Race classification to med schools: possibly controversial thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter ratman7
  • Start date Start date
Med School Insiders
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Members don't see this ad.
Womb Raider said:
You guys have been conveniently side-stepping the difficult questions I've been presenting for this entire thread. You opt to attack the minutiae of my posts rather than defend your own position. Start answering some of the harder questions and I'll spend more time arguing. Until then, I'm going to take a break because I think your position is indefensible without accepting the reality that you're discriminating based on race.
Click to expand...
You can do better.
Try actually following up with hard hitting questions. Just vaguely asserting that you ask some that weren't answered doesn't help you. Try quoting yourself
 
@Womb Raider , if your goal is a holistic review, then doesn't removing race negate your original intention entirely? I mean doesn't race effect your life experience at all?

I guess not, but I wonder how many white people were bullied for being terrorists after 9-11. I guess my being an indian immigrant had nothing to do with that. That and the apparent valid criticism of Americans being terrible at geography.

/end digression
 
touchpause13 said:
I'll make it even easier for you - the crux of my argument is that URM policies look at the applicant holistically, and because there are many factors at pay here besides race that it can't be considered discrimination. If you want to refute that you have to prove that URM policies meet the definition of discrimination. Just saying that discrimination is wrong, or that some discrimination is wrong but others aren't doesn't refute my argument and it just leaves you chasing your own tail. Instead of getting forcing me to be on the defensive, you've spent most of this time throwing out flack that I can easily refute. My argument is actually way more difficult to try and prove than yours, but you've failed to use that to your advantage.
Click to expand...

Christ, this makes me so annoyed I had to stop lurking and respond.

You can dance around this all your want but there is glaring evidence that being a certain race helps in admissions. Why don't we go back to those MCAT/GPA grids by race we all love to link. It's obvious that URMs are admitted at a higher rate, given the same GPA/MCAT as other races. Can you really expect people to believe that every single one of these applicants are better "holistically"? What a load of horsesh*t.

I don't believe that URMs are "stealing" seats or whatever because there aren't that many to begin with. My issue is that there is clearly a discrimination based on race that for some reason everyone accepts and doesn't want to admit it or finds some convoluted way to justify it.
 
touchpause13 said:
the crux of my argument is that URM policies look at the applicant holistically, and because there are many factors at pay here besides race that it can't be considered discrimination.
Click to expand...

Just because race isn't the only factor being considered, doesn't mean it's still not discrimination.

As you know, race is one of a huge number of variables considered in the process. (My previous question still remains: If all races are considered equal, why is race considered in the process?) However, each race is not given equal weight. I'll construct a rudimentary example that demonstrates this:

Chance to get in: [GPA] + [MCAT] + [ECs] + [Shadow experience ] + [Research experience] + [Race] + [SES].

GPA, MCAT, ECs, Shadow / research experience, are all given relatively equal weight, meaning they count the same for everyone. Race does not receive equal weight. If we set Whites at "0" (White's receive no direct bonus for acceptance), Asians applicants would receive a negative value and URMs would receive a positive value, which contributes to their overall chance of getting accepted. This may not be explicitly written down on paper or in some formula that medical schools use (although it might), but is an obvious conclusion from the data available. The adcoms admit to this.

Just because there are "factors at play here besides race" doesn't mean that you can't still discriminate based on race. The above is a clear example of discrimination based on GPA, MCAT, ECs, Shadow/research experience, SES, AND COLOR/RACE.
 
Never mind past mistreatment... let's put that aside.

Let us accept the premise that we want a diverse class and we want a diverse workforce.

There are very few URM applicants relative to their proportion of the US population and there are relatively few URM in the applicant pool. So we make deliberate efforts to pluck a few qualified applicants who are URM after we have otherwise filled the class. Let's say we have interviewed 500 of whom 80 are URM and then picked the top 97 applicants. Of that group, 14 are URM. Of the 403 who are left, the next 50 are essentially in a dead heat as far as qualifications and now we are going to pick 3 more applicants. Suppose we pick 3 URM . Do you really resent that 3 URM were cherry picked? We end up with 83 ORM out of a pool of 420 and 17 URM from a pool of 80. The class is 17% URM.

Would you feel the same way if I substituted the word "Legacy" or the word "women"?
 
Womb Raider said:
Just because race isn't the only factor being considered, doesn't mean it's still not discrimination.

As you know, race is one of a huge number of variables considered in the process. (My previous question still remains: If all races are considered equal, why is race considered in the process?) However, each race is not given equal weight. I'll construct a rudimentary example that demonstrates this:

Chance to get in: [GPA] + [MCAT] + [ECs] + [Shadow experience ] + [Research experience] + [Race] + [SES].

GPA, MCAT, ECs, Shadow / research experience, are all given relatively equal weight, meaning they count the same for everyone. Race does not receive equal weight. If we set Whites at "0" (White's receive no direct bonus for acceptance), Asians applicants would receive a negative value and URMs would receive a positive value, which contributes to their overall chance of getting accepted. This may not be explicitly written down on paper or in some formula that medical schools use (although it might), but is an obvious conclusion from the data available. The adcoms admit to this.

Just because there are "factors at play here besides race" doesn't mean that you can't still discriminate based on race. The above is a clear example of discrimination based on GPA, MCAT, ECs, Shadow/research experience, SES, AND COLOR/RACE.
Click to expand...
Much better.

First question - Because if we want to look at the whole applicant we have to look at the whole applicant, and race is a part of that.
As for your second point, race does count for everyone, just like GPA counts for everyone and MCAT counts for everyone. I don't think you are actually trying to argue that race doesn't count for everyone, what I think you are asking is why do URM applicants race give them a "boost". Correct? Let me ask this - why do those whose family is below the poverty line get a "boost" and those who come from upper middle class families don't? Why are you okay with that form of "discrimination" but not on race?
 
You are forgetting or ignoring a very important component that we look at when we judge applicants: the person's story or the road they've travelled.

Examples include being a veteran, or having a compelling life story.

BTW, state schools (including Mercer) turn down overqualified OOS applicants for underqualified IS applicants all the time. Is that OK?

Chance to get in: [GPA] + [MCAT] + [ECs] + [Shadow experience ] + [Research experience] + [Race] + [SES].

You can scream discrimination all you want, but at the heart of these arguments is the entitlement attitude that "I have a higher GPA and MCAT, how DARE they admit someone with lesser stats!?"

Oh! LizzyM reminded me of legacies. No one ever bitches about that!
 
Goro said:
You are forgetting or ignoring a very important component that we look at when we judge applicants: the person's story or the road they've travelled.

Examples include being a veteran, or having a compelling life story.

BTW, state schools (including Mercer) turn down overqualified OOS applicants for underqualified IS applicants all the time. Is that OK?

Chance to get in: [GPA] + [MCAT] + [ECs] + [Shadow experience ] + [Research experience] + [Race] + [SES].

You can scream discrimination all you want, but at the heart of these arguments is the entitlement attitude that "I have a higher GPA and MCAT, how DARE they admit someone with lesser stats!?

oh, LizzyM reminded me of legacies. No one ever bitches about that!
Click to expand...

Because no one is in favor of legacy interviews! Stop derailing the topic by bringing up legacies every time. (Just waiting for you to use the "4.0/40 automaton" excuse now.)

No the heart of the argument is that URMs have a higher chance of being accepted with the same GPA/MCAT, why is this so hard for you to swallow?

There are countless articles on how AA discriminates based on race. You can't simply gloss over it by saying the process is ~holistic~.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
LizzyM said:
There are very few URM applicants relative to their proportion of the US population and there are relatively few URM in the applicant pool. So we make deliberate efforts to pluck a few qualified applicants who are URM after we have otherwise filled the class. Let's say we have interviewed 500 of whom 80 are URM and then picked the top 97 applicants. Of that group, 14 are URM. Of the 403 who are left, the next 50 are essentially in a dead heat as far as qualifications and now we are going to pick 3 more applicants. Suppose we pick 3 URM . Do you really resent that 3 URM were cherry picked? We end up with 83 ORM out of a pool of 420 and 17 URM from a pool of 80. The class is 17% URM.
Click to expand...

This is basically saying, "Well, this is O.K. because it really isn't hurting that many people." So to me, this implies that people are O.K. with this as long as the discrimination/harm is kept at a minimum. This kind of reasoning is very dangerous, especially in fields like research ethics...

Nope. I'm not O.K. with that at all... It's the principle. Every individual should be given a fair chance. 3 kids per class may not be a "lot" in the grand scheme of things, but it could mean the whole world to one individual, who may have his lifelong dreams shattered, ruined because of discrimination. Where do we draw the line? Why is 3 OK? What about 4? 5? 10? (And no, this is nothing personal, I'm already in).

I feel the same way about legacy as I do about race. The reason you don't see people complaining about legacies taking spots like you see with race, is because the data isn't there. (If there is data, I've never seen it, and I highly doubt it would be as sickening as the graphs we've been using).

touchpause13 said:
First question - Because if we want to look at the whole applicant we have to look at the whole applicant, and race is a part of that.
As for your second point, race does count for everyone, just like GPA counts for everyone and MCAT counts for everyone. I don't think you are actually trying to argue that race doesn't count for everyone, what I think you are asking is why do URM applicants race give them a "boost". Correct? Let me ask this - why do those whose family is below the poverty line get a "boost" and those who come from upper middle class families don't? Why are you okay with that form of "discrimination" but not on race?
Click to expand...

I don't even understand the first "question", again, it's basically implying races are unequal.

Why am I the one having to defend why discrimination is bad when you all are the ones defending it so valiantly. Discrimination based on race is wrong. So wrong, that we even have a piece of legislature in our government that outlaws it. I would go into this further, but it's kind of beyond the point - we all agree it's bad, some of you just don't mind endorsing it in small quantities if it helps your constructed world view.

I wonder why we don't see this kind of stuff in the news? It would be fascinating to read a news report over this. Hmm maybe we can get that going.
 
Womb Raider said:
This is basically saying, "Well, this is O.K. because it really isn't hurting that many people." So to me, this implies that people are O.K. with this as long as the discrimination/harm is kept at a minimum. <snip>

Nope. I'm not O.K. with that at all... It's the principle. Every individual should be given a fair chance. 3 kids per class may not be a "lot" in the grand scheme of things, but it could mean the whole world to one individual, who may have his lifelong dreams shattered, ruined because of discrimination. Where do we draw the line? Why is 3 OK? What about 4? 5? 10? (And no, this is nothing personal, I'm already in).
Click to expand...

Who is being harmed? I mean, really, harmed?? We have 50 applicants who are essentially at a dead heat in terms of admission but we have only 3 seats left. Regardless of how I choose, there are 47 equally good applicants who will not be chosen and several hundred additional interviewees who will not be chosen (and several thousand applicants who didn't even get to the interview stage). This could be the same argument if we were looking at the waitlist... there are 50 on the unranked waitlist and I can pick 3. No matter who I pick there are some who are not going to be chosen. Am I hurting the people I don't have room for? You'd think I was handing out seats in a lifeboat on the Titanic.

How is acting to increase the diversity of the student body by allocating 3% of the seats to a qualified group of applicants who would help diversify the class such a cause for concern?
 
Womb Raider said:
This is basically saying, "Well, this is O.K. because it really isn't hurting that many people." So to me, this implies that people are O.K. with this as long as the discrimination/harm is kept at a minimum. This kind of reasoning is very dangerous, especially in fields like research ethics...

Nope. I'm not O.K. with that at all... It's the principle. Every individual should be given a fair chance. 3 kids per class may not be a "lot" in the grand scheme of things, but it could mean the whole world to one individual, who may have his lifelong dreams shattered, ruined because of discrimination. Where do we draw the line? Why is 3 OK? What about 4? 5? 10? (And no, this is nothing personal, I'm already in).

I feel the same way about legacy as I do about race. The reason you don't see people complaining about legacies taking spots like you see with race, is because the data isn't there. (If there is data, I've never seen it, and I highly doubt it would be as sickening as the graphs we've been using).



I don't even understand the first "question", again, it's basically implying races are unequal.

Why am I the one having to defend why discrimination is bad when you all are the ones defending it so valiantly. Discrimination based on race is wrong. So wrong, that we even have a piece of legislature in our government that outlaws it. I would go into this further, but it's kind of beyond the point - we all agree it's bad, some of you just don't mind endorsing it in small quantities if it helps your constructed world view.

I wonder why we don't see this kind of stuff in the news? It would be fascinating to read a news report over this. Hmm maybe we can get that going.
Click to expand...
Dude, this isn't an academic meritocracy and it's definitely not about a specific applicant's dreams. Med schools are free to choose a class based on their own criteria.
 
No one seems to be in favor of URM admissions preferences, yet people piss and moan about them. Well, mostly the hyperentitled hyperacheivers.
Because no one is in favor of legacy interviews! Stop derailing the topic by bringing up legacies every time. (Just waiting for you to use the "4.0/40 automaton" excuse now.)

Kills you, doesn't? Well, we have no problem with it. You have the problem with it, because you're fixated on only those two parameters.

See above. And pay attention to LizzyM's very wise words. We're dealing with academic clones. People with a 3.25 GPA and a 29 MCAT will do just as well at Yale as at Albany, compared to the 3.8s/36s. How do I know this? I see it daily with my own students.

So, we can look for, and decide upon other admissions parameters. Because, wait for it, 4.0 automatons are indeed a dime-a-dozen.
No the heart of the argument is that URMs have a higher chance of being accepted with the same GPA/MCAT, why is this so hard for you to swallow?

A preference for is not discrimination against. It's discrimination when someone say "Oh, Asian? We don't want their kind here."
There are countless articles on how AA discriminates based on race. You can't simply gloss over it by saying the process is ~holistic.
 
Last edited:
Cyberdyne 101 said:
Dude, this isn't an academic meritocracy and it's definitely not about a specific applicant's dreams. Med schools are free to choose a class based on their own criteria.
Click to expand...

Wow, what a convincing argument! I will surely start supporting racial discrimination now.🙄
 
Goro said:
No one seems to be in favor of URM admissions preferences, yet people piss and moan about them. Well, mostly the hyperentitled hyperacheivers.
Because no one is in favor of legacy interviews! Stop derailing the topic by bringing up legacies every time. (Just waiting for you to use the "4.0/40 automaton" excuse now.)

And we have no problem with that. You have the problem with it, because you're fixated on only those two parameters. See above.
No the heart of the argument is that URMs have a higher chance of being accepted with the same GPA/MCAT, why is this so hard for you to swallow?

A preference for is not discrimination against. It's discrimination when someone say "oh, Asian? we don't want their kind here.".
There are countless articles on how AA discriminates based on race. You can't simply gloss over it by saying the process is ~holistic.
Click to expand...

What is with you and your distaste for "hyperachievers"? Do you have a problem with people actually working hard or something?

I am not fixated. Look at the damn chart and tell me I'm making this stuff up. Every time I bring up GPA/MCAT, adcoms' excuses are always "IT'S A HOLISTIC REVIEW~", which leads me to ask: you're telling me every single URM applicant had something that made them somehow better suited for medical school? Maybe it's not their race...but the GPA/MCAT gaps are pretty damning. What did they have that could make up for such low scores? Could it be...*gasp*...race?

I'm not saying adcoms looks at Asian applicants and instantly wish to trash their applications. I'm saying that when being certain races give you a leg up in medical school admissions, you can't possibly say that races are being treated equally. That is discrimination.
 
Cyndaquil MD said:
Wow, what a convincing argument! I will surely start supporting racial discrimination now.🙄
Click to expand...
Yep, because Blacks, Puerto Ricans, Mexicans, and Native Americans make up over 90% of every med school class. Racial discrimination is clearly keeping people from other races out in large numbers.
 
Cyberdyne 101 said:
Yep, because Blacks, Puerto Ricans, Mexicans, and Native Americans make up over 90% of every med school class. Racial discrimination is clearly keeping people from other races out.
Click to expand...

Again, don't care about this whole "URMs stole a white person's seat!" thing. They can't make up that much of any class because of how few of them there are. That is not what I care about. What I care about is that being a certain race gives a person an advantage in admissions. The moment you start treating races differently, it's discrimination. I will not support discrimination.
 
I won't support it either. Shall we join together so we can get rid of discrimination on all fronts?
 
Cyndaquil MD said:
Again, don't care about this whole "URMs stole a white person's seat!" thing. They can't make up that much of any class because of how few of them there are. That is not what I care about. What I care about is that being a certain race gives a person an advantage in admissions. The moment you start treating races differently, it's discrimination. I will not support discrimination.
Click to expand...
Fine, so let's further diminish the already small number of URMs in med schools, so that we can make them even more under-represented in medicine. That'll work wonders for patients from certain communities.
 
LizzyM said:
Who is being harmed? I mean, really, harmed??

How is acting to increase the diversity of the student body by allocating 3% of the seats to a qualified group of applicants who would help diversify the class such a cause for concern?
Click to expand...

I mean, it depends on how you define harm. I won't get into the specifics (but yes, I do consider it harmful), because I think it's irrelevant to my point. I don't think consequentialism is the "end-all" of morality though. There are other ethical considerations besides harm.

Because you're picking them based on their skin color. That's why. ANY other method would be better. Do a lottery. Throw your pencil up in the air and whatever it lands on gets the spot. Play eeny-meeny-miny-moe with yourself. But choosing by skin color? Really? I don't know how many more ways I can say the same thing.

Cyberdyne 101 said:
Dude, this isn't an academic meritocracy and it's definitely not about a specific applicant's dreams. Med schools are free to choose a class based on their own criteria.
Click to expand...

Civil Rights Act of 1964
"...that outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. It ended unequal application of voter registration requirements and racial segregation in schools, at the workplace and by facilities that served the general public (known as "public accommodations")."

Are medical schools free to do whatever they want? Am I reading this wrong? Seems to me they aren't allowed to discriminate...but they are. Is this state dependent?

(I don't understand how we have that civil act and then allowed affirmative action later. The two cannot exist together.)

Do you also think businesses and restaurants can just hire whomever they want for any reason?

Goro said:
A preference for is not discrimination against. It's discrimination when someone say "Oh, Asian? We don't want their kind here."
Click to expand...

Would you say the same to a white restaurant owner who prefers to only have white employees?

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. I understand there's a difference between the two things you pointed out, and there's probably another word for it, but both scenarios are considered discrimination since you act on your preferences.

Dictionary.com - Discriminate: "to make a distinction in favor of or against a person or thing on the basis of the group, class, or category to which the person or thing belongs rather than according to actual merit"

If skin color / race is included in the evaluation of the applicant at all, it's discrimination. It should be completely irrelevant by law, right?
 
f4reignbeauty said:
I won't support it either. Shall we join together so we can get rid of discrimination on all fronts?
Click to expand...
What are you talking about? You've liked every post by people who support it.
 
@womb_raider thank you for telling me about my track record. I don't agree with discrimination in general, but what do you suggest we do to resolve this? I don't agree that as a black woman I deserve to be treated unfairly solely because of my melanin content, but I am. Neither do I agree, that as a black woman, I deserve to have countless amounts of students nullify the journey I have taken for that very same reason. Do I want to be accepted to medical school because I am URM? No, never heard of the term until I started the cycle, and I would feel a certain way if I were. You've made your point sir, now what do you suggest as a viable solution? Please do not suggest "race-blind admissions"...
 
Last edited:
Womb Raider said:
I mean, it depends on how you define harm. I won't get into the specifics (but yes, I do consider it harmful), because I think it's irrelevant to my point. I don't think consequentialism is the "end-all" of morality though. There are other ethical considerations besides harm.

Because you're picking them based on their skin color. That's why. ANY other method would be better. Do a lottery. Throw your pencil up in the air and whatever it lands on gets the spot. Play eeny-meeny-miny-moe with yourself. But choosing by skin color? Really? I don't know how many more ways I can say the same thing.



Civil Rights Act of 1964
"...that outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. It ended unequal application of voter registration requirements and racial segregation in schools, at the workplace and by facilities that served the general public (known as "public accommodations")."

Are medical schools free to do whatever they want? Am I reading this wrong? Seems to me they aren't allowed to discriminate...but they are. Is this state dependent?

(I don't understand how we have that civil act and then allowed affirmative action later. The two cannot exist together.)

Do you also think businesses and restaurants can just hire whomever they want for any reason?



Would you say the same to a white restaurant owner who prefers to only have white employees?

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. I understand there's a difference between the two things you pointed out, and there's probably another word for it, but both scenarios are considered discrimination since you act on your preferences.

Dictionary.com - Discriminate: "to make a distinction in favor of or against a person or thing on the basis of the group, class, or category to which the person or thing belongs rather than according to actual merit"

If skin color / race is included in the evaluation of the applicant at all, it's discrimination. It should be completely irrelevant by law, right?
Click to expand...

Schools make a "holistic" assessment of applicants and many factors, including grades, scores, major, state of residence, race/ethnicity, veteran status, sexual identity (if the school asks and the student discloses -- sexual minorities might be considered URM in some places and there is the opinion that greater representation in medical schools and in the practice of medicine would mean better care for patients) are all in play.


Another meaning of the word discriminate is to differentiate. That's all we do in admissions. We differentiate and categorize applicants. Recommended for interview, not recommended for interview. Recommended for admission, for waitlist, for denial of admission. We try to admit a class that is diverse and that reflects numerous points of views, and a breadth of experiences. We could fill our class with applicants of all one ethnicity, all from one State, maybe even all from one single undergrad institution but that would not be in the best interest of our students and the public whom our students will serve. You can cry "unfair" but it is the best way we can use the limited resources we have to serve the public.
 
Cyndaquil MD said:
I don't believe that URMs are "stealing" seats or whatever because they aren't mine to begin with
Click to expand...

Fixed that for you! Like @Goro said entitlement is at heart of this kind of argument. No one single person is entitled to a seat in any medical school regardless of any factor. It is impossible to have any group "stealing" seats that had no ones name on it.

An admissions committee can choose whatever factor they believe will made a good medical student and a good doctor. Looking for diversity in a class does not at all mean discrimination.

Cyndaquil MD said:
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news...sian-students-college-applications/51620236/1

Not medical school, since most of the population isn't concerned about it. The link talks about college apps. Still, AA is AA.
Click to expand...

AA is AA right?... so tell me, do you have a problem with the findings of this article:

http://ideas.time.com/2013/06/17/affirmative-action-has-helped-white-women-more-than-anyone/

Maybe we should define all the beneficiaries of AA policies as well (do any of the other non race based groups upset you?):

http://www.ncsu.edu/project/oeo-training/aa/beneficiaries.htm
 
Last edited:
"possibly controversial thread"

This is SDN. Everything is controversial.
 
You know, I bet whenever medical schools started making a concerted effort to increase the number of women in their classes, you could have aggregated their data and found that women had lower numeric statistics than their male counterparts. I sure am glad that didn't stop them.
 
Womb Raider said:
Really? What makes you think that? Women actually do better than men in school.
http://www.economist.com/news/inter...ssed-girls-both-school-and-university-and-gap
Click to expand...

This is all recent data. Data for back when medical schools were facing radical gender inequality will be nigh impossible to come by. Safe to say that inequality likely existed in a time when fewer women were in higher education and the scales were tipped even more in favor of white males than it is today. Do you think it would matter that women may have had inferior credentials?
 
CliveStaples said:
This is all recent data. Data for back when medical schools were facing radical gender inequality will be nigh impossible to come by. Safe to say that inequality likely existed in a time when fewer women were in higher education and the scales were tipped even more in favor of white males than it is today. Do you think it would matter that women may have had inferior credentials?
Click to expand...

I think a lot of the rationale behind URMs doing worse in school and having inferior applications results from the families they come from. Many come from immigrant families, may have a language barrier, and are poor. Women would not suffer these same inequalities in the same proportion. Many of the original female physicians were white, and probably came from well-off white families. Although females may not have been given the same respect that males were back then, their families didn't always simply cast them aside and prevent them from becoming a respectable, intelligent person. It's not "safe to say" at all... that's your own opinion based on absolutely no data. Grade inequality is more associated with SES status than discrimination.

Don't get me started on the whole gender thing. Females are still getting boosts to applications, similar to what URMs are getting, in some schools. The fact that women tend to quit working and/or work part-time at extremely higher rates than men doesn't make this issue any more palatable for me. Talk about utilitarian rationale and "doing what's best for the community... When the baby-boomer generation starts retiring and getting old, we're going to be in a REAL DILEMMA with healthcare.

What are you even talking about Goro? Do you have something to add?
 
Womb Raider said:
Don't get me started on the whole gender thing. Females are still getting boosts to applications, similar to what URMs are getting, in some schools. The fact that women tend to quit working and/or work part-time at extremely higher rates than men doesn't make this issue any more palatable for me. Talk about utilitarian rationale and "doing what's best for the community... When the baby-boomer generation starts retiring and getting old, we're going to be in a REAL DILEMMA with healthcare.
Click to expand...

Women are getting boosts to their applications? This is news to me. I'm in a class of 60% men, so I guess there really are fewer qualified women by your explanation.

I'm going to be honest with you; your attitude seems almost disturbing to me. I cannot help but feel like you either do not adequately understand this nation's history of racial discrimination, or you lack the capacity for compassion and spirit of reconciliation. Racial inequality in medical education is a nuanced thing, influenced by the fact that some racial minorities have been systematically prevented from accumulating wealth (I think the advantages of having wealth in medical school admissions is widely acknowledged) in addition to a standardized testing system (and really an educational system as a whole) which has widely documented racial biases. Look no further than the history of the SAT to see who possesses the advantage in our nation's education system.

The playing field is not fair. Nobody promises that medical education will be a strict meritocracy. I applaud admissions committees that possess the awareness to see that the good of our medical community depends on having a diverse group of medical professionals.

If you are so worried about discrimination, go to your local homeless shelter and soup kitchen. Look for yourself and see how racial minorities, sexual minorities, and those with intellectual disabilities have been treated by our system. Do something good for people less fortunate. Crying unfair because of a sense of entitlement concerning medical school admissions serves nothing except to delude yourself into feeling on the correct side of social justice.
 
Womb Raider said:
I think a lot of the rationale behind URMs doing worse in school and having inferior applications results from the families they come from. Many come from immigrant families, may have a language barrier, and are poor. Women would not suffer these same inequalities in the same proportion. Many of the original female physicians were white, and probably came from well-off white families. Although females may not have been given the same respect that males were back then, their families didn't always simply cast them aside and prevent them from becoming a respectable, intelligent person. It's not "safe to say" at all... that's your own opinion based on absolutely no data. Grade inequality is more associated with SES status than discrimination.

Don't get me started on the whole gender thing. Females are still getting boosts to applications, similar to what URMs are getting, in some schools. The fact that women tend to quit working and/or work part-time at extremely higher rates than men doesn't make this issue any more palatable for me. Talk about utilitarian rationale and "doing what's best for the community... When the baby-boomer generation starts retiring and getting old, we're going to be in a REAL DILEMMA with healthcare.

What are you even talking about Goro? Do you have something to add?
Click to expand...

Even using SES as a barometer, as you keeping writing over and over, would still have strong preference for URM (who are stastically more likely to have experience poverty).

"In 2012, 35 percent of blacks lived in poverty, compared to 13 percent of whites. In 1970, those rates were 33.6 percent and 10 percent, respectively. Poverty in the black community is higher, and has been consistently."

"The poverty level in the Hispanic community was 33 percent in 2012. In 1970, the figure was 24.3 percent. Poverty is entrenched in the Hispanic community."

(source: http://www.thewire.com/politics/201...nt-black-culture-its-american-culture/359937/)

Besides who are you to deem an application inferior? On the grounds of what? One or two components? Yeah ok.
 
Last edited:
CliveStaples said:
Post.
Click to expand...
Have you read all my posts in this thread?

No - go read them. It will explain my view and answer to your post.
Yes - we're at an impasse. I've responded to your concerns and I have no intent in repeating myself. Join the club. Just remember you endorse discriminating based on skin color in 2015.

drmak89 said:
Even using SES as a barometer, as you keeping writing over and over, would still have strong preference of URM (who are stastically more likely to have experience poverty).

"In 2012, 35 percent of blacks lived in poverty, compared to 13 percent of whites. In 1970, those rates were 33.6 percent and 10 percent, respectively. Poverty in the black community is higher, and has been consistently."

"The poverty level in the Hispanic community was 33 percent in 2012. In 1970, the figure was 24.3 percent. Poverty is entrenched in the Hispanic community."

Besides who are you to deem an application inferior? On the grounds of what? One or two components? Yeah ok.
Click to expand...

What? The only issue I have with this whole debate is that people are given advantages over others based on the color of their skin.

As for the rest of your post, I'm completely O.K. (as I've stated countless times) with using SES as an "equalizer" and part of the criteria for evaluating med school applicants.

As for your stats, don't get too caught up on percentages. Don't forget to multiply those %s by the population to get a real comparison.
 
I understand your feelings, I really do. You believe URMs get a flat bonus to their application and it feels unjustified. I think you would be better served seeing that there is a correlation between being an URM and having a diversity of experiences (even as simple as growing up black or hispanic) that provide subjective value to the subjective manner in which medical admissions decided.

I hope you can recognize that equating this (the idea that white and asian applicants are being discriminated against, because black and hispanic applicants aggregate to a lower GPA and MCAT score) to the kinds of true discrimination that has existed in our nation's history is a mockery to individuals who have experienced real discrimination.

Your basic premise is that medical school seats belong to the students that have the highest MCAT and GPAs. This is simply not the case. The subjective value of being a minority is no different than the subjective value of being a former magician or having worked in a foreign country for a year with the Peace Corps. It's up to each admissions committee to assign an arbitrary value to these experiences, but they are all subjective just the same.
 
Womb Raider said:
I mean, it depends on how you define harm. I won't get into the specifics (but yes, I do consider it harmful), because I think it's irrelevant to my point. I don't think consequentialism is the "end-all" of morality though. There are other ethical considerations besides harm.

Because you're picking them based on their skin color. That's why. ANY other method would be better. Do a lottery. Throw your pencil up in the air and whatever it lands on gets the spot. Play eeny-meeny-miny-moe with yourself. But choosing by skin color? Really? I don't know how many more ways I can say the same thing.



Civil Rights Act of 1964
"...that outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. It ended unequal application of voter registration requirements and racial segregation in schools, at the workplace and by facilities that served the general public (known as "public accommodations")."

Are medical schools free to do whatever they want? Am I reading this wrong? Seems to me they aren't allowed to discriminate...but they are. Is this state dependent?

(I don't understand how we have that civil act and then allowed affirmative action later. The two cannot exist together.)

Do you also think businesses and restaurants can just hire whomever they want for any reason?



Would you say the same to a white restaurant owner who prefers to only have white employees?

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. I understand there's a difference between the two things you pointed out, and there's probably another word for it, but both scenarios are considered discrimination since you act on your preferences.

Dictionary.com - Discriminate: "to make a distinction in favor of or against a person or thing on the basis of the group, class, or category to which the person or thing belongs rather than according to actual merit"

If skin color / race is included in the evaluation of the applicant at all, it's discrimination. It should be completely irrelevant by law, right?
Click to expand...
Private institutions are allowed to do as they please with admissions. The civil rights act does not apply to such schools, hence the current existence of all-boys and all-girls schools.
 
CliveStaples said:
I understand your feelings, I really do. You believe URMs get a flat bonus to their application and it feels unjustified. I think you would be better served seeing that there is a correlation between being an URM and having a diversity of experiences (even as simple as growing up black or hispanic) that provide subjective value to the subjective manner in which medical admissions decided.

I hope you can recognize that equating this (the idea that white and asian applicants are being discriminated against, because black and hispanic applicants aggregate to a lower GPA and MCAT score) to the kinds of true discrimination that has existed in our nation's history is a mockery to individuals who have experienced real discrimination.

Your basic premise is that medical school seats belong to the students that have the highest MCAT and GPAs. This is simply not the case. The subjective value of being a minority is no different than the subjective value of being a former magician or having worked in a foreign country for a year with the Peace Corps. It's up to each admissions committee to assign an arbitrary value to these experiences, but they are all subjective just the same.
Click to expand...

Okay, NO ONE is saying that minorities don't face discrimination currently and haven't in this country's history. That's not what I'm arguing against. My position on this is plain and simple: I don't support discrimination. I don't support any kind of favoritism due to race. Yes, the subjective value of being a minority is considered discrimination based on race, is that so hard to understand? And it's entirely different from being a magician, I don't even know why you made that comparison. What, is racial discrimination suddenly okay because it now benefits a certain group?

Mad Jack said:
Private institutions are allowed to do as they please with admissions. The civil rights act does not apply to such schools, hence the current existence of all-boys and all-girls schools.
Click to expand...

Obviously medical schools hold all the power in the admissions process. It doesn't mean I have to agree with their policies.
 
drmak89 said:
Fixed that for you! Like @Goro said entitlement is at heart of this kind of argument. No one single person is entitled to a seat in any medical school regardless of any factor. It is impossible to have any group "stealing" seats that had no ones name on it.

An admissions committee can choose whatever factor they believe will made a good medical student and a good doctor. Looking for diversity in a class does not at all mean discrimination.



AA is AA right?... so tell me, do you have a problem with the findings of this article:

http://ideas.time.com/2013/06/17/affirmative-action-has-helped-white-women-more-than-anyone/

Maybe we should define all the beneficiaries of AA policies as well (do any of the other non race based groups upset you?):

http://www.ncsu.edu/project/oeo-training/aa/beneficiaries.htm
Click to expand...

Man, how many times do I have to repeat myself. I am against the idea of being judged differently based of the color of your skin, be it bad or good. Being a vet is something you choose to do.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
CliveStaples said:
You believe URMs get a flat bonus to their application and it feels unjustified.
Click to expand...

This isn't something I just happen to "believe" in, it's supported by facts bud.

CliveStaples said:
I hope you can recognize that equating this (the idea that white and asian applicants are being discriminated against, because black and hispanic applicants aggregate to a lower GPA and MCAT score) to the kinds of true discrimination that has existed in our nation's history is a mockery to individuals who have experienced real discrimination.
Click to expand...

Ah so race is a perfect predictor of the amount of discrimination one experiences in a lifetime. One of the big issues with giving advantages based on race is that it stereotypes.

CliveStaples said:
Your basic premise is that medical school seats belong to the students that have the highest MCAT and GPAs. This is simply not the case. The subjective value of being a minority is no different than the subjective value of being a former magician or having worked in a foreign country for a year with the Peace Corps. It's up to each admissions committee to assign an arbitrary value to these experiences, but they are all subjective just the same.
Click to expand...

Nope. Not even close to what I think. You either didn't read my posts or you aren't capable of connecting the dots. Either way, you're wasting my time. Enjoy supporting discrimination Clive.
 
Mad Jack said:
Private institutions are allowed to do as they please with admissions. The civil rights act does not apply to such schools, hence the current existence of all-boys and all-girls schools.
Click to expand...
Nope nope. All private schools receive some amount of gov't funding, and so they must comply with gov't regulations. Literally if a single student at the school is on $1 of a Pell Grant, the school must comply with the regulations, or the student can't receive that money.

Single-sex education was ruled constitutional by SCOTUS. It is also not limited to just private schools.
 
I was hoping someone would point out my statement about women and their likelihood to stop/decrease working and explain to me how it relates to the topic we've been discussing.

In the same way that we don't feel comfortable using stereotypes, statistical probabilities, trends, and likelihoods of one population (gender) to better the healthcare field as a whole (providing more doctors, in a world that will soon have a huge shortage), we shouldn't feel comfortable doing the same with race, but somehow that's different.
 
Grutter v. Bollinger

Boom.

TLDR - Supreme court agrees what we've been discussing is discrimination, but is justified temporarily.

Sandra Day O'Connor "We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today."

I was right, y'all were wrong. This is discrimination, end of story. Hope things will be different in 25 years.
 
Womb Raider said:
Grutter v. Bollinger

Boom.

TLDR - Supreme court agrees what we've been discussing is discrimination, but is justified temporarily.

Sandra Day O'Connor "We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today."

I was right, y'all were wrong. This is discrimination, end of story. Hope things will be different in 25 years.
Click to expand...

lol Careful. Now the other people in the thread are gonna start making comments about:
1. omg don't you have better things to do with your life than look up cases related to AA
2. -insert some other justification for how it's actually not discrimination-
 
Cyndaquil MD said:
lol Careful. Now the other people in the thread are gonna start making comments about:
1. omg don't you have better things to do with your life than look up cases related to AA
2. -insert some other justification for how it's actually not discrimination-
Click to expand...

"The Court's majority ruling, authored by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, held that the United States Constitution "does not prohibit the law school's narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body." The Court held that the law school's interest in obtaining a "critical mass" of minority students was indeed a "tailored use". O'Connor noted that sometime in the future, perhaps twenty-five years hence, racial affirmative action would no longer be necessary in order to promote diversity. It implied that affirmative action should not be allowed permanent status and that eventually a "colorblind" policy should be implemented. "
Wikipedia entry on Grutter v Bollinger.
 
LizzyM said:
"The Court's majority ruling, authored by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, held that the United States Constitution "does not prohibit the law school's narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body." The Court held that the law school's interest in obtaining a "critical mass" of minority students was indeed a "tailored use". O'Connor noted that sometime in the future, perhaps twenty-five years hence, racial affirmative action would no longer be necessary in order to promote diversity. It implied that affirmative action should not be allowed permanent status and that eventually a "colorblind" policy should be implemented. "
Wikipedia entry on Grutter v Bollinger.
Click to expand...
Grutter is one of O'Connors' most beautifully written opinions, and one of her last major ones. For anyone who cares on how SCOTUS conceptually thinks about AA, the full text opinion is below. The Scalia and Thomas dissent is legendary, for obvious reasons (i.e., because Thomas is black).

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/539/306
 
Suppose for a moment you somehow magically knew with 100% certainty that you were right that there's major racial discrimination at play during the admissions process. Even if you knew this, do you really think you're likely going to get admissions committee members (or pre-meds who benefit from it) to understand and acknowledge this? Most have probably spent a good portion of their life in an academic bubble where they've claimed to vehemently oppose all forms of discrimination, especially when it's based on race. So of course many are going to argue it's not discrimination or do some sort of mental gymnastics for why this form of discrimination doesn't exist or doesn't count. The facts don't really matter so much when people are desperate to remain consistent while still being able to benefit from or take part in an unfair process.

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

G
Possibly controversial secondary idea for diversity essay
Replies
6
Views
2K
Goro
Goro
F
Secondary on failure/challenge, is this too controversial?
Replies
10
Views
857
LizzyM
LizzyM
Anthodite
Am I supposed to network with med schools?
Replies
4
Views
501
Anthodite
Anthodite
aprilandaflower
Course classification of design courses
Replies
1
Views
280
wysdoc
wysdoc
Z
Controversial Advocacy Essay?
Replies
6
Views
869
Goro
Goro
Top