-17.pdf) 11.6% of White people are poor, but since there are ~196 million of them then 22.8 million are living in poverty. Doing similar math for Blacks and Hispanics you'll find that there are 10 million and 11.7 million living in poverty respectively, so that means that the TOTAL population of people living in poverty is ~52% White. So moving to SES AA instead of race based AA will in fact help White people out more than any other demographic. That's just math.

Then you take into account the additional effects of being Black or Latino in this country (reason for current AA) such as lack of mentors and positive role models of one's race, which aren't as easily quantifiable, and you would find that this system would completely be aide the majority.

Hold up now, let's re check your calculation there. Looking at that chart there are ~222 million white people and ~36 million black people. The system we have in place tries to mimic the nations demographics so we would be trying to get ~6.1 whites per black based on population alone to match the nations RACE BASED demographics. Now let's take a look at those in poverty. There are ~25 million whites in poverty and ~9 million blacks. Recruiting from those in poverty, you would be getting only 2.7 whites per black. Looking at SES (based on poverty) would actually increase the black:white ratio, except the only difference is that these blacks would actually be poor and not the sons/daughters of rich parents.

 

[ChemEngMD]

I edited it to become a picture attachment. It's a breakdown of income versus ethnicity from wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States#By_race_and_origin

Don't bother arguing with the chemeng guy, either.

I think that you'll find, as I have, that some of the biggest proponents of race-based admissions are some of the most flaming racists you'll ever meet.

Look at what chemeng just said, by the way; he's saying that if you're actually disadvantaged that you shouldn't be considered disadvantaged solely based on skin color. He is trying to help rich black and hispanic kids at other's expense.

It's nothing new, really. It's been going on for years, but is socially acceptable, for whatever reason. This POS has a scholarship to medical school, too. Ironic, isn't it?

Yep I'm a total POS just trying to help these stuck up rich Black and Latino kids. Buncha little Obamas, we are.

And I TOTALLY didn't earn my scholarship...they gave it to me cause I smile and I'm brown!

 

[MDforMee]

Yep I'm a total POS just trying to help these stuck up rich Black and Latino kids. Buncha little Obamas, we are.

And I TOTALLY didn't earn my scholarship...they gave it to me cause I smile and I'm brown!

Go ahead and act smug if it makes you feel better.

What you said is that if you had 2 applicants in front of you,
1. Middle class black kid
2. Low class white kid

You'd take the black kid.

I want you to know that there are people like me out there waiting for people like you (in the real world, that is).

 

[LizzyM]

Do you know what I find interesting? We have all of that on the applications right now. We know where you were born, where you grew up, what HS you graduated from. Most applicants tell us their parents' highest education attained and their parents' occupations and from that AAMC has started categorizing low and very low SES and putting a label on applications to that effect. https://www.aamc.org/download/330166/data/seseffectivepractices.pdf

Most applicants tell us their race and ethnicity. In many cases, where the parents went to school is a further clue to the ethnicity of American born children of immigrants. We have information on life experiences including jobs held, community service, travel experiences for college credit.

All this information is available to us and it can be used to make a holistic assessment of an application.

 

[MangoPlant]

Do you know what I find interesting? We have all of that on the applications right now. We know where you were born, where you grew up, what HS you graduated from. Most applicants tell us their parents' highest education attained and their parents' occupations and from that AAMC has started categorizing low and very low SES and putting a label on applications to that effect. https://www.aamc.org/download/330166/data/seseffectivepractices.pdf

Most applicants tell us their race and ethnicity. In many cases, where the parents went to school is a further clue to the ethnicity of American born children of immigrants. We have information on life experiences including jobs held, community service, travel experiences for college credit.

All this information is available to us and it can be used to make a holistic assessment of an application.

This is good that this information is being included and is a step in the right direction. But when it comes to getting accreditation am I right in assuming that the racial diversity of your school is what matters more than SES or 'life experiences' ?

 

[ChemEngMD]

Hold up now, let's re check your calculation there. Looking at that chart there are ~222 million white people and ~36 million black people. The system we have in place tries to mimic the nations demographics so we would be trying to get ~6.1 whites per black based on population alone to match the nations demographics. Now let's take a look at those in poverty. There are ~25 million whites in poverty and ~9 million blacks. Recruiting from those in poverty, you would be getting only 2.7 whites per black. Looking at SES (based on poverty) would actually increase the black:white ratio.

You're ignoring all of the upper and middle class White people in higher education.

Look at it like this. If there are 1,000 spots in a college class and 50 of these are given out to Affirmative Action candidates. If right now the 950 non-AA spots are being filled 65% White, 25% Asian, 5% Black, and 5% Latino. They decide that because Blacks are 12.6% of the population and Hispanics are 16.4% they want to even out the under-represented group a bit and give those 50 AA spots to Black and Latino applicants. Still underrepresented, but better.

So now say it's the same scenario but now they are giving out those 50 AA spots to lower SES students, assuming all else is equal, 25 of those spots will go to Whites, 12 to Hispanic, 10 to Black, 2 to Asians, and 1 to Native Americans. Those additional 25 spots that used to be taken up by Black and Latino students are now taken up by more White students.

That is what I'm trying to say.

 

[ChemEngMD]

Go ahead and act smug if it makes you feel better.

What you said is that if you had 2 applicants in front of you,
1. Middle class black kid
2. Low class white kid

You'd take the black kid.

I want you to know that there are people like me out there waiting for people like you (in the real world, that is).

What are you even talking about? I'm in the real world. I've been graduated from undergrad for years. And if you mean to threaten me via the internet, that is simply laughable.

I'm simply saying that in our country, class can be overcome - race can not. If a poor White kid in our society puts on a suit and walks down Wall Street he isn't going to be looked at any different than any of the rich White people. If a poor Black kid does, guess what? He's still Black.

 

[GoodGuyGregory]

You're ignoring all of the upper and middle class White people in higher education.

Look at it like this. If there are 1,000 spots in a college class and 50 of these are given out to Affirmative Action candidates. If right now the 950 non-AA spots are being filled 65% White, 25% Asian, 5% Black, and 5% Latino. They decide that because Blacks are 12.6% of the population and Hispanics are 16.4% they want to even out the under-represented group a bit and give those 50 AA spots to Black and Latino applicants. Still underrepresented, but better.

So now say it's the same scenario but now they are giving out those 50 AA spots to lower SES students, assuming all else is equal, 25 of those spots will go to Whites, 12 to Hispanic, 10 to Black, 2 to Asians, and 1 to Native Americans. Those additional 25 spots that used to be taken up by Black and Latino students are now taken up by more White students.

That is what I'm trying to say.

But in this scenario those "White" students were actually underprivileged in this life and faced more hardships than those Black and Latino students.


Also, I get the feeling to some extent that there probably is a tendency for institutions to choose those of a visible underrepresented minority rather than SES because at the end of the day, its one of the measures that many schools use to point out how diverse they are.

 

[ChemEngMD]

But in this scenario those "White" students were actually underprivileged in this life and faced more hardships than those Black and Latino students.


Also, I get the feeling to some extent that there probably is a tendency for institutions to choose those of a visible underrepresented minority rather than SES because at the end of the day, its one of the measures that many schools use to point out how diverse they are.

This is something that you really just have to experience to understand, but "hardship" is a relative term. Is it tough being lower SES in this country? Yes. Is it tough being Black or Latino in this country? Yes. Do the hardships of being Latino or Black just disappear when you enter the middle class? No.

Nobody asked for my parent's tax returns when I was accused of robbing a corner store and dragged into a police station because I fit a description. Nobody wanted to see a pay stub or a W2 when I was getting physically beat down for the color of my skin when I was growing up.

Just because you're no longer underprivileged financially does not mean you are not underprivileged socially. Some students growing up struggle in school because they can't afford supplies to do their work. Some students growing up struggle in school because they deal with racism from peers and adults every day at school and have a tough time being the only Black or Latino kid in the accelerated classes. The term "hardship" could easily be applied to either of the scenarios. Overcoming these hardships could make either one of these students successful in the future, but trying to consider one "more" hard than another isn't a cut and dry exercise.

 

[GoodGuyGregory]

This is something that you really just have to experience to understand, but "hardship" is a relative term. Is it tough being lower SES in this country? Yes. Is it tough being Black or Latino in this country? Yes. Do the hardships of being Latino or Black just disappear when you enter the middle class? No.

Nobody asked for my parent's tax returns when I was accused of robbing a corner store and dragged into a police station because I fit a description. Nobody wanted to see a pay stub or a W2 when I was getting physically beat down for the color of my skin when I was growing up.

Just because you're no longer underprivileged financially does not mean you are not underprivileged socially. Some students growing up struggle in school because they can't afford supplies to do their work. Some students growing up struggle in school because they deal with racism from peers and adults every day at school and have a tough time being the only Black or Latino kid in the accelerated classes. The term "hardship" could easily be applied to either of the scenarios. Overcoming these hardships could make either one of these students successful in the future, but trying to consider one "more" hard than another isn't a cut and dry exercise.

Was going to expand on "hardship" because I knew someone would try to define it for me if I didn't. It didn't include what you term as "underprivileged socially" as it was out of the scope of your original scenario. My point above was just to point out that: the 2.5% increase in white students in your example was simply due to them being even more economically disadvantaged than the African-American/Latino students. It's not a simple "increase in Whites" as you put it - these students went through hardships themselves.

Again now you are getting into what someone before aptly put the Racist Olympics (or something like that) where we are now trying to quantify the degree of racism each peoples have faced. In my opinion, facing something like what you mentioned is certainly a big adversity and something that should be put into the application as an essay and looked at holistically. That would be much more meaningful I think then to check whether or not a box was check beside race X.

 

[The Buff OP]

You know this. I know this. Some people will always look at the 6 Black students, 3 Latino students, and 1 Native student in a class of 120 as people stealing their spots. Haters gon hate...just gotta keep it moving.

As previously stated: I ain't worried bout NUTTIN

Eso mero hermano. Que sigan con sus acusaciones, es la culpa de ellos mismos si no los acceptan.

 

[lobo.solo]

To moderators and admin people on SDN: we should have a policy of no URM vs ORM threads. They are useless and full of hatred IMO.

 

[Harpsx]

At this point I feel like some people who are really keen on arguing that there is a lot of discrimination going on against Asian applicants comparing to white are just regurgitating the same exact MCAT/GPA data while breaking it down into smaller samples with larger statistically errors to show a greater discrepancy.

To me this is an example of cherrypicking data to support certain conclusion. If we are to be as objective as possible we should admit that even if there is a possibility of discrimation it is not the only explanation of this discrepancy and is in no way a certainty.

Please correct me if I'm wrong (I was never very good with stats ) but when there is a consistent yearly trend of Asian applicants requiring higher MCAT/GPA points than white applicants, this data should be strong enough to question whether there is a significant factor at play affecting admissions. And to be frank, the idea of a "glass(bamboo) ceiling" for Asian-Americans has been evidenced in numerous other fields. It isn't far-fetched to believe that medicine isn't exempt from that.

In my experience there is a higher percentage of Asian applicants applying to medical school because being a doctor is prestigious in their family/community. Most adcoms see this as inadequate reason to pursue medicine. Assuming that adcoms are just as likely to spot this attitude among Asian applicants as among white applicants, you would a expect a slightly higher percentage of Asian applicants to be rejected. This is one possible explanation. Is this what is happening for sure? No, but it is as much of a possibility as blatant discrimination against Asians.

I'm still not quite understanding how this is a reason to justify the average higher MCAT/GPA required for Asians vs. Caucasians.
Unless I'm missing something here, the MCAT/GPA data is data for accepted applicants. So those who were rejected on the basis of motivation for medicine/poor communicators have already been excluded from this data. That doesn't explain the trend of higher MCAT/GPA necessary for similar acceptance rates for Asians than whites.
In fact, shouldn't eliminating those Asians from the pool of Asians applicants make the Asian pool smaller and less competitive?

Another possibility that I have already mentioned is that Asian features cause more subconscious negative bias the same way height or weight could. Since I don't have the data to see how many Asian candidates get interviewed in a first place and how many of those receive an acceptance, this is also a valid possibility.

The point is that there is not enough evidence to claim that the discrimination is happening and I don't understand why none of the people arguing for it, aside maybe from Eskimo, are interested in seeing more data before claiming something with certainty.

I'd also like to know the number of Asian candidates interviewed vs. the number accepted, however if your described possibility is true, then that only further supports the proposal of discriminatory admissions for Asians.
I'd also want to know if the discrepancy between Asians and Caucasians begins at the interview invitation stage or the acceptance stage (or both).
Ultimately, I agree more information is always better, but it's unfortunate that we don't exactly have access to it. Still, I don't think it's wrong to question the discrepancy.

 

[touchpause13]

If people here would stop acting like SES is the only thing that matters that would be great.

Classism matters, but so does sexism and racism. A wealthy black person still has to overcome racism.

 

[Harpsx]

However, every single time that it's brought up that Asians are illogically held to a higher standard than whites, people have either ignored it or vomited some sort of stereotype about Asians. I have not seen ONE rational argument claiming why Asians have to achieve higher than whites to get the same results.

And another issue I have is how people are saying Asians aren't disadvantaged because there are so many Asians in med school. Recently I read about gunners at schools who rip important pages out of all the relevant science textbooks that the school libraries have. If a student still gets an A- in that class, does that mean the gunner didn't disadvantage them at all? No, it just means that the student had to work harder to achieve something, and that they could've done even better. The discrimination isn't seen in the ends, but in the means.

Missed this post the first time, but wow spot on.
Again, I have no qualms with URM recruitment. Though not perfect, it's a step in the right direction. I don't think their "merit" as judged by MCAT/GPA tells the full story of their application BECAUSE there are so many social/historical factors to consider.

But where I become frustrated is exactly what you said: "Every single time that it's brought up that Asians are illogically held to a higher standard than whites, people have either ignored it or vomited some sort of stereotype about Asians"
Stereotypes are lazy, unproductive and perpetuate negative biases.
I saw someone say on this thread that "all stereotypes have some sort of truth". But who defined that truth? And what's perceived as "truth" ignores all the factors behind what influences that perceived truth. I also blame Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mom for making this worse.

If people here would stop acting like SES is the only thing that matters that would be great.

Classism matters, but so does sexism and racism. A wealthy black person still has to overcome racism.

There's actually this great study that demonstrates the effect of racism at all levels of SES for African Americans. Even when corrected for SES, black women were more likely to conceive a premature baby than other races. This was not true of African women who did not immigrate to America, but African immigrants did experience an increase in premature births--which refutes the genetic argument. The authors attributed lifelong stress due to racism as a significant cause for premature births.

 

[MangoPlant]

This is something that you really just have to experience to understand, but "hardship" is a relative term. Is it tough being lower SES in this country? Yes. Is it tough being Black or Latino in this country? Yes. Do the hardships of being Latino or Black just disappear when you enter the middle class? No.

Nobody asked for my parent's tax returns when I was accused of robbing a corner store and dragged into a police station because I fit a description. Nobody wanted to see a pay stub or a W2 when I was getting physically beat down for the color of my skin when I was growing up.

Just because you're no longer underprivileged financially does not mean you are not underprivileged socially. Some students growing up struggle in school because they can't afford supplies to do their work. Some students growing up struggle in school because they deal with racism from peers and adults every day at school and have a tough time being the only Black or Latino kid in the accelerated classes. The term "hardship" could easily be applied to either of the scenarios. Overcoming these hardships could make either one of these students successful in the future, but trying to consider one "more" hard than another isn't a cut and dry exercise.

This exact same argument can be applied to Asians. Blacks and Latinos are not the only minorities that face racism you know? An Asian guy wearing a suit is still Asian. I'm not going to go into who is 'more' of a victim of racism because like someone said before, that just gets into the racist Olympics.

Let's think of it this way: Blacks/Latinos and Asians are both minorities therefore they both face racism in society. The reason SES was brought up was because it was argued that Blacks/Latinos typically have lower SES and therefore lower opportunities when compared to Asian/Whites. But now you are going back into the social inequalities between Blacks/Latinos and Whites. Similair social inequalities apply to Asians yet Asians are still held to a higher standard than whites. To be clear, I'm not saying Blacks/Latinos should also be held to a higher standard than whites. I'm saying that Asians should NOT be held to a higher standard than whites.

 

[Womb Raider]

To moderators and admin people on SDN: we should have a policy of no URM vs ORM threads. They are useless and full of hatred IMO.

Get out of here. I'm sick of people like you coming into these threads and telling us what we should or should not talk about. Are you kidding me? This is an internet forum and no one is forcing you to "listen" to this thread. You don't like it? Ignore it. For the love of god don't come in here just to tell us to stop talking - it's pathetic.

We are learning by having these discussions - these threads aren't made so that the races can flame each other. Just because you don't feel comfortable talking about some of these topics doesn't mean it's wrong to do so. Go back to your fairy-tale land and stop wasting everyone's time.

If people here would stop acting like SES is the only thing that matters that would be great.

Classism matters, but so does sexism and racism. A wealthy black person still has to overcome racism.

This is something that you really just have to experience to understand, but "hardship" is a relative term. Is it tough being lower SES in this country? Yes. Is it tough being Black or Latino in this country? Yes. Do the hardships of being Latino or Black just disappear when you enter the middle class? No.

Nobody asked for my parent's tax returns when I was accused of robbing a corner store and dragged into a police station because I fit a description. Nobody wanted to see a pay stub or a W2 when I was getting physically beat down for the color of my skin when I was growing up.

Just because you're no longer underprivileged financially does not mean you are not underprivileged socially. Some students growing up struggle in school because they can't afford supplies to do their work. Some students growing up struggle in school because they deal with racism from peers and adults every day at school and have a tough time being the only Black or Latino kid in the accelerated classes. The term "hardship" could easily be applied to either of the scenarios. Overcoming these hardships could make either one of these students successful in the future, but trying to consider one "more" hard than another isn't a cut and dry exercise.

A wealthy white person still has to overcome racism. You guys act like white people live perfect lives with no hardships of their own - this is a commonly recurring theme I've seen among minorities. It's easy to put the "white people" up on a pedestal and pretend that they're perfect; it's easy to blame others for your problems. I could spout out my list of anecdotal evidence of racism just like you did, but it's irrelevant and won't prove anything.

Every person of power isn't white. There are plenty of interviewers / adcom leaders that are not white. There are LOTS of attending physicians that are not white. The white dominance of this country is quickly diminishing.

Playing the whole "my racism is worse than yours" angle is pointless and it certainly doesn't merit big advantages into medical school. Again, when do these free handouts stop? When you stop being the victim of racism? When you aren't the minority? When you "feel" like everyone is equal? NONE of this will ever go away in the foreseeable future.

 

[QuinnTheEskimo]

If people here would stop acting like SES is the only thing that matters that would be great.

Classism matters, but so does sexism and racism. A wealthy black person still has to overcome racism.

As others have pointed out, Asians have to overcome racism as well. Racism is not unique to black and Latino minorities.

The counter-argument seems to be, "Asians are over-represented in medical schools, so clearly there exists no racism against Asians."

This argument makes no sense. The numbers show that Asians are held to a higher standard than other groups, including whites. This is discriminatory. I don't see how you can possibly argue otherwise.

 

[MDforMee]

As others have pointed out, Asians have to overcome racism as well. Racism is not unique to black and Latino minorities.

The counter-argument seems to be, "Asians are over-represented in medical schools, so clearly there exists no racism against Asians."

This argument makes no sense. The numbers show that Asians are held to a higher standard than other groups, including whites. This is discriminatory. I don't see how you can possibly argue otherwise.

You're finding out who the real racists are just by reading this thread, IMO. I'll give you a hint, it ain't white people.

You should realize that a lot of white people are on your side, but that you've been blinded by the "phantom racist boogeyman" (whites) and are too caught up in your own sense of racism because you're a minority in this country.

 

[ChemEngMD]

A wealthy white person still has to overcome racism. You guys act like white people live perfect lives with no hardships of their own - this is a commonly recurring theme I've seen among minorities. It's easy to put the "white people" up on a pedestal and pretend that they're perfect; it's easy to blame others for your problems. I could spout out my list of anecdotal evidence of racism just like you did, but it's irrelevant and won't prove anything.

Every person of power isn't white. There are plenty of interviewers / adcom leaders that are not white. There are LOTS of attending physicians that are not white. The white dominance of this country is quickly diminishing.

Playing the whole "my racism is worse than yours" angle is pointless and it certainly doesn't merit big advantages into medical school. Again, when do these free handouts stop? When you stop being the victim of racism? When you aren't the minority? When you "feel" like everyone is equal? NONE of this will ever go away in the foreseeable future.

We'll never see eye to eye on this. I will never understand White people who don't recognize their own White privilege and you will never understand minorities who feel like they have to combat racism on a daily basis. We've reached an impasse and while we both live in the same country, we perceive two very different realities of what this country is.

And that's okay because we're allowed to have our own opinions in this country. I won't argue with you because I know you've made your mind up about how the world works.

You're finding out who the real racists are just by reading this thread, IMO. I'll give you a hint, it ain't white people.

You should realize that a lot of white people are on your side, but that you've been blinded by the "phantom racist boogeyman" (whites) and are too caught up in your own sense of racism because you're a minority in this country.

My brother, racism requires one to have power. Race is a social construct. Blacks, Latinos, Natives, and Asians can be prejudiced towards White people all day, but as long as White people still hold the vast majority of power in this country, they can never be "racist". Take a sociology class.

 

[MangoPlant]

You're finding out who the real racists are just by reading this thread, IMO. I'll give you a hint, it ain't white people.

You should realize that a lot of white people are on your side, but that you've been blinded by the "phantom racist boogeyman" (whites) and are too caught up in your own sense of racism because you're a minority in this country.

Quinn is NOT saying that Asians should get an advantage like Blacks/Latinos get right now. She/he is saying that Asians should NOT be held to higher standards than whites.

 

[MDforMee]

Quinn is NOT saying that Asians should get an advantage like Blacks/Latinos get right now. She/he is saying that Asians should NOT be held to higher standards than whites.

I wasn't talking about who should get an advantage. I'm talking about the bigger picture.

You see it too, I think.

 

[kyamh]

What I find most interesting is that we clearly see two different ideologies at play regarding wealth and prosperity, but we rarely come out and talk about them.

Some cultures/families/individuals very much value the prosperity of their family. I come from a culture where it is expected that people start at the bottom with poor opportunities for them and for their children and, over the course of many generations, the family as a whole works its way up.

This is not the dominant way of thinking in America. Most Americans believe that everyone ought to have as equal as possible opportunities, so a smart kid from a crappy school system and a poor family ought to (but we recognize that they don't) have a shot at the top medical programs just like the rich kid whose family has already 'made it'.

What we have to understand is that the American medical school system functions using the second mind set - everyone deserves a chance at all sorts of different futures regardless of the historic success of their families. What another faction argues is that it is "okay" for students to be penalized for the lack of success (due to various reasons) of their families...perhaps the children of these students will get better opportunities. This faction, I think, is likely to be made up of recent immigrants or of people whose families come from cultures that value the family advancement over personal advancement. This faction also has to suck it up and realize that we live in America and American values are reflected in the admissions process, so tough

Edit: tl,dr whatever we think is 'fair' isn't relevant since the price for going to an American school is that the admissions process follows American values and prejudices

 

[Womb Raider]

My brother, racism requires one to have power. Race is a social construct. Blacks, Latinos, Natives, and Asians can be prejudiced towards White people all day, but as long as White people still hold the vast majority of power in this country, they can never be "racist". Take a sociology class.

Semantics.

Edit: I'm not trying to pick a fight, but I'd really like to know when you think the free handouts should stop? If ever? This is a serious question that I don't think anyone has answered yet.

 

[SunsFun]

Please correct me if I'm wrong (I was never very good with stats ) but when there is a consistent yearly trend of Asian applicants requiring higher MCAT/GPA points than white applicants, this data should be strong enough to question whether there is a significant factor at play affecting admissions. And to be frank, the idea of a "glass(bamboo) ceiling" for Asian-Americans has been evidenced in numerous other fields. It isn't far-fetched to believe that medicine isn't exempt from that.

The consistent yearly trend for the most numerous categories was around 3%. Cherrypicking data was when another poster showed the 33% vs 80% acceptances for people with <3.2 GPA and >39 MCAT. This is just using a very small sample size that would clearly increase variance to show a larger gap.

I do believe that there is a glass ceiling for Asians in medicine. However, I don't think there is enough evidence to show that it is present here at the very bottom of this career. But I am pretty sure its there in hospital administration, health policy, etc.

I'm still not quite understanding how this is a reason to justify the average higher MCAT/GPA required for Asians vs. Caucasians.
Unless I'm missing something here, the MCAT/GPA data is data for accepted applicants. So those who were rejected on the basis of motivation for medicine/poor communicators have already been excluded from this data. That doesn't explain the trend of higher MCAT/GPA necessary for similar acceptance rates for Asians than whites.
In fact, shouldn't eliminating those Asians from the pool of Asians applicants make the Asian pool smaller and less competitive?

I don't think that's how it works. If the incidence of people having "wrong" motive among the Asian group (at each MCAT/GPA bracket) of applicants is higher than what it is among white applicants at that same bracket, you would expect a higher percentage of Asians being rejected from each of those brackets. The difference in acceptance rate is not dramatic so it is entirely plausible scenario.

I'd also like to know the number of Asian candidates interviewed vs. the number accepted, however if your described possibility is true, then that only further supports the proposal of discriminatory admissions for Asians.
I'd also want to know if the discrepancy between Asians and Caucasians begins at the interview invitation stage or the acceptance stage (or both).
Ultimately, I agree more information is always better, but it's unfortunate that we don't exactly have access to it. Still, I don't think it's wrong to question the discrepancy.

I fully support questioning discrepancy, I just think its too early to jump to conclusion that there is certainly a conscious systematic discrimination by the ADCOM that is going on here.