We’ve cited articles. It is not just a gender thing. You ask how do we know and then you say the data isn’t strong? There is data, therefore we know.
www.statnews.com
Firstly, it's unbelievable that you're pulling the sexist card here. That's not what we're trying to say at all. We're just questioning why race-based AA is accepted as the sole cause of the observed rise in Black physicians if that increase was entirely driven by women. I think it's wonderful that this is happening and it should continue. I am not convinced, however, that this was the result of race-based AA. Instead, gender-based AA or more liberal gender attitudes is my prime suspect.
This. And again, black women, black men, it doesn’t matter, they’re black.
You've missed the point. How do you know that race-based AA is actually increasing the representation of Black physicians? We have shown you evidence that the increase observed in the past half-century was almost entirely due to a rise in female Black physicians, a wonderful thing in its own right, but not the home run for race-based AA that we all were hoping for. If race-based AA were the cause of this increase, why would there be a disparity between the increase in male and female Black physicians? In my mind, it's more likely that something gender-related is underlying this increase, in which case race-based AA would have been downright harmful to Asian Americans for no real benefit. Of course, I would love to be proven wrong if you have the data to support anything otherwise.We’ve cited articles. It is not just a gender thing. You ask how do we know and then you say the data isn’t strong? There is data, therefore we know.
One article that shows it’s working:
In counties with more Black doctors, Black people live longer, ‘astonishing’ study finds
The study is the first to link a higher prevalence of Black doctors to longer life expectancy and lower mortality in Black populations.
@centralC
If the proportion of female physicians is roughly constant across all racial and ethnic groups, then if the overall proportion of the racial or ethnic group has increased, then it's not just about gender.
You would need data from decades ago showing that gender ratios were the same back then as well, which I highly doubt. I'll admit I went too far in saying it had "no effect". However, the effect it seems to have had is so small and confounded by other things like gender that it might as well be considered a failed policy.If the proportion of female physicians is roughly constant across all racial and ethnic groups, then if the overall proportion of the racial or ethnic group has increased, then it's not just about gender.
Figure 20. Percentage of physicians by sex and race/ethnicity, 2018
Figure 20 of the Diversity in Medicine report displays the percentages of physicians by sex and race/ethnicity.www.aamc.org
As of 2018, the proportion of men and women in each racial and ethnic group were roughly similar.
No one has claimed that race-based AA is the sole cause. What we've done is push against the notion that you and other users are supporting that race-based AA has had "no effect", using numbers that exclude women.
I would love to see the data for Hispanic doctors as well. Do you have any sources to share on that?
The drop in white males is actually somewhat consistent with the fact that white males also now make up just over 30% of the US population. Nothing surprising to see there.
In the 1940s, something less than 5% of physicians were female, so no, you really wouldn't. The number of female physicians was so small as to have a negligible effect.
At this point, you've gone from having some reasonable points to what seems to be increaseingly engaging in bad faith. I'm going to stop responding.
That's what I'm saying. The proportion of female doctors back in the earliest dates studied in that UCLA link was near 0. Is anyone surprised then that the proportion has increased significantly since then? I don't think race-based AA had as much to do with the increase among Black female physicians as you think.
I'll recant that part of my argument. You're right that I got too heated. Are you still willing to discuss? This is genuinely something I'm interested in hearing more perspectives on, especially from those in positions like yours.
So I am being racist by saying the purpose and intention of raced based AA is to increase the number of blacks? That black females benefit from race based AA? I mean, I thought that was the purpose and reasoning of AA but feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
You’re not taking into consideration that at the time AA was created, racism was still a big issue at many institutions. It’s not like AA was born one day and then every adcom said “okay we’re not racist anymore.” And because there were still many more racists than now at the time (probably the same since it wasn’t long ago), you had a very little amount of blacks getting in. It’s like with how AA just got thrown away, but med schools are still going to do it anyways. In the 60s, AA was created, colleges were still racist. Things takes time. AA started in the 1960s. That’s 63 years ago, probably less. Doing things like increasing diversity, especially for a people who were once enslaved, takes time.
I'm honestly not even trying to make an affirmative argument that AA was the reason for it, just saying that the "evidence" that suggests AA has not had any impact is... being poorly analyzed with a particular lens.
This is funny but not applicable here. College admissions are zero-sum. That is a direct quote from the Supreme Court opinion. If one group benefits, another has to lose out. This did not have to be the case. Elite schools were rich enough to significantly expand their pipelines. The fact that they did not is sad to me.
With what you have been saying, I conclude you would be finding a way to object if elite schools did expand pipelines.
I’m really sorry for the aggression earlier regarding the proportions. I misinterpreted the stats, which was entirely my fault. In addition, I was way too zealous in my comments and said some regrettable things that I have also acknowledged and apologized for (and left up so viewers can marvel at my stupidity).
I don't care about UG admissions, only medical schools. BUT, when ORMs are represented in med schools to the tune of being over their proportions in the US population, you cannot seriously argue that they are being hurt.
Good point. I know absolutely nothing about medical school admissions, so I cannot say anything on that matter. All I have to go on are Harvard’s undergrad admissions data that came out during the trial. There, it is clear and apparent that Asians were directly discriminated against in the form of lower personality scores compared to every other race. The same discrepancy was not found in UNC’s admissions data, suggesting that this could very well be an issue at Harvard alone and only at the undergraduate level.
UNC is not a highly selective school, especially for instate students. We can’t compare it with Harvard.
You have reached your goal and settled. So , it is easier to say “lLife is not fair. Move on”. It is not that easy for those who endured the torture through four or five cycles and the ones with 3.9+ and 520+ and returned empty handed after toiling during premed, mcat prep, 1000s of hours of research and clinical hours hoping to realize their lifelong dreams.
I swear only other pre-meds would consider admission to a T-25 medical school at 20 "settling".
The equivalent in engineering is kids from Berkeley and other San Francisco area schools thinking people making $100k at small-medium businesses are losers because they're not at a FAANG making $250k (usually half of which is in delayed stocks and not true income anyway). This **** never ends.
I get what you are saying . But I feel that the unpredictability of the process/journey is taken away once you get into medical school. It is a different feel .
Best of luck to you. I am happy for you.
jk, but good luck. It is a crapshoot for any specific school but overall, with enough schools, people find a home.
I understand that people are passionate about those issues.
You don't think abortion and LGBTQIA+ health access are important issues because there are other poor and underserved people? Trans people are at this very moment under assault in about half of the states in the country and all LGBTQIA+ people on a federal level with the Supreme Court now ruling it's fine to discriminate against us. Reduced access to abortion means higher maternal death rates, infant mortality rates, and general poor outcomes for both. These are bonafide health crises.
I agree those you mentioned are big issues in healthcare outcomes. I only mentioned the listed issues as examples, particularly because they relate to the law. I have no idea how to solve poverty, transportation, or food deserts even with changes in the law without being radical.
The issue and the most compelling argument made by Roberts regarding this is that the broad generalization of what constitutes ORM being defined as “Asian” is outright ****ing bonkers. There are ethic groups that are widely over represented and those that aren’t. Yet the under represented groups are not getting that benefit. It is pretty unconscionable to think that having a HIGHER standard for a minority group is in any way a good idea.
While GPA and MCAT certainly reflect those attributes, so do employment, volunteer hours (especially service to those unlike yourself), and research. I am sorry that you do not seem to understand how much we consider other factors in admissions decisions.
These type of anomalies are the biggest elephant in the room. The current medschool admissions leaves so much room for subjective factors, chance and potential bias based on the moods of the adcoms who interviews, Essay readers and admissions committee, adding elements of unpredictability to the selection outcomes. Some Med school having ~15000 applicants and mere 1% to be selected with so many orthogonal parameters like GPA, MCAT, Essays, Extracurricular, interview etc., lots of students are literally playing Russian roulette. They need quantifiable system, at least something like LizzyM score. A good system is the one that eliminates uncertainty. The countries where med school students who get into medschool after highschool with a single competitive entrance exams are producing good doctors as well. Infact US citizen opt for medical tourism to go to those countries and get treated. If the American medschool admission doesn't improve, this will further break American healthcare system.
I couldn’t have said it better and couldn’t agree more. I believe that USF Morsani is doing something that the other medical schools can follow. It will help a lot of applicants and remove the uncertainty to some extent.
Expecting 516 after sophomore year may be too much, especially many students couldn't have the chance of finishing Biochemistry. Also I will not weigh too much on SAT, because it tests science very little and there is a strong correlation where the students have good training gets higher SAT score. MCAT is different as it directly test the subjects they study for pre-req courses. Not trying to play devil's advocate, but US high school education has huge disparity, so in current form where some private schools offers 10 AP and some public schools hardly offer any AP. Unfortunately our education system lets Universities to fix some of the short comings. As someone pointed earlier about fixing k-12, it will take a decade to clean up. Until then they could only improve the current system with better quantifiable metric and use good Mathematicians to model and see which admission process produces results with minimum uncertainty.
Pertaining to last your point about qualifying criteria for automatic admission, would they bypass an interview or essays? I’m not sure on how making this more of a numbers game is going to ensure that people who have not developed into good potential physicians are caught in the net before they matriculate into school, especially with an automatic admission. There are schools that utilize GPA and MCAT minimums to award in-state residents with automatic interviews, such as KU, but that still puts the applicant in front of someone to determine whether or not they have the interpersonal skills necessary to be awarded a seat at the medical school.
Oh yeah, I understand it from USF’s standpoint, but the person I replied to proposed an automatic admission for every med school with specific criteria listed, not an automatic interview. I wasn’t sure if they just withheld mentioning interview/essay requirements in their post, or if they didn’t think it was part of the criteria necessary to be granted admission.
Essays could be hacked by college and professional pre-med advisors. But Interviews are real thing to understand the interpersonal skills. Only problem with interviews are there is some level of uncertainty based on type of interviewers and the day in which the candidate interviews. There is a natural noise in every system ( Something called SNR : signal to noise ratio ). The signal is the true attribute you want to capture in and random noise sometime distorts that signal. The best way to remove the bias from noise is taking more samples. Each school having their own interview and don't look at other school's interview comments creates more uncertainty.
