Should URM classification be continued?

[mipp0]

You are beating a dead horse. We discussed all the reasons why socioeconomic class should not be used as a factor instead of race. Just because you don't see how a middle class black family face more barriers than a white family doesn't mean they aren't there. Also, I already, as I said before, ideally we should look at everything that makes your life more difficult, but realistically, we can only look at certain factors. Race is a big one with a lot of research to support it. Why not use it?

The white-guy-also-faces-racism-from-URM's is a terrible argument I would recommend you avoid saying that if you want to be taken seriously.

Did you willfully ignore my post and the next one? I understand how race and class intersect, and nowhere did I mention that black families, on average, don't face greater barriers.

There's a lot of research on class, income, and life chances. Why not integrate all these studies, and incorporate it into the process? If your response is, that isn't the purpose of AA...there's no way to improve the process...just be like the other sheep...I will vomit.

Most importantly, why not be straight up transparent about the entire process?

Do you want to continue misrepresenting my position Mr. Big scary medical student?

The example was to show how ORM students in Philly were facing systemic racism (staff, faculty, etcf.) at a school where the URM leadership did absolutely nothing, and this escalated into a school wide assault. My point was not directed at you, but to other posters who oversimplify racial power dynamics and life chances. It wasn't merely a "oh man, white guys (they weren't even white BTW) face racism too, hur hur".

In regards to MissAlyssa's post, I understand it is difficult to quantify hardship based on race and socioeconomic status. What would make me happiest would be to see how AA affects applicants of whatever race, and critique/lionize it. Let's be transparent with the system. The same goes for legacy children and big donors.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[TriagePreMed]

You accuse me of brushing too broadly, but that's just an excuse you use to focus on exceptions and then use that exception as means of brushing broadly by trying to eliminate AA. Again, URM classification is based mostly on race. People from those races, more commonly than not, suffer greater race related problems. Social class and economics alone doesn't bar them from racism, so no, that's not a good argument. We can easily point to our president and the racial attacks he often receives, but you'll probably say it's n=1 because you can't accept the reality that the overall experience of black and hispanics is worse than those of ORM/Caucasians. And finally, since you'll throw in the great exception that nearly never exists of the black guy whose parents are billionaires and has lived in a racist-absent bubble, you also must keep in mind that ADCOMS don't have a gun to their head where they must accept every minority/give every minority a break. Believe it or not, URM also receive letters of rejection from schools, so no, your nearly impossible exception is accounted for by the process. And until you have any evidence of how the disadvantaged box influences decisions, you should abstain from jumping the gun and proposing that they are likely looked over.

And I don't get where you think I'm saying that URM can't be racist to ORM or vice-versa. Don't misrepresent my point. I also never said that every ORM has to have a cushy and good life. All I've said is that policies exist to address the large trend, which you keep saying is "brushing broadly." And once more, the process still has a way to account for these exceptions where there are ORM disadvantaged and URM whose credentials are low in expectation to their experience.

If you choose to go in circles for a 4th or so time, I'm not going to bother anymore. I've repeated myself enough and you fail to answer. A real person discussing AA would discuss if it truly matters to have a representative group of physicians or to account for race/socioeconomics since these factors are not truly objective. You, on the other hand, want to paint the wrong picture of what AA is.

Again, you brush too broadly

Seriously, life is a little more nuanced then this, you know?

UR minorities are subject to greater social and economic problems, in general, than their ORM and white peers. Adding "in general" makes a big difference, versus making a blanket statement.

For example, I grew up in a not-so-great area that was predominantly URM and faced racism from URM peers, but also had URM friends. I grew up with many hardships, faced systemic and community-based racism. There are many debilitating factors (gangs, drugs, poverty) that affect all racial groups growing up in poverty, but we can't ignore cultural factors, individual will, intelligence, and/or drive, which we conveniently do on these forums. Instead, we make sweeping black and white statements without looking at the grey.

Also, if an URM applicant from a middle class home has the same stats and similar ECs as a white applicant from a working class home, how much does race play into the decision making process?

There is a lack of transparency here! How much consideration is given to socioeconomic factors? I know we are trying to increase the number of URM physicians, but is the manner in which we are trying to do this fair to applicants who are already socioeconomically disadvantaged? Is it fair if URM applicants who grew up socioeconomically advantaged are given greater weight due to their race? Also, disadvantaged is subjective. We like to laugh it off, but your appearance, height, manner of speech, etc. all affect your life chances in this country. We live in a country where the "standards" for beauty and American-ness are still white standards unfortunately, but nobody cares about these...

TriagePreMed...
I know how you are going to bring up the n=1 low-stat-ORM-friend-who-got-into-Dartmouth anecdote which can't be corroborated, but the exception doesn't disprove the rule regarding the med school process my friend. I guess I can throw back the n=1000 disadvantaged-low-stat-Asian-and-Caucasian-friends-who-didn't-get-in-anywhere anecdotes right back at ya.

And yes, racism by URM against ORM...it does happen. And in the example below, very little was done until brown hit the fan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZ8rVx8IBGk

P.S. Guess why this story barely hit the front page before disappearing into oblivion?

 

[mipp0]

You accuse me of brushing too broadly, but that's just an excuse you use to focus on exceptions and then use that exception as means of brushing broadly by trying to eliminate AA (Did you read my post and following post?? (I don't list exceptions, you simply and conveniently dismiss them as such). Again, URM classification is based mostly on race. People from those races, more commonly than not (Why, you are learning Triage! Congratulations, on average, in general, they do), suffer greater race related problems. Social class and economics alone doesn't bar them from racism, so no, that's not a good argument (Racism is multi-directional and historically has and currently affects Asian Americans as well, I would assume to a far larger degree than Caucasians. South Asians, for example, are the most bullied group in America, underrepresented Asian Americans in sports, corporate America, media, etc. and believe it or not, race is a huge factor). We can easily point to our president and the racial attacks he often receives, but you'll probably say it's n=1 because you can't accept the reality that the overall experience of black and hispanics is worse than those of ORM/Caucasians (Yes, Asian American politicians (Oakland, Louisiana) have been the subject of blatant racism as well. Racism against minorities in politics or positions of power is well documented, and you made a baseless assumption about my beliefs). And finally, since you'll throw in the great exception that nearly never exists of the black guy whose parents are billionaires and has lived in a racist-absent bubble, (You make me laugh, I have never made that statement and this ridiculous level of hyperbole doesn't help the discussion) you also must keep in mind that ADCOMS don't have a gun to their head (as LizzyM mentioned, if a certain level of diversity is not met, medical schools can lose accreditation, although if you are going to exaggerate, of course they aren't going to accept EVERY URM applicant) where they must accept every minority/give every minority a break. Believe it or not, URM also receive letters of rejection (Oh ,really! I never knew that!!! ) from schools, so no, your nearly impossible exception is accounted for by the process (You would be a horrible lawyer, what impossible exception are you talking about, and you still miss the major points of my posts...). And until you have any evidence of how the disadvantaged box influences decisions (Did I say it doesn't affect decisions? So the mere lack of evidence disproves a possibility or even the consideration of a possibility? I said it would be beneficial to have greater transparency in the process, considering "disadvantaged" is subjective, and we can argue race, a social construct) , you should abstain from jumping the gun and proposing that they are likely looked over (Please take your own advice).

And I don't get where you think I'm saying that URM can't be racist to ORM or vice-versa. Don't misrepresent my point. (IThe examples you provide/statements you make oversimplify race relations, race realities, etc.) I also never said that every ORM has to have a cushy and good life. All I've said is that policies exist to address the large trend, which you keep saying is "brushing broadly (The words you use would obviously affect interpretation, and you have a post history of making blanket statements) ." And once more, the process still has a way to account for these exceptions where there are ORM disadvantaged (the exceptions? See the problem here? Disadvantaged ORM is not uncommon...) and URM whose credentials are low in expectation to their experience.

If you choose to go in circles for a 4th or so time, I'm not going to bother anymore (LOL). I've repeated myself enough and you fail to answer. A real person discussing AA would discuss if it truly matters to have a representative group of physicians or to account for race/socioeconomics since these factors are not truly objective. You, on the other hand, want to paint the wrong picture of what AA is (.

Courtesy of wiki, Affirmative action refers to policies that take factors including "race, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation or national origin"[1] into consideration in order to benefit an underrepresented group, usually justified as countering the effects of a history of discrimination.

Poverty is often multi-generational. Historical and present day racism affects ORM as well. I understand the need for AA and the need for diversity. The question is how to obtain that diversity in the fairest manner possible, to all other groups of applicants. It isn't a crime or a mark of stupidity to critique a process or ask for greater transparency.

 

[mipp0]

Then go find the evidence.... the burden of proof is on you...

and please, no more anecdotes...

The problem is, the evidence is not readily available, and transparency in the process lacking.

It's so easy to dismiss an idea like that, isn't it? Here, let me simplify it for you:

Go find me evidence!

I can't, it isn't readily available to the public, and schools won't release that information to us.

Good, then you're wrong.

See how flawed that logic is?

 

[natorx]

This thread brought out the inner racist in ppl.

 

[zwitterion34]

Courtesy of wiki, Affirmative action refers to policies that take factors including "race, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation or national origin"[1] into consideration in order to benefit an underrepresented group, usually justified as countering the effects of a history of discrimination.

Poverty is often multi-generational. Historical and present day racism affects ORM as well. I understand the need for AA and the need for diversity. The question is how to obtain that diversity in the fairest manner possible, to all other groups of applicants. It isn't a crime or a mark of stupidity to critique a process or ask for greater transparency.

 

[Iamthep]

Stereotype Threat?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14736315

"Thus, rather than showing that eliminating threat eliminates the large score gap on standardized tests, the research actually shows something very different. Specifically, absent stereotype threat, the African American-White difference is just what one would expect based on the African American-White difference in SAT scores, whereas in the presence of stereotype threat, the difference is larger than would be expected based on the difference in SAT scores."

"Stereotype threat cannot explain the difference in mean cognitive test performance between African Americans and European Americans."

In other words, stereotype threat has little to no effect on high stakes tests such as GRE, SAT, LSAT, MCAT, etc. So I have no idea why it is being brought up in the context of this discussion.

 

[SunsFun]

Did you willfully ignore my post and the next one? I understand how race and class intersect, and nowhere did I mention that black families, on average, don't face greater barriers.

There's a lot of research on class, income, and life chances. Why not integrate all these studies, and incorporate it into the process? If your response is, that isn't the purpose of AA...there's no way to improve the process...just be like the other sheep...I will vomit.

Most importantly, why not be straight up transparent about the entire process?

Do you want to continue misrepresenting my position Mr. Big scary medical student?

The example was to show how ORM students in Philly were facing systemic racism (staff, faculty, etcf.) at a school where the URM leadership did absolutely nothing, and this escalated into a school wide assault. My point was not directed at you, but to other posters who oversimplify racial power dynamics and life chances. It wasn't merely a "oh man, white guys (they weren't even white BTW) face racism too, hur hur".

In regards to MissAlyssa's post, I understand it is difficult to quantify hardship based on race and socioeconomic status. What would make me happiest would be to see how AA affects applicants of whatever race, and critique/lionize it. Let's be transparent with the system. The same goes for legacy children and big donors.

What do you mean by transparent? Do you actually want the committee members to write an individualized responses to every kid who got denied providing the list of reasons why they picked someone else? In the end of the day, it is their judgement call and I have no problems with that. They have more judgement than you and me combined so I don't see a point in them making excuses to a bunch of bitter premeds who got rejected.

You want to have a better system that incorporates socioeconomic status more? Sure. I have no problem with that. Make suggestions, meet with committee members and suggest changing what they do around. What I am against is people saying that AA is so bad blah, blah, blah. Let's just get rid off it. I am against that. Improving it - sure. As long as race is still recognized as one of key factors that creates barriers for people.

And regarding ORM being discriminated against by URM. Of course it happens. But, when we take a look at systematic societal discrimination and disadvantages URM's are likely to face relative to ORM, the point of "reverse-discrimination" looses any grounds. Who cares if there are some singular episodes of that? It doesn't and will never warrant to be an overall relevant factor for a majority of ORM applicants. If that happened to you and had an impact, write about it in your PS and the committee will take that into consideration.

 

[nerdswagger]

I find it funny that in the average class of med students (95%+ non URM) that people freak out over urm stuff. If you think that 95% non urm is acceptable while harping on minority med school acceptance, I have no hope for you to see the bias in that. Some of you people see a few raisins in the cereal and want to call it raisin bran. GPA and MCAT score is not the only measure of intelligence. I couldn't afford the $2000 mcat prep classes and in some cases my books for the quarter. There were even times when I couldn't commute to campus bc I couldn't afford enough gas to put in my car bc I chose to help my family out instead. Despite that I still have a 35+ mcat, a decent gpa, and a degree in molecular genetics and environmental science. I am an urm and hearing my white friends frequently comment how I'll get in b.c. I'm black continues to remind me that we truly live in separate worlds. I'm the only black in both majors, there's 0 urm professors out of 1000+ profs and researchers in science/engineering/math at my very large university. I've sat through genetics lectures where my prof spent 2 hours citing evidence that blacks were intellectually inferior, I've had a teacher change my grades and was able to prove it through a professor-ethics committee, but she wasn't punished for her actions. I used to copy my homework, turn it in to the pile in front of a TA while saying "you see me turning in my homework" and for good measure i would record the homework being turned in. I and other black students have received hate mail from the jump, I had to lie about my race just to get interviews in labs (after getting 0 interviews checking black), getting a job over the phone, then going in and they "suddenly" realize that budget cuts will cause their job offer to be rescinded. Meanwhile my white friend got that position, and didn't know I had applied for it either. Racism is alive and well and just bc people aren't getting lynched from trees doesn't mean it's not tangible. It's been given a facelift through institutionalization. Btw, when an urm applies to med school with 250 spots, their not competing for 250 spots, their competing for ~10. There are some schools that literally separate the non-white students from their white counterparts for interviews essentially pitting them against each other for those few spots...ask me how I know. My situation might be extreme, which I'm sure will be the bigots' argument, but in the big picture if you are looking at the privileged....look in front of the closest mirror.

 

[mipp0]

What do you mean by transparent? Do you actually want the committee members to write an individualized responses to every kid who got denied providing the list of reasons why they picked someone else? In the end of the day, it is their judgement call and I have no problems with that. They have more judgement than you and me combined so I don't see a point in them making excuses to a bunch of bitter premeds who got rejected. (Yes, let's accept all their decisions due to their age and experience blindly--we know neither by the way--since it's so much more practical than having more transparency. Who really wants reasons for rejections except for "a bunch of bitter premeds". You should incorporate that philosophy into your practice of medicine as well)

You want to have a better system that incorporates socioeconomic status more? Sure. I have no problem with that. Make suggestions, meet with committee members and suggest changing what they do around. What I am against is people saying that AA is so bad blah, blah, blah. Let's just get rid off it. I am against that. Improving it - sure. As long as race is still recognized as one of key factors that creates barriers for people.

And regarding ORM being discriminated against by URM. Of course it happens. But, when we take a look at systematic societal discrimination and disadvantages URM's are likely to face relative to ORM, the point of "reverse-discrimination" (discrimination is discrimination; don't use the "reverse" word just to make your argument more credible) looses (you mean "loses", sorry pet peeve) any grounds. Who cares if there are some singular episodes of that? It doesn't and will never warrant to be an overall relevant factor for a majority of ORM applicants (This is your assumption, and a VERY flawed one. It only makes it more clear you have an equally weak understanding of the trials that ORM face in this country. Singular case? Singular episodes? Would you like me to start listing incidences of historical and present day discrimination against ORM before it gets through to you that ORM are affected as well? Maybe I can do it geographically so it's even more clear. This is the problem when you champion "human rights" and "AA" without looking critically at minority history as a WHOLE.). If that happened to you and had an impact, write about it in your PS and the committee will take that into consideration. (What great advice. I'm sure that will play out well in solving social injustices and perfecting AA in this country. I applaud your wisdom medical student)

Oh hi ; )

 

[mclinkin94]

im latino, i have a 30 on my MCAT 13 B 10 P and 7 in V, with a 3.85 gpa and i got interview at 5 schools and i only got accepted to 1 of my instate schools(got waitlisted to 2). I think i could have done a lot better on my MCAT if it wasnt because i have only been here in US for 6 years. I dont think its 100 percent fair that urm get an advantage, but u also have to consider that we have to go through different things in our life. i have worked since the moment i got to this country, i have had to mantain a job while going to school, i had to learn a new language which i still have a lot of difficulties with. For example, one of my interviews was at drexel (which i got rejected from), the school has an mcat average of 30 and a gpa average of 3.6. i am above the average for the school and i couldnt write the stupid essay that they give us at the begining of the interview cause i usually need a computer to correct all the mistakes that i make when i write. Still i am sure that i was better at science that half of the people at my interview day. In conclusion, it might not be fair to you, but it helps people that will make excellent doctor to at least have a chance to prove that they are just as good as any asian or white person.

Exhibit A

 

[DanGee777]

.

 

[Rumalum]

..

 

[jf1987]

The URM classification system is inherently racist and in some cases would encourage racism.

 

[tantacles]

Peace, love, and light.

 

[PancakeSorting]

I don't think URM is a bad idea. To me, the purpose is to "level the playing field" so to speak, and to give people who have had to struggle harder to get where they are a leg up. I can see why some non-URM applicants might resent this, but in reality, if they had a 3.8 and 35 MCAT and otherwise strong application, no URM with a 3.5 and 30 MCAT is going to "take their spot." If they are a borderline applicant, then yes, perhaps another borderline URM will get chosen over them. Is this fair? Maybe not. Have you ever experienced discrimination based upon something you had absolutely no control over (i.e., race, socioeconomical status, etc)? Is this fair? No. Is life fair? No. Instead of complaining about something you have no control over, why not focus your energy on building a strong application.

And I'm white, by the way.

 

[robertch8]

I have no problem with it myself. I think URMs can bring something back to communities in their future medical careers that other ethnic groups would have trouble being able to reach when it comes to understand the cultural values and traditions that their ethnic groups hold-- Native Americans and their practices comes to mind most to me. And also being honest, I think many of the people who are a URM on average are much more likely to give consideration to helping these communities that the rest of us might reach out towards as pre-meds doing community service and med students working in a student run clinic but might not work with in the long run.

My only problem is when URMs go on threads all around SDN and MDApps and boast about all the interviews they've gotten and tell other applicants that it's possible to get 8 MD interviews and 5 MD acceptances with a 3.5/26 and to never give up hope and that admissions officers look beyond the numbers when in fact they probably were in a different Admissions screening pile to begin with. It only either annoys other applicants who are struggling with much higher numbers to get in or gives lurkers with mediocre stats false hope.

 

[StBernardsRule]

I think affirmative action should end mostly because it encourages stereotyping without adequately looking at the specific situation of the individual applying (all the disadvantages Mexicans/blacks have an Asian can have as well).

On a side note it amazes me how frustrated and offended people get when the point is brought up that not all races might be equal in every single way. It makes total sense to think evolution favored some traits in some races more than others and there's nothing wrong with wanting to investigate that.

And before I'm told "all the evidence shows there's no difference between races," I asked the same people who said this in the last thread to give me links/sources and the one person who did had sources and facts that were just flat out wrong (he told me, for example, studies have shown intelligence in not inherited and just good search "is intelligence inherited?). With how offended some people get over the issue I really doubt many objective studies are being done and published because if a study does show races have different intelligence levels people are going to go nuts and yell "racist!" Yet if a study shows all the races are similar of course that's going to get published because everyone likes the idea of everyone being equal and being able to blame culture/society for some races kicking ass (Asians) while other races doing very poorly.

 

[StBernardsRule]

Despite that I still have a 35+ mcat, a decent gpa, and a degree in molecular genetics and environmental science. I am an urm and hearing my white friends frequently comment how I'll get in b.c. I'm black

This is also why I dislike affirmative action. Since blacks get a race boost to get into medical school, it makes people assume the average black applicant is less qualified than the average Asian (rightfully so). Assuming someone like you would have been able to get into medical school either way, it isn't fair you have to keep dealing with this assumption but as long as the playing field isn't level it's an assumption people will continue to make.

I had to lie about my race just to get interviews in labs (after getting 0 interviews checking black), getting a job over the phone, then going in and they "suddenly" realize that budget cuts will cause their job offer to be rescinded..

This could just be pure racism, or it could be that under qualified blacks have an easier time getting into your school due to affirmitive action and once they get in they are on average worse students and workers than Asians. They also might fear if they don't like you in the interview you'll play the race card and assume you were not hired because you were black when in fact they just thought you were "insert something else here."

This likely isn't the case with you, but I do know white friends who are in management positions and have had the race card instantly thrown at them when they criticize a minority employee who works under them. The irony of course is my white friends weren't being races and assuming a white person is racist because they criticize a minority's work IS racist, but that irony is lost on them.

The problem is once you change one small thing it changes people incentives and messes up the whole system.

 

[StBernardsRule]

I already told you my opinion, which is not the opinion we are arguing. But sunfuns opinion IS superior to yours because he is citing evidence where as you are just using anecdotal evidence and now what appears to be some circular logic. And I am serious when I say that if you don't understand the difference between anecdotal and statistical evidence this far into your education you should NOT be a doctor.

Do you really think there are a lot of academics who want to put their name behind a study which shows something like whites are smarter than blacks and a whole bunch of schools and journals want to publish such a study?

 

[mclinkin94]

Only if there's a tie. If the minority has low stats, then he shouldn't get in over the white guy with better stats. PERIOD.

I did not speak English as my first language, so verbal reasoning on my part is low.

 

[Medicinewoman85]

I am really saddened by the fact that so many people are against eachother. URM against ORM and vice versa. It reminds me of politics (Rep vs Dem). I am Native American and African American and if I get into med school its because I earned it. I wont be stealing a spot from a white guy or asian kid with better stats. I will be there because I worked my behind off to get there. Everyone has something in there life that they consider a disadvantage in their life (poor neighborhood, skin color, failing school, abusive parents,etc...). We all no, igonorant and intelligent, that hisorically certain groups have been systematically victimized and targeted for discrimination in the United States. It is unfortunate that these things happened but they did and not too long ago. I wont get into a drawn out history lesson but the elders in my family were not even allowed to attend college peacefully without death threats. My father had to be escorted on his first day by the military because they and he feared for his life, all because of the color of his skin. This argument about URM and AA is really fueled by what? Is it unfair to others? Of course. A lot of things are unfair but you have to deal with it and move on. Its absolutely nothing you can do to keep an AA, lation, native american from getting into med school, just as we can't keep whites and asians out. And last I think everyone gives AA too much credit because if it was as effective as many of you want to believe we would not represent such a small percentage of the the medical school population in 2012. If you are an ORM and you don't get in, try harder and work on making yourself a better candidate. Instead of being angry or offended that someone got in when you didn't humble yourself and figure out what you can improve upon. Theres over 40k applicants a year. Someone has to get the rejection letter.

 

[Medicinewoman85]

If you're white and didn't get in, you have no one to blame but yourself. My parents are Irish immigrants and worked hard throughout my entire upbringing to give me what I have. I am so grateful that I wasn't brought up with that infuriating sense of entitlement that white Americans possess.

I worked my ass off in high school, got a scholarship to college where I had a variety of experiences from D1 athletics to overseas volunteering to research at a medical school. The end result? Acceptance not just to one program, but to multiple. It came from years of hard work, sacrifice, and picking myself up during hard times.

White Americans thinking that they don't get opportunities because the brown guy down the road had an unfair advantage is so mind bogglingly ignorant, that it makes me want to leave America the minute I get my M.D.

I couldn't agree more. Although this does not reflect every white person's attitude, entitlement is the problem. You aren't entitled to anything and people really need to humble themselves. Honestly if URM and AA were eliminated and native americans, latinos, and african americans numbers in med school dwindled down to nothing, would any of you even care? Would there be people lobbying for URMs to have a fair chance at medical school, or would you not be concerned anymore because it doesn't affect you?

 

[sibitrum]

Affirmative action goes beyond just the binary of getting into/not getting into medical school. It also 1) lets URMs get into significantly better schools than they would have otherwise (on average) and 2) gives more non-need based scholarship opportunities. These advantages should not be neglected in the debate.

 

[Jamie561]

I am really saddened by the fact that so many people are against eachother. URM against ORM and vice versa. It reminds me of politics (Rep vs Dem). I am Native American and African American and if I get into med school its because I earned it. I wont be stealing a spot from a white guy or asian kid with better stats. I will be there because I worked my behind off to get there. Everyone has something in there life that they consider a disadvantage in their life (poor neighborhood, skin color, failing school, abusive parents,etc...). We all no, igonorant and intelligent, that hisorically certain groups have been systematically victimized and targeted for discrimination in the United States. It is unfortunate that these things happened but they did and not too long ago. I wont get into a drawn out history lesson but the elders in my family were not even allowed to attend college peacefully without death threats. My father had to be escorted on his first day by the military because they and he feared for his life, all because of the color of his skin. This argument about URM and AA is really fueled by what? Is it unfair to others? Of course. A lot of things are unfair but you have to deal with it and move on. Its absolutely nothing you can do to keep an AA, lation, native american from getting into med school, just as we can't keep whites and asians out. And last I think everyone gives AA too much credit because if it was as effective as many of you want to believe we would not represent such a small percentage of the the medical school population in 2012. If you are an ORM and you don't get in, try harder and work on making yourself a better candidate. Instead of being angry or offended that someone got in when you didn't humble yourself and figure out what you can improve upon. Theres over 40k applicants a year. Someone has to get the rejection letter.

So AAs and NAs have a monopoly on mistreatment? I also don't follow your argument, particularly when you proclaim that you earned your spot and then imply that your URM boost was justified because of injustices suffered by your "elders."

Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e using Tapatalk

 

[FutureCTDoc]

If the problem to be remedied is discrimination, why don't Jews and Asians get affirmative action? Asians were interned in WWII if they were of Japanese descent and for years were barred from entering the country under the Chinese Exclusion Act. Antisemitism meant Jews were barred from schools like Harvard for decades via quotas and antisemitism is still relatively common, not to mention the Shoah.

 

[bigloley]

If the problem to be remedied is discrimination, why don't Jews and Asians get affirmative action? Asians were interned in WWII if they were of Japanese descent and for years were barred from entering the country under the Chinese Exclusion Act. Antisemitism meant Jews were barred from schools like Harvard for decades via quotas and antisemitism is still relatively common, not to mention the Shoah.

It's not about trying to rectify discrimination. It's about trying to make physician demographics more in line with America's demographics. Whether that reasoning is right or wrong, it is what it is. Most medical schools have less than 10% URM's, with many having less than 5%. The fact is that URM's comprise such a small portion of medical school but on SDN this becomes a huge issue because of neurotic pre meds believing people "take their spots".

 

[Medicinewoman85]

So AAs and NAs have a monopoly on mistreatment? I also don't follow your argument, particularly when you proclaim that you earned your spot and then imply that your URM boost was justified because of injustices suffered by your "elders."

Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e using Tapatalk

Show me where I said that. *crickets*

 

[Medicinewoman85]

If the problem to be remedied is discrimination, why don't Jews and Asians get affirmative action? Asians were interned in WWII if they were of Japanese descent and for years were barred from entering the country under the Chinese Exclusion Act. Antisemitism meant Jews were barred from schools like Harvard for decades via quotas and antisemitism is still relatively common, not to mention the Shoah.

Because they are over represented in medicine.

 

[Medicinewoman85]

So AAs and NAs have a monopoly on mistreatment? I also don't follow your argument, particularly when you proclaim that you earned your spot and then imply that your URM boost was justified because of injustices suffered by your "elders."

Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e using Tapatalk

I never said it justified anything. What would satisfy you? Should I try harder to not be black? When I talked about what my family and parents went through I was not trying to justify anything. If I get into med school its because I worked hard to get there. How did you miss that point? You just want to be mad at someone. Sorry I can't give you what you are looking for.

 

[FutureCTDoc]

It's not about trying to rectify discrimination. It's about trying to make physician demographics more in line with America's demographics. Whether that reasoning is right or wrong, it is what it is. Most medical schools have less than 10% URM's, with many having less than 5%. The fact is that URM's comprise such a small portion of medical school but on SDN this becomes a huge issue because of neurotic pre meds believing people "take their spots".

Well they are correct in the sense that they are, URMs have a much easier time getting in. To have a roughly 50-50 shot as an African American you need a GPA combination of (3.8-4, 22; 3.6-3.8, 22; 3.4-3.6, 25; 3.2-3.4, 24; 3.0-3.2, 25; 2.8-3.0, 28) https://www.aamc.org/download/157594/data/table25-b-mcatgpa-grid-black.pdf if you're white to have the same chance (3.8-4.0, 26; 3.6-3.8, 28; 3.4-3.6, 31; 3.2-3.4, 34; 3.0-3.2, 37; 2.8-3.0, 42) https://www.aamc.org/download/157958/data/table25-mcatgpa-grid-white-0911.pdf that's an absolutely massive difference.

 

[SunsFun]

I think affirmative action should end mostly because it encourages stereotyping without adequately looking at the specific situation of the individual applying (all the disadvantages Mexicans/blacks have an Asian can have as well).

On a side note it amazes me how frustrated and offended people get when the point is brought up that not all races might be equal in every single way. It makes total sense to think evolution favored some traits in some races more than others and there's nothing wrong with wanting to investigate that.

And before I'm told "all the evidence shows there's no difference between races," I asked the same people who said this in the last thread to give me links/sources and the one person who did had sources and facts that were just flat out wrong (he told me, for example, studies have shown intelligence in not inherited and just good search "is intelligence inherited?). With how offended some people get over the issue I really doubt many objective studies are being done and published because if a study does show races have different intelligence levels people are going to go nuts and yell "racist!" Yet if a study shows all the races are similar of course that's going to get published because everyone likes the idea of everyone being equal and being able to blame culture/society for some races kicking ass (Asians) while other races doing very poorly.

Oh, look, another guy with intelligence by race theory. If you are so intelligent, why don't you actually read the entire thread before posting an idea that has been shut down numerous times people who know stuff.

 

[SunsFun]

Do you really think there are a lot of academics who want to put their name behind a study which shows something like whites are smarter than blacks and a whole bunch of schools and journals want to publish such a study?

So you actually think there is plenty of data showing that whites are smarter than blacks that is not published because it will cause controversy? wut?

 

[bigloley]

Well they are correct in the sense that they are, URMs have a much easier time getting in. To have a roughly 50-50 shot as an African American you need a GPA combination of (3.8-4, 22; 3.6-3.8, 22; 3.4-3.6, 25; 3.2-3.4, 24; 3.0-3.2, 25; 2.8-3.0, 28) https://www.aamc.org/download/157594/data/table25-b-mcatgpa-grid-black.pdf if you're white to have the same chance (3.8-4.0, 26; 3.6-3.8, 28; 3.4-3.6, 31; 3.2-3.4, 34; 3.0-3.2, 37; 2.8-3.0, 42) https://www.aamc.org/download/157958/data/table25-mcatgpa-grid-white-0911.pdf that's an absolutely massive difference.

From sector9's what are my chances thread:

The data in this post is from last year. I'll work on updating it for this year when I get a chance.

Are underrepresented in medicine (URM) applicants with less-competitive stats taking large numbers of slots from overrepresented in medicine (ORM) applicants?

No, not large numbers.

From 2008 to 2010, an average of 18,752 students have been accepted into U.S. allopathic medical schools each year (2898 URMs accepted each year and 16,412 ORMs accepted each year. Some applicants marked multiple races or ethnicities). Only 1469 (7.8% of total accepted students) accepted students were URMs with a lower cGPA/MCAT combination than their White and Asian (ORM) counterparts.

Keep in mind that there are currently 6 medical schools that primarily accept URM students to fulfill their respective missions: Howard University College of Medicine, Meharry Medical College, Morehouse School of Medicine, Ponce School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Universidad Central del Caribe School of Medicine, and University of Puerto Rico School of Medicine. These schools combine for 513 seats per year. Not all of these 513 seats are exclusively for URMs; data available from U.S. News on three of the schools indicates minority student enrollment at 95.4%, 77.9%, and 95.2% for three of the six schools (the other three schools don't have information listed in the U.S. News database). The possible inflation of the 513 seats is mitigated by not including San Juan Bautista School of Medicine, which was accepting students through AMCAS for part of the 3 year time span represented in the Table 24 data.

After subtracting out the seats given to URMs at those 6 schools of medicine, there are approximately 956 seats (5.1% of total accepted students) given to URMs above what would be expected.

Please note that my definition of a URM applicant may be different from the definition each medical school uses. The current, official definition is found here. The definition represented by these stats is the old definition found at the same link, meaning applicants who self-identify as Black or African American, Hispanic or Latino, or American Indian or Alaskan Native (on SDN, usage of the acronym URM generally follows the old definition). In this terminology, the races overrepresented in medicine (ORM) are White and Asian.

 

[niblet]

So you actually think there is plenty of data showing that whites are smarter than blacks that is not published because it will cause controversy? wut?

Shocking isn't it, that a nation founded on the below principle would stifle the acquisition of knowledge in contradiction of it.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

By the way, I'm not necessarily arguing that there is a significant difference between the intelligence of different races; I am simply saying there is reason to believe investigations into the truth of the matter are ignored for the sake of political correctness.


I'm not a fan of AA at all, not because I'm worried about missing out on medical school because a URM gets in at my expense, but because I am philosophically opposed to the existence of institutionalized racism in my country.

If I were a URM, I'd not be too thrilled with AA either. I imagine going through life with loads of people thinking you got to where you were solely because of the color of your skin would be quite frustrating. I'd also be more than a little off-put by all the racist white bureaucrats who felt they needed to coddle me along and act as my patron because I couldn't have done it on my own.

 

[French Toast]

Originally Posted by The Declaration of Independence
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all WHITE men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

^ Fixed it for you.

Try to understand the context of what you quoted. The Declaration of Independence was written at a time where 1/5th of the population was enslaved.

 

[niblet]

^ Fixed it for you.

Understand the context of what you said. The Declaration of Independence was written at a time where 1/5th of the population was enslaved.

Yes, but it nevertheless serves as our modern national guiding principle. My point stands.

 

[FutureCTDoc]

It's not about trying to rectify discrimination. It's about trying to make physician demographics more in line with America's demographics. Whether that reasoning is right or wrong, it is what it is. Most medical schools have less than 10% URM's, with many having less than 5%. The fact is that URM's comprise such a small portion of medical school but on SDN this becomes a huge issue because of neurotic pre meds believing people "take their spots".

Why should the demographics matter? What should matter is training the best physicians possible, what constitutes the best is another discussion in and of itself. Also it's not a matter of how many spots are "taken" obviously GPA and MCAT don't say everything, it's a matter of principle.

 

[SunsFun]

Shocking isn't it, that a nation founded on the below principle would stifle the acquisition of knowledge in contradiction of it.

Right. Right.

By the way, I'm not necessarily arguing that there is a significant difference between the intelligence of different races; I am simply saying there is reason to believe investigations into the truth of the matter are ignored for the sake of political correctness.

Do you also believe in 911 conspiracy crap?

I'm not a fan of AA at all, not because I'm worried about missing out on medical school because a URM gets in at my expense, but because I am philosophically opposed to the existence of institutionalized racism in my country.

Out of all places you manage to find institutional racism in AA?

If I were a URM, I'd not be too thrilled with AA either. I imagine going through life with loads of people thinking you got to where you were solely because of the color of your skin would be quite frustrating. I'd also be more than a little off-put by all the racist white bureaucrats who felt they needed to coddle me along and act as my patron because I couldn't have done it on my own.

Yeah but you aren't so why speculate.

 

[bigloley]

Why should the demographics matter? What should matter is training the best physicians possible, what constitutes the best is another discussion in and of itself. Also it's not a matter of how many spots are "taken" obviously GPA and MCAT don't say everything, it's a matter of principle.

Just explaining how it is - not supporting or going against it either. URM classification is made just to try and have physician demographics closer to American demographics. Apparently those higher up than us think that this makes better physicians (or rather physicians that are better trained to help different segments of the populations).

What I don't understand is that people make such a big fuss about URM's but not about legacy or getting in through connections. According to sector9's analysis, 5% of medical school students are URM's with lower averages than ORM counterparts. I would go out on a limb and say that 5% of current medical school students got in through legacy or connections. Also, a lot of negative comments are usually associated with these threads towards URM's. Hate the system, not the person.

 

[StBernardsRule]

Oh, look, another guy with intelligence by race theory. If you are so intelligent, why don't you actually read the entire thread before posting an idea that has been shut down numerous times people who know stuff.

Great job being an example of how people get overly offended and sensitive about the topic.

A lot of people in this thread who think they know stuff don't know stuff. I'm actually that guy that reads stuff when people tell me I am wrong, and the last person who PMed me sources about this topic sent me some terrible ones with incorrect facts (such as intelligence is not inherited). I've changed my mind on many things in the past but the arguments/emotional responses from people who are repulsed by the idea that all races might not be exactly the same have just strengthened my belief that most people aren't mature enough to objectively try to research the topic and interpret the data.

 

[FutureCTDoc]

Just explaining how it is - not supporting or going against it either. URM classification is made just to try and have physician demographics closer to American demographics. Apparently those higher up than us think that this makes better physicians (or rather physicians that are better trained to help different segments of the populations).

What I don't understand is that people make such a big fuss about URM's but not about legacy or getting in through connections. According to sector9's analysis, 5% of medical school students are URM's with lower averages than ORM counterparts. I would go out on a limb and say that 5% of current medical school students got in through legacy or connections. Also, a lot of negative comments are usually associated with these threads towards URM's. Hate the system, not the person.

I don't know why no one does, they should be scrapped as well.

 

[PancakeSorting]

Do you really think there are a lot of academics who want to put their name behind a study which shows something like whites are smarter than blacks and a whole bunch of schools and journals want to publish such a study?

I hope you aren't serious.

How would you define "smarter?" An IQ test? Level of education? Or just your own personal opinion? Hmm. IQ tests have long been criticized as not being a true representation of a person's intelligence. Level of education is also a huge problem because blacks in the U.S. are statistically far more likely to be poor than whites (read: less likely to have the money/opportunity to obtain higher education).

So even if there is a secret group of scientists out there desperate to publish their ground-breaking results about how whites are so much statistically "smarter" than blacks, I'm afraid I already have serious doubts about the reliability of their data.

The best you could do is perhaps take a sizable random sample of blacks and whites, controlling for factors such as their and their parents' level of education, their and their parents' socioeconomic status, their current occupation, etc and administer the currently accepted form of the IQ test. Then, you could do a comparative statistical analysis to see if there is actually a difference in the results. We'll just ignore the whole IQ-test controversy, seeing as I honestly can't come up with a better way to measure "intelligence."

As far as I know, no one has ever bothered to do this. Sure, maybe it's because they're afraid of the controversy such a study would generate. Or maybe it's because they're not stupid enough to think the melanin content of a person's skin is actually related to their level of intelligence. This is not some sort of "emotional response" or whatnot that you mentioned, either. If anything, I'd say you seem to be letting your personal opinion cloud your rational judgment- tell me, what scientific mechanism would you propose to account for a difference in intelligence between people of different races? And how is it that other races aren't affected by this phenomenon? Are Mexicans also less "intelligent?" What about Asians? These are also all ethnic groups that are quite distinct from people of European heritage. Are you suggesting that there is some sort of uncharacterized genetic defect prevalent among those of African American descent that affects their intelligence? Quite frankly, that doesn't make the slightest bit of sense to me.

But if you really want to prove everyone wrong, go ahead and do the study yourself.

 

[StBernardsRule]

I hope you aren't serious.

How would you define "smarter?" An IQ test? Level of education? Or just your own personal opinion? Hmm. IQ tests have long been criticized as not being a true representation of a person's intelligence. Level of education is also a huge problem because blacks in the U.S. are statistically far more likely to be poor than whites (read: less likely to have the money/opportunity to obtain higher education).

So even if there is a secret group of scientists out there desperate to publish their ground-breaking results about how whites are so much statistically "smarter" than blacks, I'm afraid I already have serious doubts about the reliability of their data.

The best you could do is perhaps take a sizable random sample of blacks and whites, controlling for factors such as their and their parents' level of education, their and their parents' socioeconomic status, their current occupation, etc and administer the currently accepted form of the IQ test. Then, you could do a comparative statistical analysis to see if there is actually a difference in the results. We'll just ignore the whole IQ-test controversy, seeing as I honestly can't come up with a better way to measure "intelligence."

As far as I know, no one has ever bothered to do this. Sure, maybe it's because they're afraid of the controversy such a study would generate. Or maybe it's because they're not stupid enough to think the melanin content of a person's skin is actually related to their level of intelligence. This is not some sort of "emotional response" or whatnot that you mentioned, either. If anything, I'd say you seem to be letting your personal opinion cloud your rational judgment- tell me, what scientific mechanism would you propose to account for a difference in intelligence between people of different races? And how is it that other races aren't affected by this phenomenon? Are Mexicans also less "intelligent?" What about Asians? These are also all ethnic groups that are quite distinct from people of European heritage. Are you suggesting that there is some sort of uncharacterized genetic defect prevalent among those of African American descent that affects their intelligence? Quite frankly, that doesn't make the slightest bit of sense to me.

But if you really want to prove everyone wrong, go ahead and do the study yourself.

I'm kinda tempted to start responding in a really sarcastic/condescending manner since that seems to be what everyone else is doing, but I'll resist temptation for the time being. I'll just respond in list form.

#1) You can define intelligence in a variety of ways, the same way it's done now. IQ tests/MCAT scores/SAT scores or some combination of similar tests. Of course the system isn't perfect, but you can't define someone's ability in sports either, yet you can usually look at results and perform tests to get a general idea.

#2) There isn't a secret society of scientist out to prove whites are smarter than blacks (as far as I know). The reason studies of race and intelligence can't be performed very effectively is because people get so sensitive over the issue, or in your case and the case of others like you, have already concluded you'll have serious doubts about their data if they come to a conclusion you don't like.

#3) Studies trying to show IQ differences between the races have already been done, and cliffnotes are minorities do worse than whites and Asians by a lot. People do not like these results.

Literally the first thing that popped up after google searching (other than wikipedia) "Race and IQ." http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/04/26/9530.aspx

Cliffnotes are data shows Asians are the smartest, whites second smartest, then a big gap for blacks at the bottom. People do not like these results and get very, very sensitive about it.

4. You don't seem to have a solid grasp of how evolution may work for encouraging intelligence in one group stronger than another. In Africa, it's possible that the most important survival traits were being able to run fast and jump high due to the environment they lived in. These traits were selected for over intelligence. In Asia, if you were a farmer growing rice intelligence might be more important than pure speed and strength. Thus intelligence was selected for more heavily than athleticism.

The fact people have different skin color just shows "Hey, your genetic ancestors came from this region where these certain traits were really important, so you are more likely to have some traits and not have others." There is of course a ton of variation within the race (super smart blacks super dumb Asians etc), but just because intelligence and skin color may be correlated it of course doesn't mean one caused or is directly related to the other.

 

[411309]

Segregation is considered wrong yet we have all black med schools. Irony?

 

[PancakeSorting]

I'm kinda tempted to start responding in a really sarcastic/condescending manner since that seems to be what everyone else is doing, but I'll resist temptation for the time being. I'll just respond in list form.

#1) You can define intelligence in a variety of ways, the same way it's done now. IQ tests/MCAT scores/SAT scores or some combination of similar tests. Of course the system isn't perfect, but you can't define someone's ability in sports either, yet you can usually look at results and perform tests to get a general idea.

#2) There isn't a secret society of scientist out to prove whites are smarter than blacks (as far as I know). The reason studies of race and intelligence can't be performed very effectively is because people get so sensitive over the issue, or in your case and the case of others like you, have already concluded you'll have serious doubts about their data if they come to a conclusion you don't like.

#3) Studies trying to show IQ differences between the races have already been done, and cliffnotes are minorities do worse than whites and Asians by a lot. People do not like these results.

Literally the first thing that popped up after google searching (other than wikipedia) "Race and IQ." http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/04/26/9530.aspx

Cliffnotes are data shows Asians are the smartest, whites second smartest, then a big gap for blacks at the bottom. People do not like these results and get very, very sensitive about it.

4. You don't seem to have a solid grasp of how evolution may work for encouraging intelligence in one group stronger than another. In Africa, it's possible that the most important survival traits were being able to run fast and jump high due to the environment they lived in. These traits were selected for over intelligence. In Asia, if you were a farmer growing rice intelligence might be more important than pure speed and strength. Thus intelligence was selected for more heavily than athleticism.

The fact people have different skin color just shows "Hey, your genetic ancestors came from this region where these certain traits were really important, so you are more likely to have some traits and not have others." There is of course a ton of variation within the race (super smart blacks super dumb Asians etc), but just because intelligence and skin color may be correlated it of course doesn't mean one caused or is directly related to the other.

This has nothing to do with whether or not I would "like" the results of the studies, I just find it highly unlikely that any study can actually reliably prove that one race is more intelligent than another. You neatly side-stepped the issue of measuring intelligence, but it's still an issue- how do you even define intelligence? Are people who are excellent writers but poor math students stupid? Are you "smarter" if you are reasonably good at math, writing, etc than a person who is brilliant at math but has poor verbal reasoning skills? How do you quantify that? The biggest issue I have is that you seem to be grossly oversimplifying the idea of intelligence. The fact is that the results we get from any study measuring intelligence are only as reliable as the methods we use to measure that intelligence. You can throw around studies all day but if the methodological approach is not sound, then what's the use?

Putting another nail in the coffin of this entire idea is that there is no accepted biological mechanism for any sort of racially-based difference in intelligence. Without a mechanism, we could be simply seeing the effects of a variety of different confounding factors. And for every study showing that race does have effects on intelligence, there's another study showing that it doesn't. Obviously, the experimental methods currently in use are not reliable if these studies cannot be consistently replicated.

And obviously different ethnic groups emerged from isolated areas of the world and thus evolved somewhat differently. That's generally accepted. But you'll notice that even for racially related differences in health, these are in no way consistent across the population. For instance, people of European descent are far less likely to be lactose-intolerant than people of Asian descent. This is believed to be because Europeans evolved animal-based agriculture long before Asians did and thus by eating milk-based products further into their life, the gene that is normally shut off after weaning from a mother's milk evolved to stay. However, in no way does this hold true for every European or every Asian. Ethnic groups are no longer isolated to specific parts of the world. We've bred and moved around. Races are have been mixed and remixed. Genes have been shuffled around. Thus, if there is some genetic factor that affected Asians because they needed more intelligence to live in Asia, then it's perfectly possible that this gene or whatever has been passed on to black populations.

And I'm not being condescending. I just don't particularly think your argument is rational. You can't just say "look at all these studies that show this!" while ignoring the methodological approach and ignoring contradictory evidence.

But by all means, if science can first
1. find a reliable means of quantifying intelligence, or at least study different kinds of intelligence separately, which I actually think would be more useful
2. elucidate a mechanism for how exactly race affects these different forms of intelligence
3. actually reliably replicate their studies

then I shall be convinced. You'll excuse me for being critical. It's how I think.

However, I think what is far more likely is that there is a genetic/epigenetic/what have you basis for certain forms of intelligence and that in today's world race has little if anything to do with it and will have progressively less to do with it as the global melting pot continues to mix. Furthermore, I think the idea of intelligence, even when split up into definable categories is immensely complex and it is highly unlikely that genetics is all there is to it. People can have geniuses for parents and turn out to be of only mediocre intelligence and vice versa. This gets into the whole nature vs nurture thing... perhaps you can see why, as a rational human being, I highly dislike your idea of intelligence being based upon race. It's really just way too much of a simplification of something that is anything but simple. It's not even useful for categorical statements, since there's so much variation. Thus, to me, the point is moot.

 

[SunsFun]

I hope this is some sort of lame trolling attempt. If you actually believe that white people are smarter than black people I officially hate you.

 

[StBernardsRule]

This has nothing to do with whether or not I would "like" the results of the studies, I just find it highly unlikely that any study can actually reliably prove that one race is more intelligent than another. You neatly side-stepped the issue of measuring intelligence, but it's still an issue- how do you even define intelligence? Are people who are excellent writers but poor math students stupid? Are you "smarter" if you are reasonably good at math, writing, etc than a person who is brilliant at math but has poor verbal reasoning skills? How do you quantify that? The biggest issue I have is that you seem to be grossly oversimplifying the idea of intelligence. The fact is that the results we get from any study measuring intelligence are only as reliable as the methods we use to measure that intelligence. You can throw around studies all day but if the methodological approach is not sound, then what's the use?

Putting another nail in the coffin of this entire idea is that there is no accepted biological mechanism for any sort of racially-based difference in intelligence. Without a mechanism, we could be simply seeing the effects of a variety of different confounding factors. And for every study showing that race does have effects on intelligence, there's another study showing that it doesn't. Obviously, the experimental methods currently in use are not reliable if these studies cannot be consistently replicated.

And obviously different ethnic groups emerged from isolated areas of the world and thus evolved somewhat differently. That's generally accepted. But you'll notice that even for racially related differences in health, these are in no way consistent across the population. For instance, people of European descent are far less likely to be lactose-intolerant than people of Asian descent. This is believed to be because Europeans evolved animal-based agriculture long before Asians did and thus by eating milk-based products further into their life, the gene that is normally shut off after weaning from a mother's milk evolved to stay. However, in no way does this hold true for every European or every Asian. Ethnic groups are no longer isolated to specific parts of the world. We've bred and moved around. Races are have been mixed and remixed. Genes have been shuffled around. Thus, if there is some genetic factor that affected Asians because they needed more intelligence to live in Asia, then it's perfectly possible that this gene or whatever has been passed on to black populations.

And I'm not being condescending. I just don't particularly think your argument is rational. You can't just say "look at all these studies that show this!" while ignoring the methodological approach and ignoring contradictory evidence.

But by all means, if science can first
1. find a reliable means of quantifying intelligence, or at least study different kinds of intelligence separately, which I actually think would be more useful
2. elucidate a mechanism for how exactly race affects these different forms of intelligence
3. actually reliably replicate their studies

then I shall be convinced. You'll excuse me for being critical. It's how I think.

However, I think what is far more likely is that there is a genetic/epigenetic/what have you basis for certain forms of intelligence and that in today's world race has little if anything to do with it and will have progressively less to do with it as the global melting pot continues to mix. Furthermore, I think the idea of intelligence, even when split up into definable categories is immensely complex and it is highly unlikely that genetics is all there is to it. People can have geniuses for parents and turn out to be of only mediocre intelligence and vice versa. This gets into the whole nature vs nurture thing... perhaps you can see why, as a rational human being, I highly dislike your idea of intelligence being based upon race. It's really just way too much of a simplification of something that is anything but simple. It's not even useful for categorical statements, since there's so much variation. Thus, to me, the point is moot.

I don't think we're going to agree then, because when I read a post like this all I see is "You can't define intelligence" or "You can't define race" as an excuse to largely sidestep the issue. I think it can be measured reasonably well, though not perfectly. Just because we don't have a "mechanism for how exactly race affects these different forms of intelligence" (which still seems like you're missing the point, race and intelligence can be correlated without one being the cause of the other) doesn't mean we can't use statistical methods to analyze data and try to make reasonable conclusions.

I think saying "I have this laundry list of impossible standards you need to fulfill before I'll acknowledge race and intelligence exist and may be correlated" is pretty ridiculous. The reason why I care is because policies are often designed with the idea that "all races and both sexes are equal, and if something isn't equal there must be something wrong." I don't think there's anything wrong with 25% of med school students being Asian and 90% of the NBA being black. I don't think one racial group deserves a boost just because they are underrepresented.

Lastly, no one is saying one's environment doesn't have a huge impact in intelligence and that intelligence is only genetic. Many people, myself included, are saying it is largely genetic though (the same way I think athleticism etc is).

 

[StBernardsRule]

I hope this is some sort of lame trolling attempt. If you actually believe that white people are smarter than black people I officially hate you.

People who get incredibly emotional and hateful when people disagree with them are one of the reasons why it's so hard to have any serious discussion on the matter. I'm not just talking about race and intelligence, I'm talking about any matter where people tend to get emotional (religion, politics, etc). I get you "officially hate" me, but this is a pretty bad quality a lot of people have that you should try to get rid of.

I think Asians are smarter than blacks, and I think blacks are more athletic than Asians even if you can't quantify exactly what "intelligence" and "athleticism" are. It doesn't mean racism doesn't exist. It doesn't mean every black guy is awesome at sports and every Asian guy awesome at math.

It simply means groups are different and when one group is over represented in a career or field it doesn't necessarily mean something is wrong.

 

[SunsFun]

Ok, you're clearly trolling. Good one though. You had it going strong for a while.