Supreme Court Ruling, Race based admissions.

[eigen]

nahh i didn’t say that. the study he posted wasn’t made up as someone pointed out. i didn’t think the point being made was topical

Patient outcomes and comfort in a medical setting aren't topical to discussions on medical school admissions? I'm curious to see some elaboration on that.

I think a lot of people forget that the primary responsibility of medical schools isn't to applicants, but to their future patients.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[darkamgine]

I see. Thank you for this. I have a few questions about these. I apologize for my lack of knowledge in advance.

1. What do you mean by "Consequences of slavery, Jim crow laws/systemic discrimination"? Can you explain the consequences of slavery since its abolishment more than 150 years ago and abolishment of segregation more than 50 years ago leading to less black physicians today? I think I understand more how the Jim crow laws' effect still lingers today, but not slavery's effect considering it is more than 150 years ago.
2. Also did the Jim crow laws apply to other non-African American minority communities? Like Hispanics and Asians?

This makes sense. Don't know why I thought it would be a lot deeper lol.



I see. Thank you! Just curious, by chance, do you know a source showing the representation of each type of Asian in the US Physician workforce? I'm curious to see their Population percentage : Physician percentage ratio.

edit: typo

1. Generational slavery lead to generation poverty. If you lock a bird in a small cage for half its life, it still won't fly out the moment you release it. 150 years ago, most blacks had literally nothing. Then most of them were sharecroppers, which basically was working for minimum wage and barely getting by. Even free, African American held little wealth, had low or poor education, and few had good jobs. 50 years ago, segregation was abolished but their starting point was still low. Still relatively low SES, few know about the opportunities in medicine and higher education. Most lived in poor communities with difficulties to access educational support even if they were provided. Keep in mind, there were good reasons for distrust among African-Americans about the medical community. Although affirmative action has helped African-Americans, there are many other things in society which do not help them. I won't go into detail on the cultural aspects but generations and generations of low education and wealth are not conducive to the long process of medical education, especially where you won't be making money for 10+ years. All of these contribute to why there is still a huge discrepancy and are barriers to why there are not as many African-Americans in medical school. This is basically a consequence of U.S. history leading to current conditions. 50 years may seem like a long time but it is not long enough to change hundreds of years of issues/culture.

As for each type of Asian, most surveys do not ask that specifically. Current active asian-american doctors are around 20% of total physicians but I expect this number to slowly increase. If you make me guess, the largest groups would be Chinese-American and Indian-American, hence some of the stereotypes.

 

[john7991]

Sadly, you might be correct in that assumption. The American Council on Education, a nonprofit focused on the impacts of public policy on higher education, recently convened a panel dedicated to planning after the demise of affirmative action; admissions directors and consultants emphasized the need “to educate students about how to write about who they are in a very different way,” expressing their “full authentic story” and “trials and tribulations.”
Basically, it will boil down to how a personal story/essay can be written with the help of college consultants- to write about their race through formulaic and traumatic narrative tropes, without actually checking a race box. Once again, the wealthy URMs who can afford the consultation fees and the creative editing services to articulate and magnify the micro-aggressions and disadvantages in their lives due to their race/ethnicity, will easily win over the low SES applicants who despite their tremendous hardships and disadvantages can barely afford the AMCAS/ med school application fees, much less these expensive college consultants.

You consistently miss the point of AA

clearly AA doesn’t even solve as the % of black physicians haven’t even increased. AA is unethical as it (directly) puts certain racial groups at a disadvantage. and you’re justifying it because it would have better outcomes for one certain racial demographic?? we can’t have racist policies in the US period. the “oh but one study found that having more quality of life, etc” is a bad argument. it’s not even causal, it’s not proven AA solves, and it’s not relevant when looking at this through a moral obligation standpoint.

The number of black physicians has increased.

Which racial groups are being put at a disadvantage?

Improving the lives of the underrepresented is literally the purpose of AA and it does improve those lives so how is that a bad argument?

 

[eigen]

i hate to make this argument too because it’s weak, but the majority of the public is opposed to race-based admissions as far as i read it was like 75%

If you read upthread, these numbers have already been discussed multiple times and the only source for 75% is either a misreading of the survey data, or only considering people who identify as Republican.

But if you have another source in addition to the ones provided that shows differently, I'm sure we would all be interested to see it.

 

[john7991]

i hate to make this argument too because it’s weak, but the majority of the public is opposed to race-based admissions as far as i read it was like 75%

Can you provide a source?

 

[deleted961749]

You consistently miss the point of AA

The number of black physicians has increased.

Which racial groups are being put at a disadvantage?

Improving the lives of the underrepresented is literally the purpose of AA and it does improve those lives so how is that a bad argument?

In answer to your first question, Asian Americans. Please refer to my posts earlier in this thread for sources.

 

[eigen]

clearly AA doesn’t even solve as the % of black physicians haven’t even increased. AA is unethical as it (directly) puts certain racial groups at a disadvantage. and you’re justifying it because it would have better outcomes for one certain racial demographic?? we can’t have racist policies in the US period. the “oh but one study found that having more quality of life, etc” is a bad argument. it’s not even causal, it’s not proven AA solves, and it’s not relevant when looking at this through a moral obligation standpoint.

Proportion of Black physicians in U.S. has changed little in 120 years, UCLA research finds

The research also spotlights a significant income gap between white and Black male doctors.

newsroom.ucla.edu

Suggests that there has been a consistent and sustained increase in the proportion of physicians who are black. I'd be interested to see a different source if you have it.

::edit:: I see you've provided the same source, but haven't even read it past the title.

 

[docdoc912]

clearly AA doesn’t even solve as the % of black physicians haven’t even increased. AA is unethical as it (directly) puts certain racial groups at a disadvantage. and you’re justifying it because it would have better outcomes for one certain racial demographic?? we can’t have racist policies in the US period. the “oh but one study found that having more quality of life, etc” is a bad argument. it’s not even causal, it’s not proven AA solves, and it’s not relevant when looking at this through a moral obligation standpoint.

It’s been shown in numerous studies that racial health disparities are lower when patients are treated by physicians who look like them.

I’m happy the AMA took a stance against this ruling and will continue (like they’ve always been doing) to find ways to make sure we have a diverse physician workforce. This isn’t about students feelings this is about public health.

 

[eigen]

also asians and whites are at a disadvantage

Compared to who / what standard?

 

[deleted961749]

Compared to who / what standard?

Are you ignoring my posts?

 

[eigen]

Are you ignoring my posts?

Given that you have your profile set to private so I can't easily look back and find what posts, specifically, have been yours.... No, I'm not.

But also, you aren't the person I was responding to, and based on my recollection of the last 9 pages you haven't discussed how White applicants are disadvantaged at all.

 

[deleted961749]

Given that you have your profile set to private so I can't easily look back and find what posts, specifically, have been yours.... No, I'm not.

But also, you aren't the person I was responding to, and based on my recollection of the last 9 pages you haven't discussed how White applicants are disadvantaged at all.

Ah, my apologies. I forgot I had that set. Should be visible now. And, yes, I have not personally discussed White applicants specifically. Being Asian American myself, you can hardly blame me for being more interested in our case.

 

[eigen]

we posted at the same time. i think this article proves my point more honestly. the black population increased while not really increasing in representation in medicine over last 100y

Are we reading the same data?

In 1960, just over 2% of physicians were Black, with almost no Black women as physicians. As of 2018, over 5% of physicians were Black, with close to half of those being women.

In what world is a more than 2x increase "not really changing"?

 

[eigen]

Ah, my apologies. I forgot I had that set. Should be visible now. And, yes, I have not personally discussed White applicants specifically. Being Asian American myself, you can hardly blame me for being more interested in our case.

Then why are you asking me if I have read your posts when I'm replying to someone who is centering White applicants as disadvantaged if it's not something you've discussed in past posts?

 

[Goro]

It's almost like there are significant diminishing returns on MCAT scores after 50th percentile or something.

You keep focusing on a test that is one relatively small factor in what makes someone an attractive candidate and a good physician.

That's occurring because to some people, their stats are a measure of their self worth and a measure of their humanity.

The rest of us will keep trying to tell them that's not the case, to little avail, it seems.

BTW, if you have a 500+ MCAT and a 3.3+ GPA, You can handle med school.

 

[deleted961749]

Then why are you asking me if I have read your posts when I'm replying to someone who is centering White applicants as disadvantaged if it's not something you've discussed in past posts?

They said Asians and Whites. I am referring only to the former. Do you mean to say that discrimination against Asians is acceptable for the greater good? If so, I kinda agree for the reasons I mentioned in an earlier post. I just wanted to hear it from your mouth. I think more people should be aware that this is a real negative consequence of race-conscious admissions.

 

[eigen]

They said Asians and Whites. I am referring only to the former.

"Are you ignoring my posts?" seems pretty aggressive when I (a) wasn't engaging with you, and (b) asked a question about things you haven't posted on.

Something along the lines of "I can't speak to White applicants, but I've made extensive comments on how Asian applicants are disadvantaged" would be considerably less antagonistic, especially since it doesn't start with an accusation of ill intent on my part.

 

[eigen]

this world?? this is your study bro: “These findings demonstrate how slow progress has been, and how far and fast we have to go, if we care about the diversity of the physician workforce and the health benefits such diversity brings to patients, particularly minority patients,”

Got it.

So if a drug doubles a patients chance at survivial, it's not worth using.

 

[deleted961749]

"Are you ignoring my posts?" seems pretty aggressive when I (a) wasn't engaging with you, and (b) asked a question about things you haven't posted on.

Something along the lines of "I can't speak to White applicants, but I've made extensive comments on how Asian applicants are disadvantaged" would be considerably less antagonistic, especially since it doesn't start with an accusation of ill intent on my part.

Sorry for that. I recognize now that my word choice was very poor. I was caught up in the fact that you did not respond to my post regarding the merits of the MCAT and grades and seemed intent on ignoring the Asian American perspective in all this. This article I posted a good ways back encapsulates a large part of my feelings on the matter.

 

[eigen]

once again. this is the study you posted. “Proportion of Black physicians in U.S. has changed little in 120 years, UCLA research finds”
clearly AA works

So you're quoting the title of the study, but not reading and interpreting the data the study provides. One is subjective (an authors interpretation, which in this case I disagree with for the reasons I've laid out). The other is objective.

So let me ask you again: Is a 2.5x increase a meaningful or negligible change?

 

[eigen]

Sorry for that. I recognize now that my word choice was very poor. I was caught up in the fact that you did not respond to my post regarding the merits of the MCAT and grades and seemed intent on ignoring the Asian American perspective in all this. This article I posted a good ways back encapsulates a large part of my feelings on the matter.

Thanks for highlighting that article.

I haven't responded to your post on MCAT scores predictive abilities because I need time to source the relevant articles from AMCAS that go beyond the two (minimal) plots presented in your link (clerkship scores / STEP 2 scores), and that probably won't be until I'm back in my office next week where I have them. There's tons of guidance (and literature) on diminishing returns, and some of it is even discussed in the data you linked.

 

[deleted1156722]

If you read upthread, these numbers have already been discussed multiple times and the only source for 75% is either a misreading of the survey data, or only considering people who identify as Republican.

But if you have another source in addition to the ones provided that shows differently, I'm sure we would all be interested to see it.

Below is the data with breakdown of numbers to the question being “% of Americans say each of the following should be a factor in college admissions”:
I think this is where the 75% number many of us are quoting here is coming from -with regards to use of race as a factor in admissions.

 

[chssoccer7]

i disagree with the idea that respectfully. i know you have more experience and authority to say that though. but in my eyes/experience gpa and mcat are reflective of conscientiousness resilience sacrifice drive motivation etc (yes i know it’s not completely level with income differences

I am incredibly interested to hear exactly where/what your experience is.

 

[docdoc912]

AA doesn’t even work + it’s a racist way to do it. id love it if there were more urm in medicine. nowhere did i express any feelings to this?

also just disregard my other reasoning too i guess

What reasoning? That you think people are being anti Asian because they want the physician workforce to be diverse? This isn’t racism there is no ill intent from admission committees looking for diversity, that’s really sad that people think that.

 

[eigen]

2% change over 100 years not adjusted to the population increase is not significant. that’s what the article was pointing out. the status quo isn’t working

You keep dodging the question I'm asking.

Even adjusting to the population it's a significant proportional increase, as the percentage of Black folks has only changed slightly over that time.

But sure, lets normalize it:

In 1940, there were 0.1% Black women and 2.7% Black men as physicians (2.8% total) with a Black population of 9.7%. That's a ratio of 0.28 for physicians to population.

In 2018, there were 2.8% Black women and 2.6% Black men as physicians with a Black population at 12.8% of the total. That's a ratio of 0.42 for physicians to population.

So accounting for population increase, there was a 50% increase in the number of black physicians relative to their proportion of the population.

 

[chssoccer7]

i admitted i don’t have authority or experience that goro had like to hear where you disagree though.

Then, again, where/what is your experience? A 20 year old who has done little other than go to college (if this is you, I don't know which is why i've asked twice) does not have the necessary life experiences to conclude anything about people from someone's GPA or MCAT (in my opinion). I am a significantly older non-trad student and have seen both very high MCAT/GPAs from both incredibly driven students and also from students who have little to no dedication, resilience, hard work, and whatever else you said. The opposite is also true, i've seen low GPA/MCAT students who would've died before giving up and also ones who had no business being anywhere near the field of medicine.

 

[Goro]

i admitted i don’t have authority or experience that goro had like to hear where you disagree though.

10+ years on SDN have taught me that when you ask people who are ant-AA what is the criteria we should admit people to med school, their answers are uniformly "Gpa+MCAT."?

 

[eigen]

this isn’t bc of AA it’s bc of the push of women into medicine during that time. notice how black men went down?

You.... realize that AA also covers gender disparities, right?

::edit for source:: From the 1965 Executive Order, bolding mine:

"take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin."

 

[eigen]

talking about “race-based admissions”. they don’t work.

You've mostly been non-specific and said "Affirmative Action", not a specific flavor of affirmative action. If you would like to be more precise in exactly what you're talking about, that's always a good thing.

 

[deleted961749]

Thanks for highlighting that article.

I haven't responded to your post on MCAT scores predictive abilities because I need time to source the relevant articles from AMCAS that go beyond the two (minimal) plots presented in your link (clerkship scores / STEP 2 scores), and that probably won't be until I'm back in my office next week where I have them. There's tons of guidance (and literature) on diminishing returns, and some of it is even discussed in the data you linked.

I'd be very interested in seeing that data. I can't find any mention of diminishing returns in the article I linked. They do discuss variability, but that is to be expected from any predictive tool. Additionally, they mention that students admitted with lower MCATs and GPAs still achieve significant milestones like graduating within 5 years and passing Steps 1/2 at relatively high rates. However, they note that these milestones are not very granular. If we want to get information on which students performed the best in medical school (do we agree that high-performing med students are more likely to become high-performing physicians?), we need to look at more granular measures like clerkship and licensing exam scores, where the linear relationship with MCAT score is very strong as noted.

 

[deleted961749]

this isn’t bc of AA it’s bc of the push of women into medicine during that time. notice how black men went down?

Wow, thanks for bringing this up. I was always working under the assumption that race-conscious admissions were at least succeeding at their intended purpose. If not, have we just been unfairly punishing certain racial groups in the name of some nebulous societal gain that has never truly materialized?

Edit: I'm dumb and misinterpreted the statistics here. Sorry for the confusion!

 

[eigen]

on which students performed the best in medical school (do we agree that high-performing med students are more likely to become high-performing physicians?

I would disagree with this statement, personally.

But I'm also curious as to what you consider a "high performing physician". When I think of what makes a physician effective, content knowledge and applications (which are most of what is covered under the MCAT and grades) are a small part of it.

As a starting point, I think this article is great: MCAT scores and medical school success: Do they correlate?

Scoring highly on the Medical College Admissions Test (MCAT)—one of the primary measurements used in consideration of medical student admission by medical schools—doesn’t mean you’ll become a great, or even a good, doctor. But historically it has portended success on the licensing exams—the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 and Step 2 exams—that one takes as a medical student.

The major diminishing return (best of my recollection) is with respect to success (i.e., proportion of students who successfully complete medical school) where by an "average" score, the correlation drops off.

This article (Does the MCAT Predict Medical School and PGY-1 Performance?) from 2015 suggests that MCAT mostly correlates with other standardized exams (i.e., STEP) but that there was less correlation with other measures of post-graduation success (bolding mine).

All permutations of MCAT scores (first, last, highest, average) were weakly associated with GPA, Step 2 clinical knowledge scores, and Step 3 scores. MCAT scores were weakly to moderately associated with Step 1 scores. MCAT scores were not significantly associated with Step 2 clinical skills Integrated Clinical Encounter and Communication and Interpersonal Skills subscores, Objective Structured Clinical Examination performance or PGY-1 PD evaluations.

Personally, I'd consider the bolded measures of success more impactful in determining efficacy as a physician, personally.

IME, MCAT is predictive of a students ability to get through didactic coursework, and also showcases skills in taking standardized exams. IIRC (I don't have a source for this at the moment) MCAT scores correlate well with ACT/SAT scores. It makes sense that people who do well on standardized tests will.... do well on standardized tests. But once you've passed the bar of "getting through your coursework", measures of how well you do in coursework are less correlated to what makes someone a good physician.

 

[darkamgine]

How does AA rectify the past mistakes when immigrants take up those seats?

Asian Americans make up a third because of their merit, medical schools didn’t give those seats just because they were Asian Americans. The schools did and still do everything possible to keep that number as low as possible. There was no special AA meant for Asian Americans . All other groups are also welcome to raise their game and take up even 80% of the seats. When all the students are in the same college and same classrooms , what exactly prevents black and Hispanic to raise their game? Why not address it? Why no one talks about it? There is a difference of 9 points between Asian Americans and Black and 8 points between Asian Americans and Hispanic on the average matriculants MCAT score . Why can’t we spend our energy in figuring out how to bridge that gap? There is no conversation at all.

We had AA for more than 50 years, right? What did we do to bridge that gap during those 50 years? I am asking the politicians (liberals), universities, schools and most importantly the black and Hispanic families. If the families and the students don’t take up the responsibility, nothing will change. I apologize to be so blunt, because I am frustrated that nobody talks about it and everyone in America seem to think college admissions are some kind of a conspiracy against blacks and Hispanic. You can’t sleep for 21 years when others running and expect to have the same probability of winning the race. You can’t and it is unfair.

About 2 weeks ago, one wonderful black girl had posted a WAMC thread. She came to America from an African country as a teenager and a refuge. She went to community college. She had no home and no family support. She no other connections in the country. Her GPA was kind of low because of some valid reason (3.4 I think) but her MCAT was 523. She had 1000s of research hours and clinical hours and shadowing hours. She had a perfect resume that anyone would envy. I have no clue how she achieved it, I salute her.

If a refuge with so much hardship and without any support. can accomplish so much, what prevents American black and Hispanic to match her? At least make an attempt to match her? We don’t even want to discuss about it. Honestly my belief is that the Affirmative Action was the one preventing the blacks and Hispanic from raising their game. Justice Thomas said the same thing. This black girl didn’t look at average mcat and gpa of black matriculants , she just gave everything that she had got. With the Supreme Court decision, I believe that american blacks and Hispanic will raise up and match Asian Americans and white if the liberal politicians (especially our President) keep their mouths shut and the college admissions committees enforce the decision honestly instead of figuring out surreptitious ways to circumvent it. Then, we can move on as a nation.

I have already seen a few URM applicants asking for suggestions on how to improve their MCAT score and overall app after the Supreme Court decision. Others can/will follow them. We just have to be patient.

I apologize I didn’t mean any offense,

While I mostly agree that there was anti-asian discrimination, which was the reason for the trial and hopefully will decrease, I think the point about why other URM can't do the same is unpersuasive or even a bit naive.

Although the civil rights movement occurred 50 years ago, some things have not changed as much as we would hope. Chronic poverty is a huge barrier for medical school because undergraduate+medical school+residency is over 10 years of no net wealth. If someone's family is struggling, not many will decide to just leave them for their own education.

Culturally, there is definitely not the same pressure to pursue higher education in these URM. If generations and generations of your parents and your relatives do not go into certain fields, it would definitely affect you. For most Asians, it would be like trying to do competitive sports for a living which is often discouraged by parents and considered strange by others. These cultural and stereotype barriers still affect many current URMs.

I applaud anyone who overcomes such difficulties and enters medical school. I am personally friends with some who overcame such hurdles as URM who are doing very well in medical school. If their MCAT/GPA wasn't as high as mine, I still think they earned their spot as much as I do. I had my own difficulties and they have theirs. Yet I feel I would be ignorant to say URMs as a whole do not face more difficulties even today as a whole than white/asians from a SES, cultural, and historical perspective. As such, if bonus points are awarded because someone came from an URM community or even represents the URM community, I would have no issues as long as no points are deducted because someone is Asian.

 

[Goro]

adversity + LOR should be up there too

That's not what they say

 

[deleted961749]

I would disagree with this statement, personally.

But I'm also curious as to what you consider a "high performing physician". When I think of what makes a physician effective, content knowledge and applications (which are most of what is covered under the MCAT and grades) are a small part of it.

As a starting point, I think this article is great: MCAT scores and medical school success: Do they correlate?

The major diminishing return (best of my recollection) is with respect to success (i.e., proportion of students who successfully complete medical school) where by an "average" score, the correlation drops off.

This article (Does the MCAT Predict Medical School and PGY-1 Performance?) from 2015 suggests that MCAT mostly correlates with other standardized exams (i.e., STEP) but that there was less correlation with other measures of post-graduation success (bolding mine).

Personally, I'd consider the bolded measures of success more impactful in determining efficacy as a physician, personally.

IME, MCAT is predictive of a students ability to get through didactic coursework, and also showcases skills in taking standardized exams. IIRC (I don't have a source for this at the moment) MCAT scores correlate well with ACT/SAT scores. It makes sense that people who do well on standardized tests will.... do well on standardized tests. But once you've passed the bar of "getting through your coursework", measures of how well you do in coursework are less correlated to what makes someone a good physician.

Interesting. I'll give you that higher MCAT --> higher STEP scores is just kicking the can further down the road in terms of how much scores matter. However, I am more convinced by the fact that clerkship performance was included among the validity measures that MCAT performance was strongly correlated with. What better measure of a student's capabilities as a physician could there be than the evaluations of actual physicians?

The research article you linked from 2015 is analyzing data from the old MCAT. I'm sure the lack of validity (you can compare the correlations with STEP 1/2 from that paper with the ones in my article for the new MCAT; the difference is shocking) was a big part of the reason why AAMC decided to revamp the entire exam and invest so much time and energy into conducting their validity research.

 

[SpicyHotSauce]

adversity + LOR should be up there too
for the record i’m not anti diversity

I wouldn't say LORs are reliable considering the amount of posts I see here that students are writing their own LORs which is signed off by their 'writers'.

 

[john7991]

Poll finds the public doesn't favor affirmative action

Pew poll of American adults finds 74 percent think race and ethnicity should not be considered in admissions decisions. For gender, 82 percent think it shouldn’t be considered.

www.insidehighered.com

i realize some polls contradict tho

I don’t think this is a good source for what we’re discussing.

I read the Pew paper that the article you sent us cited and it only says that:

“By comparison, nearly three-quarters of Americans or more say gender, race or ethnicity, or whether a relative attended the school should not factor into admissions decisions.”

The article shows what was exactly asked. What was asked is this:

“Do you think each of the following should be a major factor, minor factor, or not a factor in college admissions?”

For the race section, the answers are:

“Major factor, minor factor, not a factor, no answer”

Really?

Nowhere in the article does it specify whether or not AA was brought up. If you ask it the way they asked, of course Hispanics and blacks are going to say no (because of the immediate thought/fear that there are racist adcoms who would prevent Hispanics/blacks from attending), as well as more Asians and whites, but if you mention AA and how we’re trying to improve things, that 74% will drop.

A screenshot of what they asked is shown below:

Correct me if I’m wrong, maybe they did mention AA, but if not, I find it hard to believe that people think this is valid.

 

[darkamgine]

exactly. the argument for AA should end right here- it doesn’t even work

I wouldn't agree with that statement based on the article. The articles shows that African-American physicians increased from 2.8 percent to 5.4 percent.

Also, the article says it changed little, not that it didn't change. It is like if you had a fundraiser to try to donate $1000 for a charity and after your involvement, it went from $100 to $200. You can say, "fundraiser failed" or "donation amount doubled during my time". I think there was an effect but not as much as the goal.

 

[deleted961749]

I wouldn't agree with that statement based on the article. The articles shows that African-American physicians increased from 2.8 percent to 5.4 percent.

Also, the article says it changed little, not that it didn't change. It is like if you had a fundraiser to try to donate $1000 for a charity and after your involvement, it went from $100 to $200. You can say, "fundraiser failed" or "donation amount doubled during my time". I think there was an effect but not as much as the goal.

You missed the earlier discussion. We talked about how in that article, it is noted that this increase is due almost entirely to a climb in African-American women entering the field. Meanwhile, the proportion of AA men has stagnated. This was more likely than not a natural consequence of a big push for more women as a whole to enter medicine, not race-conscious admissions practices.

Edit: I'm dumb and misinterpreted the statistics here. Sorry for the confusion!

 

[darkamgine]

You missed the earlier discussion. We talked about how in that article, it is noted that this increase is due almost entirely to a climb in African-American women entering the field. Meanwhile, the proportion of AA men has stagnated. This was more likely than not a natural consequence of a big push for more women as a whole to enter medicine, not race-conscious admissions practices.

You can't say AA females didn't benefit from race based AA. If you put it in that perspective, I bet that white males proportion significantly decreased from 1960 to 2020. In that case, black men being still at 2.8% is better than white males who probably drop during the same time period.

 

[eigen]

black men % went down. the 5% is because women entered into medicine in the 50s

Is your argument that Black women are not Black?

 

[john7991]

You missed the earlier discussion. We talked about how in that article, it is noted that this increase is due almost entirely to a climb in African-American women entering the field. Meanwhile, the proportion of AA men has stagnated. This was more likely than not a natural consequence of a big push for more women as a whole to enter medicine, not race-conscious admissions practices.

Black women, black men… so what? Nobody said we need only black men in medicine. If black women are taking advantage, that’s still a good thing because they’re black.

As for why black men aren’t going for it, it’s because of culture. Many black young men think healthcare is a more feminine field, but regardless, black men will apply more. Wait and see.

We haven’t discussed Hispanic men by the way, many of which have slave ancestors. Just because it isn’t working for black men (which it is), that doesn’t mean it isn’t working at all.

 

[deleted961749]

You can't say AA females didn't benefit from race based AA. If you put it in that perspective, I bet that white males proportion significantly decreased from 1960 to 2020. In that case, black men being still at 2.8% is better than white males who probably drop during the same time period.

But can you say they did? If race-based AA was in fact doing its job of increasing the proportion of AA among med students, would you not expect both proportions to increase equally? The fact that this disparity exists suggests to me that something else underlies this increase, perhaps the push for women that I mentioned. This evidence at the very least makes me skeptical that race-based AA is doing its job.

Edit: I'm dumb and misinterpreted the statistics here. Sorry for the confusion!

 

[john7991]

the point is status quo race based admissions is a failed concept that did literally nothing to improve representation in medicine. nobody addresses this fact for some reason though i guess. it should really be step 1

But it did/does improve representation

 

[deleted961749]

But it did improve representation

That's what we're arguing. How do you know that? It could have just been a gender thing all along. The data is not particularly strong for race-conscious AA here.

Edit: I'm dumb and misinterpreted the statistics here. Sorry for the confusion!

 

[eigen]

black men % went down. and ur claiming that black women going from 0% representation to 2% was because of race based admissions (not because the actual literal history of women not being represented as a whole)

No, I'm arguing that the fact that Black physicians went from 2.8% to 5.5% is an increase due to race-based admissions.

Black women are still Black.

 

[deleted961749]

No, I'm arguing that the fact that Black physicians went from 2.8% to 5.5% is an increase due to race-based admissions.

Black women are still Black.

Can I get a source for that or is it just your hunch? Here is data showing that the proportion of female physicians rose from 28.3 to 36.3% from 2007-2019 alone (not considering that the US had already become tremendously more liberal in the preceding decades that the UCLA study includes). Why is this not a potential culprit instead of race-conscious AA?

Edit: I'm dumb and misinterpreted the statistics here. Sorry for the confusion!

 

[eigen]

Can I get a source for that or is it just your hunch? Here is data showing that the proportion of female physicians rose from 28.3 to 36.3% from 2007-2019 alone (not considering that the US had already become tremendously more liberal in the preceding decades that the UCLA study includes). Why is this not a potential culprit instead of race-conscious AA?

I provided a source and a breakdown upthread. The reasoning is a hunch.

But I'm feeling like the replies here are starting to get pretty sexist, what with the "only the number of Black men matters" approach to things.

 

[deleted961749]

I provided a source and a breakdown upthread.

I mean regarding the fact that race-based AA is responsible for said increase. I said myself multiple times that it exists but only for African-American women.

Edit: I'm dumb and misinterpreted the statistics here. Sorry for the confusion!

 

[eigen]

I mean regarding the fact that race-based AA is responsible for said increase. I said myself multiple times that it exists but only for African-American women.

Why are you separating by genders only for African Americans, and not other races?