the end of urm classification?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Ub3rmensch said:
What? He was wronged. That's the whole point. The fact that asians are held to a higher standard is a flaw in the system. I do not understand your logic. "I don't think the system is as flawed as everyone seems to think", please explain the pros of the system.

Just imagine we're playing soccer. Whoever scores wins. Both teams have the same players. One of the teams' net is 100 ft large, while the other teams' is 2 ft large. Of course, the team who's scoring against the team with the 100 ft net wins. Yes they win, according to the "rules". But any sane person would agree that the winning team had an UNFAIR advantage. Thus, the sport's rule should be revised to where the size of the net is equal for both teams.
Click to expand...
Something like this right.
 

Attachments

theseeker4 said:
Sure, except that cartoon is acurate for 1965.
Click to expand...
My parents were born in the 50s and you tell me only 50 years or so is need to erase racism? But I can't explain these things to you. You gotta experience them.
 
Telekinesis said:
My parents were born in the 50s and you tell me only 50 years or so is need to erase racism? But I can't explain these things to you. You gotta experience them.
Click to expand...

That's not the issue. You really think medical committees will be racist? Unless they're all from hick-town Alabama, I really do not see an issue.
 
Telekinesis said:
My parents were born in the 50s and you tell me only 50 years or so is need to erase racism? But I can't explain these things to you. You gotta experience them.
Click to expand...

Don't assume you are a member of the only group of people that is discriminated against or that other's cannot understand.
 
I could be another minority and receive the same if not worse treatment in another country.
 
Telekinesis said:
My parents were born in the 50s and you tell me only 50 years or so is need to erase racism? But I can't explain these things to you. You gotta experience them.
Click to expand...
I am saying today, advantage or disadvantage is more important by orders of magnitude than race alone. There are many black families whose children enjoy many more opportunities and advantages than large numbers of white families. Poverty, poor local schools, etc., etc., are real problems, but they are problems for poor whites, poor blacks, poor hispanics, etc.

If you honestly believe race on its own confers a significant disadvantage to an individual even if that individual has grown up in an advantaged household, well I would say you need to look around. AA is saying exactly that, that an individual who has lived a life of luxury needs a hand up because of their race, ignoring the fact that many members of the "advantaged" race have lived with many fewer advantages than that minority individual. Looking at broad statistics shows more of one race are disadvantaged than another, but why does that mean race-based AA is still needed if one can look at advantage instead of race for AA policies?
 
theseeker4 said:
I am saying today, advantage or disadvantage is more important by orders of magnitude than race alone. There are many black families whose children enjoy many more opportunities and advantages than large numbers of white families. Poverty, poor local schools, etc., etc., are real problems, but they are problems for poor whites, poor blacks, poor hispanics, etc.

If you honestly believe race on its own confers a significant disadvantage to an individual even if that individual has grown up in an advantaged household, well I would say you need to look around. AA is saying exactly that, that an individual who has lived a life of luxury needs a hand up because of their race, ignoring the fact that many members of the "advantaged" race have lived with many fewer advantages than that minority individual. Looking at broad statistics shows more of one race are disadvantaged than another, but why does that mean race-based AA is still needed if one can look at advantage instead of race for AA policies?
Click to expand...
I agree with what what you're saying. But to think that Adcoms and such are going to spend the time it would take to screen out for things like socioeconomic and such is ridiculous. People on here are worrying too much about AA when the average med student class has only like 10-15 minorities not including Asians and of those like 10-15 only like 5 are black. You say admission standards are lower but things such as Step 1 and 2 everyone has to pass to receive license to practice medicine. I also find it funny that the only ones that care about AA are pre-meds. Med students and physicians couldn't care less.
 
Last edited:
sibitrum said:
Tbh, people do complain about that, too. It's a totally different issue though. Similar to affirmative action, it undermines meritocracy. On the other hand, it allows universities to offer larger scholarships to poorer students (and affirmative action students), due to greater contributions from alums.
Click to expand...
Are you serious? a similar argument can be made for affirmative action. It allows the historically uneducated masses to reach a level that will, without doubt, lift them and their children from poverty, thus allowing them to rely less on scholarships.

The girls that sued UT did not make the cut in the 10% rule and now she argues she was better prepared😎...how so?

The worst enemy is the wide social and economic disparity. Fix that and you fix most of the system. Easier said than done though.
 
Telekinesis said:
I agree with what what you're saying. But to think that Adcoms and such are going to spend the time it would take to screen out for things like socioeconomic and such is ridiculous. People on here are worrying too much about AA when the average med student class has only like 10-15 minorities not including Asians and of those like 10-15 only like 5 are black. You say admission standards are lower but things such as Step 1 and 2 everyone has to pass to receive license to practice medicine. I also find it funny that the only ones that care about AA are pre-meds. Med students and physicians could care less.
Click to expand...
I already received my acceptance, so I have no "they're taking my spot!" axe to grind. I doubt it would be that big of a deal to screen for disadvantaged students. Lots of the necessary data is already provided to AMCAS, and a few other inputs such as home address growing up, etc. would be easy enough to provide and have a computer spit out a "rating" of the student's lifestyle growing up. It would have its flaws, but would at least be based on something that isn't a simple "are you this race? Yes/No?"
 
Let's be honest. No one on this thread would give up their seat in medical school if they received the spot to racism. No one is that principled. If whites and Asians were given an unfair advantage in medical schools admissions then you would not be complaining about how admissions should be based on merit. I know people are going to reply and say how much they care about merit and equality but in reality, you would just take the spot and run with it.
 
Narmerguy said:
Sure I'll gladly be more specific.

Blacks with similar levels of education have lower levels of income, even if we bracket them into groups (the poverty, poor, lower middle class, upper middle class, affluent). In each group, we see the disparity persist. You can think of it as similar to gender income disparities.
Click to expand...

The education part I got. The part I bolded was income disadvantages and socioeconomic strata. So I think that you were saying that within certain racial groups, there are income disadvantages across socioeconomic groups, and I'm not sure what you would mean by that, unless I'm reading the wording of the sentence wrong.
 
theseeker4 said:
I already received my acceptance, so I have no "they're taking my spot!" axe to grind. I doubt it would be that big of a deal to screen for disadvantaged students. Lots of the necessary data is already provided to AMCAS, and a few other inputs such as home address growing up, etc. would be easy enough to provide and have a computer spit out a "rating" of the student's lifestyle growing up. It would have its flaws, but would at least be based on something that isn't a simple "are you this race? Yes/No?"
Click to expand...
According to LizzyM it isn't like that. They do take things into account such as lifestyle and income.
 
theseeker4 said:
Do you mean 2.8? A 3.8 and 27 isn't THAT bad.....even with the lower MCAT.
Click to expand...

Off topic here: I actually think a low GPA plus a high MCAT is more acceptable than a low MCAT and a high GPA. The higher MCAT suggests more raw talent than the low MCAT.
 
Dartmouth2005 said:
Off topic here: I actually think a low GPA plus a high MCAT is more acceptable than a low MCAT and a high GPA. The higher MCAT suggests more raw talent than the low MCAT.
Click to expand...

i agree👍
 
Telekinesis said:
According to LizzyM it isn't like that. They do take things into account such as lifestyle and income.
Click to expand...

They may say that, but reality suggests otherwise. I have a good friend, who comes from a rich family and is unmistakably "white". When he applied he checked one of the boxes for URM, because his grandfather had some URM blood in him. He ended up getting into a couple of top 10 schools (with many interviews to the best schools in the country). He did all of that with mediocre stats and ECs.
 
sibitrum said:
They may say that, but reality suggests otherwise. I have a good friend, who comes from a rich family and is unmistakably "white". When he applied he checked one of the boxes for URM, because his grandfather had some URM blood in him. He ended up getting into a couple of top 10 schools (with many interviews to the best schools in the country). He did all of that with mediocre stats and ECs.
Click to expand...
Native?

If so, that is great evidence for why they should ask for proof of Indian blood when applying. Howard did from me. So did Iowa. And the other schools should too.
 
Ub3rmensch said:
That article basically describes me... same city, same issue. I didn't sue though... thought that would be a little extreme.
UT's system has to change. My friend, who was ~top 15%, 2300+ SAT score didn't get in. It's just ridiculous. He applied to Liberal Arts, btw. The top 10/8 % rule, and affirmative action have to stop.
Click to expand...

Top 10% rule I don't like either. So many idiots at UT because of it.
 
The Simple Solution for all of this is: GET OVER IT!!! The system will change when the powers that be decide to change it. Until then, there is absolutely nothing any of you here can do about it, therefore stop this constant debates about URM/AA. It is getting OLD.
 
2300+ SAT and couldn't get into UT? I personally know people who transferred with 30 credits and a 3.4-3.6 GPA (bad HS grades, sub-par SAT).

I agree though, top 10% rule weeds out a lot of good, talented minds.
 
If they (people complaining) want change, maybe they should emulate what Rosa Parks did. Until then, these constant arguments almost every week on SDN about URM/AA is not going to do a damn thing. There are enough of these threads on here. It is really ridiculous that people keep arguing over and over about the same damn thing every freaking week.
nmed20 said:
Where would America be today if Rosa Parks had the same mentality??

(Sorry, couldn't resist.)
Click to expand...
 
Paaakwasi said:
If they (people complaining) want change, maybe they should emulate what Rosa Parks did. Until then, these constant arguments almost every week on SDN about URM/AA is not going to do a damn thing. There are enough of these threads on here. It is really ridiculous that people keep arguing over and over about the same damn thing every freaking week.
Click to expand...
Thank you.
 
The system will change when the powers that be decide to change it. Until then, there is absolutely nothing any of you here can do about it, therefore stop this constant debates about URM/AA. It is getting OLD.
Click to expand...

Just want to point out that this is the stereotypical 'model minority' response.
 
Last edited:
I COULD CARE LESS whether you think it is a stereotypical response or not. All i am saying is that, these constant threads about URM/AA is really annoying, especially when all those complaining can't do squat about it. Like i said, if they want change, maybe they should march to capitol hill and demand it. These weekly debates are not going to accomplish anything. Exactly where did starting this thread lead? No one gained any valuable insight into the matter than they knew before.
Silo004 said:
Just want to point out that this is the stereotypical 'model minority' response.
Click to expand...
 
I don't usually comment on these posts but I keep seeing this topic as a recurring theme. This may be a long post so please bare with me.

I am a URM, African-American, black, whatever. None of these titles define me or my character. I have a 3.5 cGPA in Chemistry and I am working to get my MCAT up to standards.

I don't think it is fair for Asians to have to exceed standards and likewise I don't feel like other URMs shouldn't have to meet standards on the other end of the spectrum. What started out as a way to help one particular group who had disparities has led to positives as well as negatives. I am glad that adcoms want to give URMs an ability to be doctors just like their caucasian counterparts. To be perfectly honest, I feel some URMs are trying to take advantage of this AA policy and be lazy. When this was first enacted in the past URMs were harder-working than they may be now. I'm not saying that all URMs are lazy and not hard-working because I am extremely hard-working and will do what it takes to make it. But like that great adage, "You give them a inch, they take a mile", I believe some try to work the system. I don't know who we should blame, but I believe expecting one group to exceed standards and one group to barely meet standards is unfair. Instead, why don't adcoms set their gpa and mcat standards to 3.5 overall and a 30 MCAT. If you exceed that, GREAT! If you don't, WORK HARDER and REAPPLY! The real issue is that adcoms look at more than numbers. And even if they set the gpa/mcat to what I suggested, there will still be people who are not accepted. Plain and simple. You can't satisfy everyone. Honestly, I have met a lot of 4.0/30+ applicants who don't have any bedside manner or who could care less about the psychology of taking care of patients. Likewise, I have met a lot of 3.5 or less and 20-30 MCAT applicants who have real drive (maybe they had a lot going on while in college, who knows), dedication, great personalities, and know how to treat people. Heck, I don't want someone who is super smart and don't consider me as a patient just like I don't want someone who is incapable of applying what they learn to save my life. None of us do and I'm sure we can agree. I know some of you may say I rather have someone to save my life than treat me well, but what about if they are incapable of telling you what's wrong with you without giving you a heart attack or stroke that kills you. At both extremes that equals dead in my mind whether they know what they are doing and SUCK or don't know what they are doing and SUCK. LOL.

On the other hand, you all complain about URMs getting accepted with lower stats but isn't it true that DO schools are the answer to non-URMs getting accepted with lower stats also? I'm not trying to flame DO schools, so don't take offense. But seriously, don't DO schools allow non-URMs to get acceptances with lower stats? So not only are URMs getting passes but their counter-parts are too, so why are people so threatened by a few URMs getting acceptances.

I'm one of these people, I believe in being fair. Y'all can love or hate me for the above, but the truth is the truth and guess what? IT STILL WILL BE THE TRUTH NO MATTER HOW YOU PACKAGE IT!!! I believe everyone should be given the opportunities if they deserve it. But I can guarantee you one thing, fussing among ourselves about this issue will not change anything and it certainly won't improve the tensions and animosities that keep showing up between racial groups. If we were all the same color, we will still be arguing about how one group is getting over. It's silly.

What do you all think about that?
 
Last edited:
zwitterion34 said:
So you are advocating keeping silent even when clearly they have been wronged. This kind of mentality will never solve any problems. Complacency leads to no action.

Lets talk about how the typical white male with good stats gets pushed a side just to let a minority in (With lower stats) just to promote diversity. How do you like it when its turn the other way around? Not a problem now is it? Boom.
Click to expand...
 
Like I said, I was just pointing it out. No need to get hostile. That is not 'model minority' behavior.

That said, I think we are begging a few questions. To what extent are MCAT and GPA the best predictors for medical school success? Is an applicant with a 3.7 and 35Q less qualified than one with a 3.9 and a 40S? Or better yet how much is the latter more qualified that someone with a 3.5 and a 31P?

Maybe it's more complex than an MCAT, GPA redux. But let's assume that it is ...

Let's make admissions gender-blind, race-blind -- in fact, let's have a purely quantitative application. How would medical schools look? What effect would that have on medicine?

Jian Li's case is kind of ridiculous. A contribution to a University community astronomical GPAs and MCAT do not necessarily make. He got into great schools and seemed more interested in collecting admit letters than 'civil rights.'

FWIW, I happen to be a minority, was accepted to a very prestigious university -- partly because of affirmative action -- and declined to matriculate because I didn't want to deal with the issue. I ended up going to a less prestigious school where people look much like me.

Besides Jian Li, only whites have sued while Asian's are being discriminated in favor of blacks. This turns the whole entitlement argument on its head i.e. the whites suing feel as though blacks and latinos 'stole their spots' when there are more qualified Asians who are more likely to grin, bear the discrimination and benefit most from AA's repeal.
 
Last edited:
Ub3rmensch said:
That's not the issue. You really think medical committees will be racist? Unless they're all from hick-town Alabama, I really do not see an issue.
Click to expand...

A lot of my classmates are from here and they seem like pretty decent people.
 
Stumpyman said:
2300+ SAT and couldn't get into UT? I personally know people who transferred with 30 credits and a 3.4-3.6 GPA (bad HS grades, sub-par SAT).

I agree though, top 10% rule weeds out a lot of good, talented minds.
Click to expand...

Yup, a close friend. He, like me, got in spring semester cause we could apply as freshman since we had enough AP credits. But still, it's plain stupid.
 
YH5 said:
A lot of my classmates are from here and they seem like pretty decent people.
Click to expand...

While I was writing that, I realized someone could actually be from Alabama, and thought about revising that statement. I was just making a point :laugh:
 
sliceofbread136 said:
Top 10% rule I don't like either. So many idiots at UT because of it.
Click to expand...

These rules, I might add, are a form of affirmative action. They ensure admision to potentially inferior students who just happen to be in the top 10% of a graduating class. This means if you go to a good (re: suburban, predominantly white) school, you might be very smart and rank in "just" the top 25% of your school, whereas if you go to a crappy (re: urban, predominantly black/Hispanic) school, you might be a dolt and still be in the top 10%. Thus you give spots in college to the 10% from the crappy high school, when in fact those spots easily could have been filled by more qualified students in the good high school who just happened to be competing against a brighter student body.

Oh, and let me add that "class ranking" is total bull*hit. At my high school unweighted GPA was the only factor used to rank students. I took every advanced class offered, sometimes even a year or two before my classmates. The price I paid was a few Bs. I scored in the 99th percentile on the ACT. But, I was only in the top 4% of my graduating class? I wouldn't mind seeing SAT/ACT score used to determine class rank, actually.
 
dreamweaver1988 said:
These rules, I might add, are a form of affirmative action. They ensure admision to potentially inferior students who just happen to be in the top 10% of a graduating class. This means if you go to a good (re: suburban, predominantly white) school, you might be very smart and rank in "just" the top 25% of your school, whereas if you go to a crappy (re: urban, predominantly black/Hispanic) school, you might be a dolt and still be in the top 10%. Thus you give spots in college to the 10% from the crappy high school, when in fact those spots easily could have been filled by more qualified students in the good high school who just happened to be competing against a brighter student body.

Oh, and let me add that "class ranking" is total bull*hit. At my high school unweighted GPA was the only factor used to rank students. I took every advanced class offered, sometimes even a year or two before my classmates. The price I paid was a few Bs. I scored in the 99th percentile on the ACT. But, I was only in the top 4% of my graduating class? I wouldn't mind seeing SAT/ACT score used to determine class rank, actually.
Click to expand...

Just use weighted GPA to determine class rank, that's how it works in my area.
 
Ub3rmensch said:
Just use weighted GPA to determine class rank, that's how it works in my area.
Click to expand...

That would work, too. Especially since standardized tests are "written from a white point of view" and therefore are "racist."
 
dreamweaver1988 said:
These rules, I might add, are a form of affirmative action. They ensure admision to potentially inferior students who just happen to be in the top 10% of a graduating class. This means if you go to a good (re: suburban, predominantly white) school, you might be very smart and rank in "just" the top 25% of your school, whereas if you go to a crappy (re: urban, predominantly black/Hispanic) school, you might be a dolt and still be in the top 10%. Thus you give spots in college to the 10% from the crappy high school, when in fact those spots easily could have been filled by more qualified students in the good high school who just happened to be competing against a brighter student body.

Oh, and let me add that "class ranking" is total bull*hit. At my high school unweighted GPA was the only factor used to rank students. I took every advanced class offered, sometimes even a year or two before my classmates. The price I paid was a few Bs. I scored in the 99th percentile on the ACT. But, I was only in the top 4% of my graduating class? I wouldn't mind seeing SAT/ACT score used to determine class rank, actually.
Click to expand...

That is the problem. So unless you are saying that the good schools are good because white people go there and the crappy ones crappy because minorities go there, the point stands. The 10% rule tries to negate the effects of being at a bad school by providing equal opportunities to everyone, irrespective of the opportunities they might have had in high school.

And in response to the original question, what we need to change is the schools all the up to high schools. If we can provide everyone equal opportunities at the high school level, I think we might have taken a good step towards repealing AA/URM policies.
 
StoicJosher said:
That is the problem. So unless you are saying that the good schools are good because white people go there and the crappy ones crappy because minorities go there, the point stands. The 10% rule tries to negate the effects of being at a bad school by providing equal opportunities to everyone, irrespective of the opportunities they might have had in high school.

And in response to the original question, what we need to change is the schools all the up to high schools. If we can provide everyone equal opportunities at the high school level, I think we might have taken a good step towards repealing AA/URM policies.
Click to expand...

But that isn't realistic at all.
 
StoicJosher said:
That is the problem. So unless you are saying that the good schools are good because white people go there and the crappy ones crappy because minorities go there, the point stands. The 10% rule tries to negate the effects of being at a bad school by providing equal opportunities to everyone, irrespective of the opportunities they might have had in high school.

And in response to the original question, what we need to change is the schools all the up to high schools. If we can provide everyone equal opportunities at the high school level, I think we might have taken a good step towards repealing AA/URM policies.
Click to expand...

First, let me point out the obvious fact that I used a grossly oversimplified example. Crappy schools have poor white and Asian students in them, too.

Anyway, I'm not necessarily against affirmative action in the traditional sense or against the top 10% rules. I just wanted people to realize that they accomplish the same goal. Even I appreciated the Top 10% rule in my state at one time, because it got me a free dictionary and admittance to all my state schools. Then I saw the caliber of students at my college and realized any sort of guaranteed admission policy is wrong. I would rather have been judged by my ACT score.
 
Last edited:
Can't wait until white applicants get raped by the Asians and start crying for affirmative action.
 
I love this part of her petition:

"Ms. Fisher brought this challenge to the use of race in UT's undergraduate admissions process seeking monetary and injunctive relief."

Annnnnyway, I agree the process should have nothing to do with race. It is DISCRIMINTATION. No matter what way you look at it. If I had the money I would sue too! Only not for monetary relief, just a fair system for everyone. Anyone with me? Anyone?!?!? No? Have a good day 🙂
 
dreamweaver1988 said:
First, let me point out the obvious fact that I used a grossly oversimplified example. Crappy schools have poor white and Asian students in them, too.

Anyway, I'm not necessarily against affirmative action in the traditional sense or against the top 10% rules. I just wanted people to realize that they accomplish the same goal. Even I appreciated the Top 10% rule in my state at one time, because it got me a free dictionary and admittance to all my state schools. Then I saw the caliber of students at my college and realized any sort of guaranteed admission policy is wrong. I would rather have been judged by my ACT score.
Click to expand...

That isn't an ideal solution either. We have all heard the news about schools catering to "no child left behind" and teaching kids to pass the test than actually learn anything. Again - the disparity will continue. Being able to take tests well is not the bottom line. The "good" schools will just do better providing their kids with everything they need to score well on the test while the crappy schools struggle to get a computer into their classrooms. In the present system, there is no ideal solution. Any change we make needs to start at the bottom up, not vice versa.
 
StoicJosher said:
That isn't an ideal solution either. We have all heard the news about schools catering to "no child left behind" and teaching kids to pass the test than actually learn anything. Again - the disparity will continue. Being able to take tests well is not the bottom line. The "good" schools will just do better providing their kids with everything they need to score well on the test while the crappy schools struggle to get a computer into their classrooms. In the present system, there is no ideal solution. Any change we make needs to start at the bottom up, not vice versa.
Click to expand...

Truly, there is no ideal solution. However, the beauty of a standardized test is it's a standardized test. Everyone has the chance to demonstrate their knowledge, and the cards fall where they fall. I took one practice test and then took the real thing. I did not take any prep course, nor did my school focus on it, nor did any of my teachers, ever, focus on it.

I agree that we need a bottom-up approach. I think we ask far too much of schools and teachers. "Here, take these 30 kids from 30 different backgrounds, please make them smart and teach them manners. Btw we're only going to pay you $35,000 a year, some of which you'll have to use to buy supplies for your classroom." Where is the parental involvement? Where is the personal accountability?
 
Last edited:
Aeterni said:
http://www.timwise.org/2011/09/getting-what-we-deserve-wealth-race-and-entitlement-in-america/

Please scroll down to the part headed "Unearned advantage and its opposite," read it, and understand why affirmative action is necessary.

Then read

http://www.timwise.org/2010/10/affi...ifference-between-oppression-and-opportunity/

And understand why affirmative action is not reverse racism.
Click to expand...

To whom is your post addressed? I welcome affirmative action with open arms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

aprilandaflower
Course classification of design courses
Replies
1
Views
243
wysdoc
wysdoc
starbuckscortado
What counts as the end of the 2-week deadline?
Replies
6
Views
546
starbuckscortado
starbuckscortado
Wilted
  • Question Question
Classification of Coaching as an Extra Curricular Activity?
Replies
8
Views
530
Wilted
Wilted
The Deep
the end
Replies
5
Views
942
The Deep
The Deep
H
Question about physics lab pre-req and classification error.
Replies
2
Views
559
HotBoot
H
Top