Rich URM's vs. poor whites and Asians

[Ryo-Ohki]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Good night, bennet. I enjoyed arguing with you. You're a very good debater.


After you read the amicus, please don't say $80K/year isn't rich, $30K/year isn't poor, and that a 25.6 MCAT isn't that different from a 21.9 MCAT. Those arguments are beneath you. You are a much better debater then that.

 

[bennet]

I am having trouble downloading the document, but i think i have an idea what the document is about. IMO, the few applicants that fall into the two categories are not enough to be used as adequate backing for such a statement.

BTW if the statement was true, would you then argue that URMs are lazy or have lower intellectual abilities? I would love to know.

Good night!

 

[Street Philosopher]

Originally posted by bennet
Well i asked cos in my post i said adcoms seek a class of students that are diverse in different ways, including racially. Hence diversity is the goal, and the means of achieving it is lokking at students that provide it .i.e. students that stand out racially, academically and in other areas, including volunteer experiences and such. I support this cause i find this to ba a noble and beneficial goal. You asked if it was ok to have a class filled with white males, what would be the goal. Could anything good possibly come out of this, in terms of benefitting the society? Maybe if you answered my question, the answer to yours would be more evident.

I was trying to determine the basis for supporting affirmative action. Specifically, if it would be admitted that acceptance procedures are devoid of any notion of "fairness" or "justice." Since the immediate response was an inquiry into the consequences of such action, it seems to me that your personal position is that fairness is not an issue, but rather the consequences. In other words, the ends justify the means. If this rule were to applied generally, then one might think that Nazi experiments during WW2 would be justified since it provided valuable scientific information, and that the Tuskegee experiments would be acceptable if it also provided valuable information.

 

[Street Philosopher]

Originally posted by bennet
BTW if the statement was true, would you then argue that URMs are lazy or have lower intellectual abilities? I would love to know.

Good night!

This is a good issue to bring up. One of the problems with affirmative action is that it breeds laziness and underachievement. Not because it selects applicants who are inherently lazy or who have low intellectual abilities, but because it allows otherwise bright and motivated students to become lazy.

Analogy. Suppose all you had to do was get a 3.0, in which case you would be reasonably assured of getting into medical school. How many people, given those circumstances, will reach for a 4.0? 3.9? 3.8? 3.7? How many more will just try to get above 3.0, like 3.1, 3.2, 3.3?

Maybe this one will be more convincing. Suppose you took a class Pass/Fail. To pass, you need to study lightly for one day. To get an A, you would hypothetically need to study for three days. Which would you do?

 

[OB1🤙]

Ryo-Ohki-

I would never want you or anyone like you as my doctor. Period.

If you aren't mature enough to understand the content of that amicus brief, or why aa is so important to the overall well being of the health care delivery system in America, you aren't well prepared to handle the complex socioeconomic and cultural issues one faces as a physician.

 

[Street Philosopher]

That's not very nice.

 

[bennet]

Originally posted by Street Philosopher
This is a good issue to bring up. One of the problems with affirmative action is that it breeds laziness and underachievement. Not because it selects applicants who are inherently lazy or who have low intellectual abilities, but because it allows otherwise bright and motivated students to become lazy.

Analogy. Suppose all you had to do was get a 3.0, in which case you would be reasonably assured of getting into medical school. How many people, given those circumstances, will reach for a 4.0? 3.9? 3.8? 3.7? How many more will just try to get above 3.0, like 3.1, 3.2, 3.3?

Maybe this one will be more convincing. Suppose you took a class Pass/Fail. To pass, you need to study lightly for one day. To get an A, you would hypothetically need to study for three days. Which would you do?

You know what, i am just going to be real with you. Nothing in life has ever been just handed down to me, so my philosophy is to always work the hardest, so that i can look back and know that i put in a whole lot of effect. It certainly feels better to put in effort than to try to get away with minimal work. The truth is that while many people use the argument that AA makes URMs lazy, i have a hard time believing that. There are definitely those who do become lazy, but if you looked on a large scale, you probably won't find this to be the general case. There are many reasons for this.

The first is that while URMs are favorably loked upon, a good amount of them end up being rejected everyyear, and putting in minimal work will increase one's likelihood of being one of the rejected candidates. Also, many URMs see AA has giving them a chance and as a result, are compelled to work even harder especially because they know that when they get to med school, it will be tough for everyone.

I am a pretty realistic person and i know that AA has its faults. A friend once compared it to Chemo, it has its unpleasant side effects, but think of what the society would be like without it. Without it, we might indeed have med schools filled with white males (because it was made to also affect women). Sometimes i wonder if SDNers wouldn't prefer this. Anyways, my point is that it should be modified and not eradicated, because it is an important part of our society. I see many URMs in my classes that are the first members of their families to attend college, many of whom were raised in intense innercity neighbourhoods and wouldn't have had any chance, without AA. (i know you are probably going to say there are whites in this position, the truth is blacks are immensely represented in the ghetto, and if you study this phenomenom, you would find that white America is greatly implicated in this matter).

Basically this people are not lazy and were not just handed out their opportunity. A lot of them were just looking for a way to get out and AA provided it. Without it, America would be continuing the cycle that we are in. The members of the white/asian races being over represented in all the positive aspects of society, and URMs being over represented in the ghetto and all its affiliations. The only thing different is the military were minorities are overrepresented. This IMO is due to the fact that some people see this as their only way out. I believe that it takes great efforts for URMs to make it, even though most people don't see it that way. Being in a field where you are under-represented is pretty scary and takes some bravery. I am not saying you should worship them or anything, but i AM saying that the people who think AA just hands things out to URMs, thereby making them lazy are greatly misguided. There are the exceptions however.

 

[Street Philosopher]

well, i wasn't ready to imply that this effect of making people lazy is reason enough to abandon affirmative action. i just wanted to mention that this is a likely consequence of affirmative action.

as an asian person, i will always be given the benefit of the doubt in medical school, in the sense that people will automatically think i'm qualified and that i had good stats. the truth is that my stats are a bit lower than the average at the school i will be attending.

contrast this with a urm, who will always be considered as the "diversifier" or "future ghetto doctor", even if they were admitted purely by academic merit.

i think that's sad. this is also a consequence of affirmative action.

again, whether this is reason to abandon AA, i will not address. but it does put a dent in the idea that increasing diversity influences future generations that they can be doctors too. there is a heavy social/psychological price to pay to get something in return. is it worth it? i dunno, but it shouldn't be ignored.

even if there is a short term practical benefit, like urm patients going to urm doctors, you still have to weigh the social/psychological effects of AA versus the benefit. you might think that the benefit of having urm doctors for urm patients is over-emphasized compared to the psychological detriment of AA policy, especially since doctors of other races are fully capable of taking care of patients of different races. (and so you might wonder if simple preference of a urm doctor justifies govt. sponsored inferiority complexes)

 

[soccerchick747]

Originally posted by Street Philosopher
This is a good issue to bring up. One of the problems with affirmative action is that it breeds laziness and underachievement. Not because it selects applicants who are inherently lazy or who have low intellectual abilities, but because it allows otherwise bright and motivated students to become lazy.

Analogy. Suppose all you had to do was get a 3.0, in which case you would be reasonably assured of getting into medical school. How many people, given those circumstances, will reach for a 4.0? 3.9? 3.8? 3.7? How many more will just try to get above 3.0, like 3.1, 3.2, 3.3?

Maybe this one will be more convincing. Suppose you took a class Pass/Fail. To pass, you need to study lightly for one day. To get an A, you would hypothetically need to study for three days. Which would you do?

Hmm... personally, I'd put forth 100% regardless.... anyone not willing to do so has no place in medicine. How many people applying to med school honestly aimed for a 3.anything?? I'd imagine that everyone naturally aims for a 4.0: whether or not that goal is reached is a different story, and oftentimes has nothing to do with someone's motivation or brightness. I dunno, I'm spending a little too much money to "just get by." Maybe I'm the only person who feels this way.

I completely disagree w/ you that AA breeds laziness. If anything, it made me, and most of my classmates, work 100 times harder.

 

[bennet]

Originally posted by Street Philosopher
contrast this with a urm, who will always be considered as the "diversifier" or "future ghetto doctor", even if they were admitted purely by academic merit.

i think that's sad. this is also a consequence of affirmative action.

You made some good points, but i would like to address the part of your post that i selected.Considering all URMs as future ghetto doctors is not necessarily an due to AA. The way URMs are seen is due to the shortcomings of the people who pass the judgement on URMs, not AA. Without AA, URMs could still be viewed as incapable and inferior. This is due to racism and pride, and not AA.

 

[Street Philosopher]

Originally posted by soccerchick747
Hmm... personally, I'd put forth 100% regardless.... anyone not willing to do so has no place in medicine. How many people applying to med school honestly aimed for a 3.anything?? I'd imagine that everyone naturally aims for a 4.0: whether or not that goal is reached is a different story, and oftentimes has nothing to do with someone's motivation or brightness. I dunno, I'm spending a little too much money to "just get by." Maybe I'm the only person who feels this way.

I completely disagree w/ you that AA breeds laziness. If anything, it made me, and most of my classmates, work 100 times harder.

Let's talk common sensically here. Sure everyone "aims" for a 4.0. But how many actually do the work required of a 4.0? Do people spend as much time studying year-round as they do during the last week before finals? Surely if the goal was to get a 4.0, this would be the expected bahavior of many students except for the truly gifted ones. The reason that we don't achieve 4.0 is not that we don't aim for it, and not that we are inherently incapable of achieving it. The reason why only a few people get 4.0 is because most of us are unwilling to make the required sacrifices in order to truly achieve our aims.

You say that AA made you work 100 times harder. Harder than what? Harder than you would, if you didn't have AA to fall back on? In which case, why? Maybe you mean that if there wasn't AA you wouldn't have even tried to become a doctor. But then that seems to contradict your claim that everyone aims for a 4.0 regardless of AA.

 

[Street Philosopher]

Originally posted by bennet
You made some good points, but i would like to address the part of your post that i selected.Considering all URMs as future ghetto doctors is not necessarily an due to AA. The way URMs are seen is due to the shortcomings of the people who pass the judgement on URMs, not AA. Without AA, URMs could still be viewed as incapable and inferior. This is due to racism and pride, and not AA.

Let's not talk philosophically. I'm concerned with actual consequences, not metaphysical necessity. You are right that it is a shortcoming of people to view URM that way. But is it really unreasonable for people to assume this? Think about the arguments given so far for affirmative action. They have ranged from "AA will increase diversity" to "AA will help with serving underserved populations." It is clear that many URMs will be admitted for these goals. Are the people's suspicions really unexpected? If you agree that it is a likely result of AA, then you agree that it is a factor worth considering. Whether or not AA necessarily or contingently influences such thoughts is not the issue.

 

[soccerchick747]

Originally posted by Street Philosopher
Let's talk common sensically here. Sure everyone "aims" for a 4.0. But how many actually do the work required of a 4.0? Do people spend as much time studying year-round as they do during the last week before finals? Surely if the goal was to get a 4.0, this would be the expected bahavior of many students except for the truly gifted ones. The reason that we don't achieve 4.0 is not that we don't aim for it, and not that we are inherently incapable of achieving it. The reason why only a few people get 4.0 is because most of us are unwilling to make the required sacrifices in order to truly achieve our aims.

Okay. I've just found that over the years, cramming doesn't work for me, so studying during the whole semester, on a daily basis, is enough for me to get a 4.0. How hard do you work?

[/QUOTE]You say that AA made you work 100 times harder. Harder than what? Harder than you would, if you didn't have AA to fall back on? In which case, why? Maybe you mean that if there wasn't AA you wouldn't have even tried to become a doctor. But then that seems to contradict your claim that everyone aims for a 4.0 regardless of AA. [/QUOTE]

Harder than what has been expected of me. I don't consider AA a fall back, just because I'm a woman doesn't give me the right to work less. And to think that I would waste four years "just getting by" because thats all that I needed is disgusting.

You're making too many assumptions. I've wanted to be a doctor for as long as I can remember. I came to this country so that I could have a better shot of reaching my goal. To assume that the only reason why I even considered pursuing it was because I could supposedly get a "free ride?"

I KNOW what I want to do with my life, and I should thus be willing to work my ass off to accomplish it. Everyone should.

 

[Mangs]

Street Philosopher,

I think soccerchick747 was saying that many URMs work hard especially once reaching "elite professional institutions" to try and overcome the stigma of being labeled a "token" or other such notions that you are eluding to. Think of the first female physicans who entered the medical profession, many like Elizabeth Blackwell had to contend with professors and collegues who believed they were inferior and did not belong. This for many women was a driving force for success and many of the early female medical pioneers graduated at the top of their classes (See "This Side of Doctoring by Eliza Lo Chin). To fail for them, would be a failure for all women.. Now I'm not saying that all URMs graduate at the top of their class, or that all female medical students of the early days did. However, these added pressures in an environment where you are salient, and perhaps judged by your peers, creates a driving force for working even harder. This is in ADDITION to the fact that one must work hard BEFORE getting to medical school. I think we can all agree that one has to be a driven and motivated person to succeed in medical school and the medical profession, or soon you will fail.

 

[Street Philosopher]

well, in my defense, i think you are misunderstanding me. i think you are reading between the lines too much and not seeing what is actually there.

i didn't say just getting by = wasting time. i think it is human nature to have a tendency to "just get by." some people learn to overcome it, but i think "just get by" mode is the default.

how hard did i study? i studied as hard as i needed to. i'm a crammer, so i'm probably biased. but i would guess that the vast majority of people are crammers and "just get byers"

also, i never said you would pursue medicine because you would get a "free ride". i was talking about only trying to get into medicine if you thought it was feasible, and that AA's lower "requirements" made it feasible to you. i was taking this as one of the possibilities, and was not assuming that this was actually the case. i was asking more than assuming.

anyway, this is all to clear things up. the real issue is that i think when people expect less of you, most people tend to achieve less. is that really so controversial a claim? if so, how would you explain "rising to the challenge"? it's really a common sense idea, regardless of whether it is disgusting or whatever. that's just the way the world turns.

 

[Street Philosopher]

Originally posted by Mangs
Street Philosopher,

I think soccerchick747 was saying that many URMs work hard especially once reaching "elite professional institutions" to try and overcome the stigma of being labeled a "token" or other such notions that you are eluding to. Think of the first female physicans who entered the medical profession, many like Elizabeth Blackwell had to contend with professors and collegues who believed they were inferior and did not belong. This for many women was a driving force for success and many of the early female medical pioneers graduated at the top of their classes (See "This Side of Doctoring by Eliza Lo Chin). To fail for them, would be a failure for all women.. Now I'm not saying that all URMs graduate at the top of their class, or that all female medical students of the early days did. However, these added pressures in an environment where you are salient, and perhaps judged by your peers, creates a driving force for working even harder. This is in ADDITION to the fact that one must work hard BEFORE getting to medical school. I think we can all agree that one has to be a driven and motivated person to succeed in medical school and the medical profession, or soon you will fail.

Ahhh I see. thanks for the explanation. that makes sense to me.

 

[geneman]

Originally posted by MyEyesMesmerize
As a minority, one is already given a label of underachiever, regardless of your accomplishments. People look at you differently, you are made to feel uncomfortable, and you are sterotyped because of your racial background.

OK... so it seems that you are quite passionate about URM's being labeled as inferior, explicitly or implicitly. And that is a perfectly natural and rational reaction to have.

However, how can you actively protest these stereotypes and, at the same time, enthusiastically support a program that perpetuates those same stereotypes?

It's as if a top African-American businessman, who got there without help from AA, actively supports AA and yet complains about people thinking he got to his position because of AA.

You have to realize that, just as your passion against negative labels is rational, it is just as natural for other people to see the beneficiaries of AA as "needing a helping hand". So... if you support AA, then you have to accept the consequences of it -- good and bad. (You can't have your cake and eat it too.)

 

[Moskeeto]

Originally posted by Nefertari
Moskeeto,

That is a bad joke! But you're cute for trying to break up the back & forth. 😉

thanks, just trying to do my part to promote racial harmony 😛

 

[soccerchick747]

Originally posted by Ryo-Ohki
I don't know. Perhaps read the first three replies of this post?

Honestly, did you even read the original post? Come on, you can tell me.

Sorry, Ryo, but did you even read the article that the original post was referring to? It wasn't the amicus brief.

 

[Ryo-Ohki]

Yes, I did read the article. Did you have a point you wanted to make?

 

[HouseHead]

Originally posted by Hawaiian Bruin
Ryo-Ohki-

I would never want you or anyone like you as my doctor. Period.

If you aren't mature enough to understand the content of that amicus brief, or why aa is so important to the overall well being of the health care delivery system in America, you aren't well prepared to handle the complex socioeconomic and cultural issues one faces as a physician.

That's quite a thing to say- because Ryo-Ohki disagrees with something, he is too immature to understand it 🙄

As someone ostensibly from Hawaii, you should know that diversity goes far beyond URMs as the AAMC defines them: "Blacks, Mexican Americans, Native Americans (that is, American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians), and Mainland Puerto Ricans".
TELL ME that there are enough doctors in Hawaii representing and serving the Samoan and Filipino populations. As someone who spent over a decade living next to the housing in Palolo (if you're from Oahu, you should understand), I'm confident in my assertion that there are ghettos in the U.S. that aren't dominated by so-called URMs.
The need for diversity is not adequately met by giving URMs a set number of points. There are other types of diversity- someone made a mention of "life experience", but there are no automatic points given to divorcees, children of single parents, people who had careers before college, orphans, bisexuals, people with children, people who have survived abuse, people with OCD, ADD, biplor disease, dyslexia, or any other psychiatric or learning disorders (and there are MANY who become doctors, believe it or not), Zoroastrians, war refugees, former child stars... Do you see my point? Any of these things might make for a good essay (or not...), certainly they would add diversity to a class, but they do NOT guarantee extra points!

Is the Puerto Rican kid growing up on my affluent downtown Manhattan block more "diverse" than the Cambodian refugee that attended my elementary school after he was adopted and brought to Hawaii at the age of *19*?

I agree that it wasn't AA that kept me out the first time 'round. I don't think it's about me, or about Ryo-Ohki, or about anyone, individually. I think it's about what we believe is just. I personally don't think the URM system, if you will, is just- at least not in its current form.

I am of the mind that one way things could be made better is in the timing of the URM advantage. If they made everyone meet the same criteria to receive an interview (and publish MCAT/GPA minimums, that would be nice!), then only gave URMs a slight advantage in the final selection- I think that would be better than they way it is now, if only slightly.

Is anyone content with the way the URM designation is handled now? How would you improve it? I fundamentally dislike the consideration of race, for the same reasons others have stated, and because I was raised to be color blind. But if the URM designation is to exist, I think there need to be many more ethnicities included. Would anyone who has read "The Spirit Catches You..." think that perhaps Hmong ought to be included?

 

[vixenell]

Who wrote "The Spirit Catches You?" I remember hearing about it.

(Sorry, interesting post, I'll respond when I have another free minute (next week maybe ::sigh... exams:🙂

 

[Moskeeto]

Originally posted by vixenell
Who wrote "The Spirit Catches You?" I remember hearing about it.

(Sorry, interesting post, I'll respond when I have another free minute (next week maybe ::sigh... exams:🙂

its by Anne Fadiman. She gave a talk here at Davis a month or two ago. I work in the Library and its a VERY popular book, but I haven't had a chance to read it yet.

I like your sig. The Demon Haunted World is my favorite book, Sagan is amazing.

 

[HouseHead]

"The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down" by Anne Fadiman. Considered a 'must read' for all (pre)med students; excellent cultural anthropology.

 

[Random Access]

Ryo-Ohki,

I just sort of skimmed. Has anyone brought up so-called "institutional racism" yet? What's your take on that? I suppose that argument could work for African Americans, but what if you're comparing Hispanics and Asians?

-RA

 

[OB1🤙]

HouseHead-

Without quoting your post, let me say that your points are very well taken. BTW, I have also lived in Palolo Valley. I've also taught at Kaimuki High School, and had students from the same housing projects you've mentioned. I myself grew up in a poor area on the West Side.

AA is not a perfect system- we all agree on that. But given the choice of keeping the current flawed system or ditching it entirely, I would choose to keep it, and attempt to reform it. I agree wholeheartedly that there ought to be more races included in the URM designation, and that many other reforms could be beneficial. Yet I still agree with the fundamental argument of the amicus brief- that the nation has a compelling interest in not eliminating AA at this point. Without it, the quality of healthcare delivery in the average disadvantaged community would suffer. Certainly, there are disadvantaged communities that do not receive the benefit they should under a just AA system. Yet there are probably many more that do.

It is not the responsibility of med school adcoms to reform the entire educational system of America. But it is in their interest, given the "uneven playing field" that does exist, to do what they can to graduate classes that will be most likely to serve in the communities that need it most.

I posted what I did mostly because I was insulted by Ryo's signature file. It's one thing to believe that AA is flawed and to try to come up with something better. It's another thing to automatically assert in every post he makes that black males with poor stats are routinely granted admission simply because they are URMs. We all should know that this is not what happens.

Finally, just as a frame of reference, I am NOT a URM. I am a white guy who was born and raised in Hawaii with parents born and raised in Africa. I am also a reapplicant, and never for one second believed that "my" spot was "taken" by someone else of a different race and inferior stats.

 

[geneman]

Originally posted by Hawaiian Bruin
I agree wholeheartedly that there ought to be more races included in the URM designation, and that many other reforms could be beneficial.

Think about what you are suggesting for a moment -- that is, more races be included under the URM designation. This is not a *reform* of AA but rather an *expansion* of the distortions it plays on meritocracy.

The only thing this solution would do is further decrease the "over-represented" races (white and Asians) by replacing them with more "under-represented" races.

The whole idea of trying to "equally-represent" races by demographics is not only absurd but dangerous. Dangerous in terms of healthcare quality but, more importantly, dangerous in terms of destroying what America stands for: the land of equal opportunity, not the land of equal outcome.

 

[vixenell]

I like your sig. The Demon Haunted World is my favorite book, Sagan is amazing.

Mine, too...Billions and Billions comes in at a close second, though.

 

[OB1🤙]

Originally posted by geneman
The only thing this solution would do is further decrease the "over-represented" races (white and Asians) by replacing them with more "under-represented" races.

Right. Then some of these underrepresented individuals would go back into their medically underserved communities and do some good (if that's what they want to do).

The whole idea of trying to "equally-represent" races by demographics is not only absurd but dangerous. Dangerous in terms of healthcare quality but, more importantly, dangerous in terms of destroying what America stands for: the land of equal opportunity, not the land of equal outcome.

The whole point is that URMs typically do not enjoy equal opportunity. I was lucky- my parents could afford a nice private high school, then a nice UCLA education, and could have afforded an MCAT prep class if I had wanted. Many URMs that want to go into medicine simply do not have these opportunities. As the AAMC states, given the current state of the educational system before medical school, if AA were dropped today so too would the diversity of incoming classes. The AAMC and med school adcoms value diversity, and for good reason.

BTW, geneman, I really like your avatar!

 

[DarkChild]

i used to have mixed feelings about AA. i thought it was necessary to have it in order to promote minorities in fields which they are not typically represented. then i thought it was unfair that it excludes certain minorities becase of statistics at college campuses, etc.

when it comes down to it, though, i think that direct efforts at diversification are needed in medicine more so than in any other field. forget "my difficult life experiences" or "i grew up in a poor family". all this whining is focused on the needs of the applicant. "i want to get into a top 10 school" blah blah blah. the fact of the matter is if you want to practice medicine it really doesn't matter where you go to school. med school is not like law school so "tiers" make less of a difference in terms of determining where you will ultimately practice. my point is that adcoms need to take into consideration the needs of the POPULATION AT LARGE. what kind of physicians will be needed in the future? do you realize that when you are practicing that a huge portion of the population (baby-boomers) will be reaching or at retirement. this equals a lot of old people. how many ob/gyns will we need as opposed to heart surgeons as opposed to primary care, etc. these are all factors adcoms need to consider when choosing the incoming class. it's not all about the APPLICANT'S NEEDS (ie, ego, ie, "i have to go to a top 10 school and will be bitter at those who get in over me" mentality).

that being said, we DO need diversity in physicians. sure all us SDNers have never been accused of being racist 😉 😉 , but the fact of the matter is that there are people within the general population who will prefer a physicians who is maybe of the same ethnicity as them. when you are dealing with life and death issues, telling people how to improve the quality of life, you are not only scientist but also someone who needs to have somewhat of a personal connection with the patient. and i hate to break it to y'all there are people out there who are racist/sexist and will not go trust certain physicians because they are male/female, white/black/brown/yellow. this all boils down to the fact that physicians need to represent ALL different backgrounds--its about the needs of OTHER people, not just you, the applicant.

and it's ADMISSIONS, not BOARD CERTIFICATION that takes race into account so, no, i don't think that AA will result in unqualified physicians flooding the medical field.

scifi - great post. its everything i've been holding back from saying. i dont know if any actually reads the pro-AA posts. so i'm just going to copy it 🙂 good post.

 

[TroutBum]

Yikes, I try to stay out of these, but I have nothing to do at work so I got lured in. I think this is the most intelligent comment made so far in this thread, and although the repurcussions of this philosophy have been alluded to briefly by some folks, it's mostly been glossed over:

Originally posted by VienneseWaltz

The real work needs to be done at the primary and secondary educational levels.

I think that the entire problem of underachievement (which was the original topic of the thread) in this country is, as other people have mentioned, driven by a lack of an educational ethic. This does not start in college or at the professional level, it starts in kindergarten.

My opposition to AA (I'm Korean if you're curious) is that AA, like others have mentioned, is like trying to put a band-aid on a gaping wound. The issues of racism and social indifference will not be fixed overnight, and AA only perpetuates the social outlook that is the root of the problem in the first place. It creates a huge furor and invokes lots of emotion on both sides of the issue, when the emotion should be directed at improving primary schools across the country and getting more parents involved in their children's education. This goal might not be completely overlooked if AA exists, but AA certainly doesn't help. Any system that tells a student that its acceptable to achieve slightly less is completely contrary to the idea of education.

I could go on and on and on but I'll refrain myself before I get carried away. Flame away, I guess. . .

 

[Louweezel]

before anyone jumps in and flames you TroutBum, i'm just gonna add that i totally agree. it's not that URMs aren't capable of performing extremely well just like everyone else, but for some reason or another they tend not to. maybe it's the place they live in, or the situations they often find themselves in (gotta make money to help support the family, not go to school; or gotta learn how to survive on the streets, not study...I'm generalizing here but you get the idea).

by the time we get to the medical/professional level, in my opinion, it's too late to be trying to bridge the difference. there would be NO NEED for AA at this level if we all had opportunities to education while growing up. if people from all races had access and opportunity to a good education growing up and learned how important it was and to take advantage of it, then they wouldn't need an extra "leg-up" at this point because they had been denied something, and would have the freedom to be able to get into medical school based on purely their own merits. we wouldn't have the stigma of assuming they were sub-par just because they were URMs. and since they would have an equal chance and value that chance they would realize that yes, they can go into the medical field too, and see URM patients or whatever they would like.

i realize this is pretty idealistic but i think the change needs to be made at the primary levels. In an ideal world, how would we all be equal? we would be equal when we were born into the world, even before. that's how we could truly live in a multi-racial world with each being given equal opportunity. so why are we waiting till the professional levels to try to get equality? why aren't we starting sooner?

yes, i believe that we should have more representation of ethnicities in the medical field. yes, we should all have equal opportunities. no, i don't believe in AA to get URMs into medical school. why aren't there more URMs in med school anyway? look to the root of the problem, and it starts a lot earlier than med school. why are there so many URMs at under-funded, lower quality inner-city schools? why aren't we giving them better educational access? if we all grew up knowing we were capable of becoming whatever we wanted, and knowing the value of education and hard work, then maybe there would be no such thing as a URM anyway.

 

[vladtaltos]

and you wonder why a good chunk of Black ppl are certain about the stereotypes this place has of them...damn. this is one f-ed up thread.

 

[camstah]

AA should be based on economics (socio-economic status) and NOT on race....the whole point is to give a chance to people who are disadvantaged....and these people tend to be in the lower SES ranges....so why not, regardless of race, give an extra point or two to those whose economic situation growing up may have affected their opportunities? for instance, if you're poor, you may have to work, can't go to a private school, can't afford tutoring, can't afford to move to a better community, and basically just can't afford all of the support that more "advantaged" students have in getting an education....it has NOTHING to do with race per se...just because some races happen to have a lower SES overall doesn't mean you target the race, it means you target the SES......simple. i've seen questions that ask what your father/mother's income was growing up, the cities you lived in at each age, what your parents did for a living etc....good questions, because they at least help to target those who may have grown up less advantaged...but race should have NO place in admissions.

 

[vixenell]

Originally posted by camstah
AA should be based on economics (socio-economic status) and NOT on race....the whole point is to give a chance to people who are disadvantaged....

No, the "whole point" was to give a chance to people who are disadvantaged because of race/sex.

and these people tend to be in the lower SES ranges....so why not, regardless of race, give an extra point or two to those whose economic situation growing up may have affected their opportunities? for instance, if you're poor, you may have to work, can't go to a private school, can't afford tutoring, can't afford to move to a better community, and basically just can't afford all of the support that more "advantaged" students have in getting an education....

Most, if not all, adcoms do this already.

it has NOTHING to do with race per se...just because some races happen to have a lower SES overall doesn't mean you target the race, it means you target the SES......simple. i've seen questions that ask what your father/mother's income was growing up, the cities you lived in at each age, what your parents did for a living etc....good questions, because they at least help to target those who may have grown up less advantaged...

It wouldn't be any more effective than the AA that exists today. While some poor students don't have access to certain opportunities, some will. While some blacks don't have access to certain opportunities, some will. While some rich whites have access to certain opportunities, some don't. There is no perfect solution, and if the socioeconomical solution was realistic and effective, it would already be in place nationwide.

but race should have NO place in admissions.

I agree 100%... and in an ideal society, that would work. Racism is alive and thriving. My brother had his car totalled this past weekend (via baseball bats) because he's dating a white woman. Perhaps its a southern thing.

We almost set a record the longest period of time without an AA thread.. lets try again, folks.