opinion on URM..repeat? dont care

[BarrySanders]

---

Members don't see this ad.

People do not want something they have had no control over to be used against them in the admissions process. Is that not a valid complaint?

Having something work For some is not the same thing as having it work Against others.

 

[BarrySanders]

Please enlighten us. What is the difference between the average with HBCs and without?

Read my previous post from which the comment was drawn.

 

[turkleton]

People do not want something they have had no control over to be used against them in the admissions process. Is that not a valid complaint?

To which every URM and broke ass kid can reply, "I had no control over my lot in life and a lot of what I could do was predicated with what I was born with. This is going to be used against me in admission?"

The stories of these supposed on the fence students on the cusp of rejection and the glory of acceptance are few and far between and in general do not draw sympathy. If you apply to 15 schools and don't get into one of them, it's not because of some uncontrollable process used against you in admissions. It's you.

 

[Ryo-Ohki]

To which every URM and broke ass kid can reply, "I had no control over my lot in life and a lot of what I could do was predicated with what I was born with. This is going to be used against me in admission?"

I said it before and I'll say it again. The stories of these supposed on the fence students on the cusp of rejection and the glory of acceptance are few and far between and in general do now draw sympathy. If you apply to 15 schools and don't get into one of them, it's not because of some uncontrollable process used against you in admissions. It's you.

Admissions do not discriminate against URMs or people who grew up poor. So, no, their race and their SES will not be used against them in admissions.

 

[BarrySanders]

Admissions do not discriminate against URMs or people who grew up poor. So, no, their race and their SES will not be used against them in admissions.

If race was truly used Against non-URMs than there would not be any non-URMs in medical school.

 

[turkleton]

Admissions do not discriminate against URMs or people who grew up poor. So, no, their race and their SES will not be used against them in admissions.

Dude.... In this country to an extent race is tied to SES which is very much tied to performance in school. So to take the poor black/hispanic/white kid who grew up in the projects and gets a 3.5 w/ 27 in State U but doesn't get into med school, in the view of AA and many others, is unfair and discriminatory- in that sense its being used against him in admissions. This goes back to my point of fairly short sighted conclusions from a cursory understanding of decades old shaping of social policy. I'm not arrogant enough to suggest I know everything, but I do know that some very bright people have thought about this before and it exists for a reason.

 

[Ryo-Ohki]

Dude.... In this country to an extent race is tied to SES which is very much tied to performance in school. So to take the poor black/hispanic/white kid who grew up in the projects and gets a 3.5 w/ 27 in State U but doesn't get into med school, in the view of AA and many others, is unfair and discriminatory- in that sense its being used against him in admissions. This goes back to my point of fairly short sighted conclusions from a cursory understanding of decades old shaping of social policy. I'm not arrogant enough to suggest I know everything, but I do know that some very bright people have thought about this before and it exists for a reason.

Setting a relevant, objective factor (like a good MCAT score) that anyone can achieve is not discrimination against poor applicants. Inequality of outcomes is not an inequality of opportunity.

 

[turkleton]

Setting a relevant, objective factor (like a good MCAT score) that anyone can achieve is not discrimination against poor applicants. Inequality of outcomes is not an inequality of opportunity.

Inequality of outcomes is the product of inequality of opportunity- potentially, not always.

MCAT, like the SAT, is probably a flawed test but its the best we've got. At the risk of using hypotheticals- which I hate- is the MCAT/SAT really that objective if one kid takes $2000 Princeton Review classes all summer and gets a 30 while someone else takes the test without the luxury of the classes while working as part of his work study program and gets a 27?

The bottom line is, whether you think the system is fair or not, if you support the idea of having a more heterogeneous physician pool, you'll have to make concessions somewhere.

 

[Ryo-Ohki]

To an extent, yes. Unfortunately, many things are "used against" applicants that they have no control over. Just off the top of my head:

- state of residency
- interpersonal skills
- gender (not that I'm trying to start a different fight, but it's a fact)
- reputation of undergraduate institution
- family connections

It is a fact of life that certain social goods are placed above individual notions of "fairness". This exists at all levels of society, and is true regardless of whether you are applying to med school, applying for a job, or trying to get a loan. Certain "discriminatory policies" are considered acceptable, others are not. Most agree that a measure of "racial tie-breaking" or some variant thereof is acceptable if it increases minority representation in certain fields.

And that's to say nothing of the benefits most folks on this site have obtained due to factors they have no control over.

You can change your state of residency, work on your interpersonal skills, and even work hard enough in High School to go to a highly reputable undergrad institution......but you can never change your race.

That is one of the reasons discrimination by race was specifically prohibited by Congress. That is why freedom from racial discrimination is a Civil Right extended to all Citizens.

No, most people agree that racial discrimination is not acceptable, even if it increases minority representation. Constitutional amendments like MCRI and Prop 209 were approved by voters in overwhelming fashion for this very reason.

 

[Ryo-Ohki]

Your reading of the law lacks nuance, and your description of the Civil Rights Act is misleading. Congress never prohibited racial discrimination in all aspects of life, and no, freedom from racial discrimination is not a "Civil Right extended to all citizens". Racial discrimination is prohibited in very specific circumstances, including voting rights, some areas of employment, and other very specific domains.

Actually it's very broad. Racial discrimination is prohibited in any program receiving federal funds. This means Title VII applies to virtually every college in the United States.

If Anti-AA measures can pass in a decidedly blue state like CA by an 8 point margin, you can imagine what kind of margins it would rack up in red states. I would guess that if MCRI was a national ballot measure, it would be at least a 20 point margin against AA. So, yes, it is overwhelming that the public does not want racial discrimination for any reason.

 

[BarrySanders]

If race was truly used Against non-URMs than there would not be any non-URMs in medical school.

Seconded.

 

[Ryo-Ohki]

True. Notice that Affirmative Action doesn't fall under that law? That makes it fairly clear that AA is really not what Congress had in mind when they passed the law.

Acutally....they did think specifically about what would be known as Affirmative Action when they passed the law. The chief author of the Civil Rights Act, Senator Humphrey, famously declared that he would eat his hat if his law was used to hire or promote by group quotas. In the Act itself, you will find that the logic of "under-representation" was specifically repudiated.

The Civil Rights Act was a statement of equal treatment under the law, not of preferential treatment as found under AA.

 

[Instatewaiter]

If race was truly used Against non-URMs than there would not be any non-URMs in medical school.

Not true, if race was used against non-URMs then there would be fewer non-URMs w/ AA (true). And, if removed there would be more non-URMs (supported by a heap of studies).

Like it or not AA gives preferential treatment to URMs thus working against non-URMs. These two things can't be separated. This idea really shouldn't be extended to the argument that a 'URM took my spot' but if you believe in sheer meritocracy by numbers then a URM did take someone's spot.

 

[BarrySanders]

Not true, if race was used against non-URMs then there would be fewer non-URMs w/ AA (true). And, if removed there would be more non-URMs (supported by a heap of studies).

Like it or not AA gives preferential treatment to URMs thus working against non-URMs. These two things can't be separated. This idea really shouldn't be extended to the argument that a 'URM took my spot' but if you believe in sheer meritocracy by numbers then a URM did take someone's spot.

Again, if race truly works against non-URMs then why are non-URMs overwhelmingly the majority in medical schools?

If you believe in sheer meritocracy by numbers then did a non-URM with lower stats take someone's spot?

 

[Instatewaiter]

Again, if race truly works against non-URMs then why are non-URMs overwhelmingly the majority in medical schools?

If you believe in sheer meritocracy by numbers then did a non-URM with lower stats take someone's spot?

Your logic is completely off. First, there are not enough URMs applying to create a majority. So unless an extra 4000 URMs applied and all that applied got in, you could not have a majority.

Second a group can have something work against them and have it not completely keep them out of medical school. Note that the drastically higher stats of non-URM keep the numbers up.

And yes, if going by a sheer meritocracy by numbers, a non-URM with low stats did take someone's spot. Realize though that unless the standard deviation is drastically larger for non-URMs this is going to happen much less frequently.

 

[BigRedPremed]

Again, if race truly works against non-URMs then why are non-URMs overwhelmingly the majority in medical schools?

If you believe in sheer meritocracy by numbers then did a non-URM with lower stats take someone's spot?

Your use of logic and statistics is rather appalling. I heard this same argument in my Asian American studies class: "There couldn't have been any discrimination against Asian Americans. After all they have a high median income and low crime rates"

Such a cursory analysis ignores the process through which the results that you quote are achieved. Sure, there may be 10 ORMs for every 1 URM in medical school. But if there were originally a 15:1 ratio of qualified ORMs to URMs in the applicant pool, is that not discrimination?

 

[sirus_virus]

And amidst all the selfish rants, no one has suggested a better way to recruit minorities in medicine to help improve America's healthcare system.

 

[Stolenspatulas]

Your use of logic and statistics is rather appalling. I heard this same argument in my Asian American studies class: "There couldn't have been any discrimination against Asian Americans. After all they have a high median income and low crime rates"

Such a cursory analysis ignores the process through which the results that you quote are achieved. Sure, there may be 10 ORMs for every 1 URM in medical school. But if there were originally a 15:1 ratio of qualified ORMs to URMs in the applicant pool, is that not discrimination?

IRONY:

By ORM, do you mean over-represented majority?

I'm going to chime out of this debate (or not really chime in). There is no point. (and please, i know that someone will post a reply stating "is there no point for dialogue for controversial issues?'... so i will answer the predicted question with "YES. there is no point. none of us have any significant power to change AA (whether for or against)."

 

[sirus_virus]

Why the MODs choose not to move these worthless AA threads to the right forum always beats me. They all have the same flavor argued by the same members.

 

[Cirrus83]

I find it hard to believe that you can actually be completely blind to "race" - and these statements in bold demonstrate that. Are you telling me that you will concisouly make an effort to marry someone who is not Chinese? Doesn't that contradict your ideals? How can you say things such as seeing people as individuals and then say things like this?

Furthermore, can you tell me with 100% certainty that you can control your sub-conscious (which is supposed to be uncontrollable, since you're not supposed to be "aware" or "conscious" of it) and NOT see Jimmy (who would be considered "black" for instance) as black? I mean, I too see others as individuals but I find it very difficult to break free from my social conditioning and see Jimmy as merely Jimmy the guy instead of Jimmy the black guy. You say that you refuse to follow society's silly notions of race but I find it hard to believe that anyone can do that - the only time I recall myself as being completely oblivious to race was when I was a child - but part of growing up in our society, is becoming race conscious - I have NO CLUE how this happens, I don't know if it is a natural thing or a social thing, but I know that it happened right around the time I was in grade 6-8.

lol, dude that was a joke about how insanely diverse my family is. You don't really think I go around trying to find American Indians to marry do you?


Anyways, aside from that, American Indian is a cultural heritage, and not a particular "race" anyways, and I never denied that there would still be different cultural heritages. But again, it was a FRIGGIN' JOKE. I can still have a sense of humor even if I don't like the concept of race.

And yes, of course our subconscious is going to have responses to race since it's been ingrained into us by society. But if you consciously realize that you're doing it you can combat your subsconscious responses. And as for Jimmy, if you spoke to him you could think of him as Jimmy the bartender or Jimmy the doctor or Jimmy the mechanic or whatever Jimmy does for a living. I don't know about you, but I don't think of my friends as Alex the white guy or Jane the asian girl.

Oh and for what it's worth, even the subsconcious judgements can go away so long as you actually interact with enough diverse people who all happen to have the same skin color. After a while your brain will figure out that it's pretty useless to use their skin color as a defining feature. Of course if you're always holed up in a suburban medical school this probably won't ever happen.

And again the only real reason I'm replying is to point out that I was just kidding, lol. I don't consciously make any effort to find a mate of any particular race. If anything, I spent a good part of my teenage years consciously trying to undo my biases against people based on their skin color. It sounds stupid, but I spent a LOT of time thinking about why I had these biases (including the people I found attractive/not attractive), and I managed to address them-I don't really know how, it just kinda happened after I'd been consciously thinking about these negative qualities in myself for a long time.

I have no idea why you'd think I was serious in that sentence, especially when it's obvious it runs counter to everything else I've said. Seriously, this is about the 10th time on SDN that I've posted something completely utterly absurd, and have had people take me seriously. Even the contrast against everything else I post is apparently not enough to make it obvious that I'm kidding.

 

[Cirrus83]

Not a good example dude/dudette - in your example about sexism, you said that more categories would eliminate sexism b/c it spreads the influence and reduces the amount of influence from one particular category (this is the same idea behind pluralist society's and democracy btw)...so wouldn't a multicultural and multiracial society serve to reduce racism? HO HO - you missed that one!! lol

Umm...that's what I was suggesting...except we'd go by cultural heritages, since there would be more of those than the current "race" categories. You can call the new categories races if you feel like it.

But no, I didn't miss that one, you basically just quoted what I was suggesting and repeated it using the word race instead of heritages.

So yes, a multicultural society where the "races" aren't as broad, and people have smaller "race" groups (really, just cultural heritages) would have less racism. Which was the entire point of my post...so no, I didn't miss anything...why would I bring it up if it wasn't what I was suggesting?!?

Seriously I've never suggested that anybody ignore their cultural heritage and forget about their family's history. You're not even arguing against me at this point, you're agreeing with me while thinking you're arguing with me. Wtf?

 

[Cirrus83]

Bleah, my wife is Japanese/Korean. I'm all for interracial marriage.

I'm not one to dance around the issue and cloak Affirmative Action in terms like "fighting racism". I don't care about fighting racism because racist people don't concern me. I lived down South, and I'm white, and I'm quite familiar with many people who are casually and unabashedly racist. But I'm not the thought police, and I'm a big first amendment supporter, so as far as I'm concerned folks can think and say whatever the hell they want.

That's why I put zero stock in this "AA stirs people up" argument. That's not an argument against Affirmative Action at all, any more than it used to be an argument against civil rights. The backlash against a policy is not an argument against a policy itself. All positive movements have naysayers; their existence has nothing to do with the rightness or wrongness of the movement itself.

What I am interested in, and the true point of Affirmative Action, is increasing minority representation in higher education and professional careers. You think race is "pseudo-science"? Maybe you're right, but again, I don't really care. Race, whatever its basis or lack thereof, continues to be a powerful force in society, and as such, we have to acknowledge its existence. The fact that even the anti-AA folks talk about alternative strategies to increase minority representation in medicine is, in my mind, a tacit acknowledgement that (1) Race is operative in our society, and (2) Increasing minority representation in fields like medicine is a good thing.

That being said, nothing works better than Affirmative Action. All the other "ideas" to get more minorities in medicine are really just vague generalizations, and things we should be doing anyway (better education, etc). As long as students admitted under these programs are held to the same standards of licensing examinations and graduation requirements, they are qualified physicians. So what's the problem?

You might not care about racism, but racism is the thing that got us here to the point where you think we need AA, so ignoring racism is ignoring the root of the problem that you're trying to solve. That's the problem.

You can get all the minorities you want into a field, but if by doing that you're making the root of the problem worse you'll never actually solve the problem. A lot of how well people do in school just has to do with how well they believe they're supposed to be able to do. When everyone else around you is expecting less of you due to stereotypes and AA, you're already being set up to do worse. So racism *IS* something I care about, since it is the core problem here-it is literally what causes people to underperform in school, whether it's because the schools are underfunded or because subtle racism has caused a teacher to assume a child is less capable-and thus focus less on the child, racism is the cause of everything that's making AA seem like such an attractive solution.

But AA just lets the root of the problem fester and grow-it gives the racists who want you to believe that one race is inferior/superior ammo, because now they can point at AA as proof. And that just means that all those kids out there are going to be assumed to be less capable, get less teacher time, have other kids tell them they're stupider, etc. All that you need to ruin your testing ability is for ANYBODY to remind you that your "race" does worse on tests. It's called stereotype threat, and it's not just a made up concept, it's been tested time and again and it's very real.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/199908/student-stereotype

AA feeds the stereotype, and that stereotype goes on to hurt kids via stereotype threat, and via teachers expecting less of kids (which is also VERY harmful-if a teacher assumes a relatively dumb kid is smart, that kid will actually end up catching up and surpassing the rest of the class just because the teacher gives the kid a lot more chances to learn-calling on him, etc), and other children psychologically hurting them using these stereotypes.

So if you think you can band-aid the problem with AA, you're wrong. Look, unlike some of the other anti-AA posters, I DO NOT CARE that I'm "losing a spot" to an URM, because quite frankly, URMs have to overcome way more crap than I've had to overcome, even if it's "just" a stereotype. But I *DO* care that AA is actually going to end up perpetuating this harmful stereotype.

By basing aid on something OTHER than race, you'll be able to get rid of the racial stereotype threat, or at least not give the stereotype so much credibility.

Or keep going down the AA road, and constantly have other people believe this stereotype that URMs are inferior. Because that's basically what AA is doing for URMs-it's making everyone else believe that they're inferior. Even if URM students don't really believe it rationally, it'll be in their subconscious, ruining their performance. What a great solution. (that's sarcasm)