What to think of a school that only reserves 40% of its interview slots for females?

[evescadeceus]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Just got what sounds like a blowoff email from a school I was hoping to at least interview at today. It kind of upset me because I have the GPA, and my MCAT is .5 pt below their average, according to their 2003 Class Profile demographic sheet.

I took a better look at that data sheet, and noticed that their entering class was 62% male and 39% female. They granted 437 interviews last year, but only 175 went to females (40%). Of that number, 59 females matriculated.

262 interview slots went to males, and of that number, 97 males matriculated. So there's no discrepancy between admitted ratios and interviews, but it seems pretty clear that the interview ratio is nowhere near equitable.

I think I saw on SDN that 2003 was the first year that women were admitted to med school equally with men. In my limited premed experience to date, women are earning the same gpa and test scores as men. So should this sort of thing leave a justifably bitter taste in my mouth, or am I just resentful because I most likely didn't get an interview?

I'll get over it. There are other schools. But I would be especially interested to hear what other female applicants have to say. What do you think about schools who appear to be going out of their way to interview fewer female applicants?

 

[Whisker Barrel Cortex]

Do you have stats on how many females applied to that school as compared to male? Odds are that it is pretty similar to the ratio interviewed.

 

[evescadeceus]

Point taken. Applicants looks slightly higher than interviews, but the numbers are roughly the same.

 

[sickofit]

Three blondes were stranded on a small island. As they were walking down the beach, they found a lamp. On the side it said, "Rub here for three wishes."

As it was getting dark, and there was little in the way of shelter, they decided to rub the lamp, and out popped a Genie: "I will give each of you one wish."

The first blonde wishes to become a brunette. She then swims across the lake.

The second blonde wishes to become a red head. She gets in a boat and rows across the lake.

The third blonde wishes to be a man. He walked across the bridge.

 

[premyo2002]

sick, prepare to get flamed.

 

[DrQuinn]

Also remember that people interview differently, and people choose their schools differnetly. When we interview for residencies, sex isn't an issue, but a lot of times the female applicants can come across as extremely aggressive and cold (many that I saw on the interview trail). Maybe they have a chip on their shoulder, I dunno, but regardless, in Emergency medicine we want people who are fun to work with, not people who are alwasy grumpy. Also, perhaps all the female applicants decided to matriculate to the Univ of FL because of the weather, instead of your school? Not everything is prejudiced...

Q, DO

 

[Paws]

To the OP, I affirm your impressions and agree that some schjools are still back in the stone age when it comes to women and medicine. People seem to think: women are equal in medicine today, and well, maybe just now they are but it is a very recent thing.

Also, conservative pockets of the country will still bow to the men and limit the women they let in, definitely. I have applied to a local Univ. which is very conservative and has a 36% rate for women (!). No names, please. Since I am a woman, I am applying sort of as an experiment. I find it rediculous that the best schools are 50/50 but that some lower tiered schools are way out of wack. I doubt I'll even get an interview but it should be an interesting experience.

Women have come a long way, but there's still a ways to go. In the end, while it might have been nice to go there and make a difference, it's probably not the place for you if that's how they think of women in their programs - and society.

 

[klinzou]

I don't think there should be any kind of reserved percentage for anyone. The best applicants shoould qualify, wether its 90% men or 10% men.

 

[premed2]

Originally posted by sickofit
Three blondes were stranded on a small island. As they were walking down the beach, they found a lamp. On the side it said, "Rub here for three wishes."

As it was getting dark, and there was little in the way of shelter, they decided to rub the lamp, and out popped a Genie: "I will give each of you one wish."

The first blonde wishes to become a brunette. She then swims across the lake.

The second blonde wishes to become a red head. She gets in a boat and rows across the lake.

The third blonde wishes to be a man. He walked across the bridge.

too funny...im not sayin it's right, but its funny....and yeah, prepare to get killed by the ladies on this site....but again:

 

[....]

Sorry to have to be the bad guy but....

Girls just dont score as well as boys do...not by a long shot....

23.8 was the average female score on the 2001 MCAT
26.9 for the boys.


Big difference, and you can see it in the interview percents....

I would actually go as far as to say...the interview and acceptance %s being as high as they are, is evidence of.....somthing

Dont yell at me.

http://www.aamc.org/students/mcat/examineedata/sumapr01.pdf

 

[bigbaubdi]

The gap in MCAT scores has narrowed - For the April/August MCATs, men had an average of 25.1 and women had an average of 23.3.

Plus I would say that women have a more difficult path to medicine than men - traditionally women have been told that the only health profession that they can get involved in is nursing. As a general rule, I think that men get more encouragement than women from society.

 

[....]

Then why are there just as many applying?

Women do NOT have it hard..i mean there are some that choose a differnt life.....like being a housewife... .possibly because it is one of their choices.....but most women work real jobs...and the are encouraged to do so by everything on tv (too much so in my opinion) Will and grace, sex in the city...ect ect ect...all about women proffesionals and the liberation being self sufficent gives them. the media or many people on the streets wouldnt DARE say to a pre med girl....you should just get married and knocked up.

Women do worse on all stardardized tests in relation to men. SAT IQ all of em. Now im not saying that that means they are less intelegent, Men are better at spacial stuff and women are better with language....who decided how many of each question were on the IQ tests? probably men.

But from an admissions standpoint....they must be cuting girls a little slack

 

[bigbaubdi]

Blacks do worse on SATs, IQ, MCAT than white and Asian Americans. Does this mean that whites and Asians are intrinsically smarter than blacks? Definitely not - it means that blacks have substantially fewer educational opportunities than white or Asian americans.

Aside from the Simpsons and some sporting events, I don't watch much television so I can't comment on the portrayal of women in television sitcoms. But I do know that women get paid less than men for the same work and that medicine is not the only science which has traditionally had problems recruiting female students. Medicine has gotten a lot better in terms of gender equality however there are still barriers which have to be confronted at the K-12 level which prevent women and minorities from advancing in society.

 

[stomper627]

alright for us there seems to be far more men than women....right? But have any of you looked at the numbers in college, high school, and junior high? Colleges are becoming increasingly female loaded, High school AP classes are dominated by girls, and junior high honors classes are dominated by girls by nearly a 3:1 ratio.
Perhaps this is the fact that we have been told lies about girls not being as smart as boys....in fact, we gear our education system to girls. Sit still, listen, pay attention, do not touch. It has been proven time and time again that boys LEARN better by doing. But we still insist on telling them they have to behave like a girl. The boys we just drug up and call them ADHD.
I love the liberal media and NOW....spreading lies, lies and more lies...about how tough women have it. All Crap!
stomper

 

[wholehealth]

I have to agree with stomper, I think we women have it pretty good. It is unfortunate that the numbers are still there, but think of how things were even twenty years ago. Girls, we are so blessed to be applying to medical school in these days...we've come a long way. We should be thanking our lucky stars...now the blonde joke, c'mon now that deserves a little bit of bitching...

I was shadowing a doctor the other day who asked me what I wanted to specialize in, and because of a keen interest in physical medicine(thus a D.O. applicant), that I was interested in ortho, but heard that do's don't normally get that residency...well, he pretty much said that I was crazy for saying that because he knew plenty, but went on to say that I would be playing the "do vs. md" game less than the woman vs. man game in that field. I would have to put up with a lot of egos...probably like the one with the less than tasteful blonde joke...,

Anyway, he did go on to say that as a woman I would probably do very well in that field if I went there. My point, things are changing, slowly, but they are changing....when you get discouraged, just remember how far we have come

 

[....]

"Blacks do worse on SATs, IQ, MCAT than white and Asian Americans. Does this mean that whites and Asians are intrinsically smarter than blacks? Definitely not - it means that blacks have substantially fewer educational opportunities than white or Asian americans.

Aside from the Simpsons and some sporting events, I don't watch much television so I can't comment on the portrayal of women in television sitcoms. But I do know that women get paid less than men for the same work and that medicine is not the only science which has traditionally had problems recruiting female students. Medicine has gotten a lot better in terms of gender equality however there are still barriers which have to be confronted at the K-12 level which prevent women and minorities from advancing in society"".

For someone with interviews at as many top schools as you do, you certianly like to jump to conclusions. I mean your CERTIAN that whites are not smarter than blacks. Your certian that Asians are not smarter than whites? I would like to think that that wasnt the case but....think about it. Black people are black, white peope are white, asian people have differents eyes.....clearly our populations have had time to evolve differenty.....so to think that we as races would just by chance wind up different in all of these other geneticaly controled ways but somehow the same in the geneticaly determined aspects of intelegence would a be an unlikelyhood that borders on impossibility. so to be CERTAIN of anything in this regard is just silly.
Now what i have said does not point which race is smarter than which others, intrisicaly at least. If you mean intelegence as defined by test scores, the answer is looking at you. If you mean INTRISIC intelegnce, correcting for poor education, parental socail pressures and such....well i have no idea...it sure wouldnt be easy to test it.

But my pride is a pride in myself, not my race. Im white...and if it turns out that the average asian is smarter than the averge white guy...fine....i dont care THAT much. I am still smarter than the people i am smarter than, and dumber than the rest, REGARDLESS of whether the average peson of my race is dumber than the average person of yours.

 

[lyragrl]

Originally posted by hightrump
Then why are there just as many applying?

Women do NOT have it hard..i mean there are some that choose a differnt life.....like being a housewife... .possibly because it is one of their choices.....but most women work real jobs..

Since when is being a housewife not a "real job?" Just b/c you aren't paid for it doesn't mean it isn't work.

 

[....]

Being a house wife is a real job?

Being a house wife is NOT a real job. It is a luxury that many today cannot afford.

Now i will say that a mother who has 2 kids not old enough to go to school has it MUCH rougher that most any mans job. (surgery residents excluded)

But honestly how long does that last? kids go to school at 5 years old. unless your building a dynasty your only talking about a a few years of that. And after that, yes, its easier than having to work...if for no other reason than the family who has a mom and dad working STILL have to make time to do all of the shopping and laundry and on and on, that the housewife does....but they of course, work regular/real/paying jobs too.

I dont fault women for this. They should be able to not have to work for money. They should be able to spend time bringing up their kids. Belive me....if i had all the money i needed, there is no way i would choose to work over being with my kids...but its a luxury i wont have....quit compaining.

I think married women have it easy in that respect. What is NOT easy, and the reason im glad i am a guy..is that to be a housewife puts control into someone elses hands...its hard to leave a man after you have sacrificed your prime earning years to raisng children. It takes alot of nerve to deal with that feeling of being dependant, and the fear that it will not last. My mother was divorced by my dad when I was 4 and my sister was 2. That sucks...and its a fear of that sort of thing happening that i think is what women have to deal with that is difficult....not doing laundry and shopping.

 

[lyragrl]

I just think that family obligations are often very complicated and people who don't work outside the home still often have a lot of responsibilities. My mother, for example, cares for my grandmother (who has Alzheimers), handles every single aspect of my family's household, from fixing things to paying bills to caring for various other elderly relatives. (My father is a doc who is in surgery or at the office most days so he can't do anything else.)

It is a benefit if you can live off one income, but some families are forced to make the choice to live off one income b/c good, low-cost daycare (or eldercare) is hard to find. People who work at home often work very, very hard. Trust me, it isn't always a luxury.

 

[omores]

Originally posted by evescadeceus
I'll get over it. There are other schools. But I would be especially interested to hear what other female applicants have to say. What do you think about schools who appear to be going out of their way to interview fewer female applicants?

Personally, I'd want to see if this happens year after year at this school, or whether last year was an aberration. There was a similar 60/40 M/F year at my school a few years back; the administration said they hadn't intended that to happen. Other years have been closer to 50/50.

What you cannot say with any certainty is that the school actually reserves only 40% of its interview slots for women, or that they "appear to be going out of their way to interview fewer female applicants." The school may indeed have some bias towards male applicants -- for example, they might use a scoring system that ends up favoring men, or there might be an excess of male reviewers who subconsciously score male applicants higher. The lower interview rate may be a consequence of that rather than a deliberate attempt to limit numbers.

So to answer your question, I would not see it as a sign that the school is necessarily deliberately biased, but I would be suspiscious and want to find out more.

 

[bigbaubdi]

"the family who has a mom and dad working STILL have to make time to do all of the shopping and laundry and on and on, that the housewife does...."

Often, the woman has to do most of these jobs AND has to work as well.

"to think that we as races would just by chance wind up different in all of these other geneticaly controled ways but somehow the same in the geneticaly determined aspects of intelegence would a be an unlikelyhood that borders on impossibility."

These arguments have been advanced throughout history to demonstrate the supposed "inferiority" of some particular group. The concept of race itself is a social construction designed to justify the oppression of one group over another.

"I love the liberal media and NOW....spreading lies, lies and more lies...about how tough women have it. "

Again, women get paid less for the same work that men do. Positions of power are still overwhelmingly male dominated. Things are getting better but there is a long way to go.

 

[Tezzie]

Uhm the avg MCATs of each gender group don't say anything to me. The point is seeing WHO actually makes it in. A lot of the ppl who take the MCATs don't even bother applying.

Take a look at some of the top medical schools and the % of women marticulating.

Stanford : 55% of class are women
Harvard : 57%
UCSF : 59%


I think the numbers speak for themselves ...

 

[....]

"These arguments have been advanced throughout history to demonstrate the supposed "inferiority" of some particular group. The concept of race itself is a social construction designed to justify the oppression of one group over another"

My argument is not color specific. Nor would a differnce in intelegnce justify oppression. Do we oppress people with downs syndrome? Do we forbid people with IQ's under 100 the right to vote? No.

The argument doe not demonstrate for instance white inferiority to asians. For all we know we dont know what true intelegnce is. Its probably much bigger in scope and an IQ test. All my argument does is aknowledge that:

1) Biologiacl apptitude for intelegnce is just that...biological. genetic.

2) there are many other traits which are genetic.

3) if tow groups differ in group 2 traits, they will most likely differ in group on traits.

this is a basic argument from (dis) analogy. It is abstract however and makes no claims at to which race is the one with the most inate intelegence.

If you cant see that once you strip away your premature conclusions about what im saying, i have a rock solid argument....well........i dont know what....but it aint good.

 

[Shinken]

Two quick things:

1) Being a "stay at home" mom is a tough job. Not 9 to 5, but 24 hours, 7 days a week (kind of like an intern who's on call every day).

2) I absolutely agree with the idea of having more women in medical school, especially young and with red hair...

Now if you'll excuse me, my wife is dragging me off the keyboard.

 

[....]

"Uhm the avg MCATs of each gender group don't say anything to me. The point is seeing WHO actually makes it in. A lot of the ppl who take the MCATs don't even bother applying.

Take a look at some of the top medical schools and the % of women marticulating.

Stanford : 55% of class are women
Harvard : 57%
UCSF : 59%


I think the numbers speak for themselves ..."

I dont follow what your trying to say.
What those numbers tell me is that there are more women than men at top schools. What are you saying they mean?
Maybe there are more qualified women applying than men. and the people complaining that there are all sorts of barier to women in getting into med school can be quiet. Or there are not as many qualified women as men appying, and schools are letting people in over better qualified men just because their women. And the people who claim that there are bariers should STILL be quiet.
Thats what I see.

 

[Tezzie]

I was trying to point out that you CAN'T judge on the situation with JUST the avg scores being your basis.

There may be more qualified women applicants vs men or maybe the same or maybe less. Who knows?

The fact of the matter is though that some schools during specific years thought that there were more qualified women than men. That's what the numbers that i posted are reflecting.

 

[....]

"I was trying to point out that you CAN'T judge on the situation with JUST the avg scores being your basis."

Your right, we would need the applied and matriculated scores broken down by gender..which dont seem to be public.
"There may be more qualified women applicants vs men or maybe the same or maybe less. Who knows?"

What i do know is that men and women are accepted in nearly exact proportion to their numbers applying

49.2% women apply 51.8% men
accpeted %s
49.1% to 51.9%



"The fact of the matter is though that some schools during specific years thought that there were more qualified women than men. That's what the numbers that i posted are reflecting."

no it doesnt. it shows either that OR that med schools are favoring women as they do minorities. How do you know the difference. ALL we know is that women score worse overall, and that the ones which do apply get in at a rate equal to men. you cannot know anything more specific that than.

I dont have an axe to grind. I just do this for the principle of the thing. And im bored.

 

[bigbaubdi]

"Nor would a differnce in intelegnce justify oppression. "

Read the Bell Curve - the whole thing was about how social programs should be dismantled because black people were intellectually inferior to whites. Historically, supposed differences in intelligence and other attributes have been used to deny rights for a variety of groups including blacks, Native Americans, women, etc..

"For all we know we dont know what true intelegnce is. Its probably much bigger in scope and an IQ test. "

But we do know that whether we are black, white, chinese, hispanic, indian, we are all human beings and that the genetic differences within our own particular groups far exceed the genetic differences between our groups.

As for the statistics on top schools like UCSF, Harvard and Stanford, I would say that some med schools (especially top med schools) have made a lot of progress. The best candidates nationwide apply to places like UCSF, Harvard, Stanford, Hopkins, etc... That said, I would go back to the OP and Paws' comments - while some schools have made progress many others exhibit bias against women.

 

[....]

"""Nor would a differnce in intelegnce justify oppression. "

Read the Bell Curve - the whole thing was about how social programs should be dismantled because black people were intellectually inferior to whites. Historically, supposed differences in intelligence and other attributes have been used to deny rights for a variety of groups including blacks, Native Americans, women, etc..""""

So what? I didnt say that. i said the opposite. I have to defend not only my own veiws but some other assho1es too?


"""For all we know we dont know what true intelegnce is. Its probably much bigger in scope and an IQ test. "

But we do know that whether we are black, white, chinese, hispanic, indian, we are all human beings and that the genetic differences within our own particular groups far exceed the genetic differences between our groups.""""

In some instances yes in some no. I think that is certianly true of intelegence. What is YOUR point though?

""""As for the statistics on top schools like UCSF, Harvard and Stanford, I would say that some med schools (especially top med schools) have made a lot of progress. The best candidates nationwide apply to places like UCSF, Harvard, Stanford, Hopkins, etc... That said, I would go back to the OP and Paws' comments - while some schools have made progress many others exhibit bias against women."""

Oh so a majority of women just by defintion equals progress?
The fact the the average GPA MCAT #'s of women are lower. and the actuall # of women applying is lower too. we should just out of hand excpect the to dominate the medical school scene or we must at scream bias. That is ******ed and you simply have no evidence of bias.

 

[bigbaubdi]

"Read the Bell Curve - the whole thing was about how social programs should be dismantled because black people were intellectually inferior to whites. Historically, supposed differences in intelligence and other attributes have been used to deny rights for a variety of groups including blacks, Native Americans, women, etc..""""

So what? I didnt say that. i said the opposite. I have to defend not only my own veiws but some other assho1es too? "

However the argument that "we as races would just by chance wind up different in all of these other geneticaly controled ways but somehow the same in the geneticaly determined aspects of intelegence would a be an unlikelyhood that borders on impossibility" has been used on a variety of occasions to deny people rights.

"But we do know that whether we are black, white, chinese, hispanic, indian, we are all human beings and that the genetic differences within our own particular groups far exceed the genetic differences between our groups."

In some instances yes in some no. I think that is certianly true of intelegence. What is YOUR point though?"

My point is that the genetic differences between groups are trivial and insignificant. Hair color, skin color, are all meaningless, superficial traits. Can you think of any instances in which the genetic differences between groups are meaningful in terms of intelligence?

"The fact the the average GPA MCAT #'s of women are lower. and the actuall # of women applying is lower too. we should just out of hand excpect the to dominate the medical school scene or we must at scream bias. "

The real progress comes because med schools are willing to overlook people's stats and take a look at the hardships and struggles women and URMs have had to overcome. As for evidence of bias, what about those schools that always admit many fewer women than men that Paws and others have cited?

 

[....]

""However the argument that "we as races would just by chance wind up different in all of these other geneticaly controled ways but somehow the same in the geneticaly determined aspects of intelegence would a be an unlikelyhood that borders on impossibility" has been used on a variety of occasions to deny people rights. ""

Can you TRULY not see the difference? "We should deny people rights becasue of X" Is a normative. A claim that says what "ought" to be, what "should" be. You OUGHT to take out the trash. We ought to disriminate ect..
. My claim is merely descriptive "people no not have equal inteligence amogst race or within races" It does not say anything about oughts or shoulds. Dont put racism in my mouth.

""My point is that the genetic differences between groups are trivial and insignificant. Hair color, skin color, are all meaningless, superficial traits. Can you think of any instances in which the genetic differences between groups are meaningful in terms of intelligence?""

If you actually belive that their is not genetic componet to inteligence....well....you and I have nothing more to talk about.

"The real progress comes because med schools are willing to overlook people's stats and take a look at the hardships and struggles women and URMs have had to overcome. As for evidence of bias, what about those schools that always admit many fewer women than men that Paws and others have cited?"

Beacuse there are fewer women applying than men!

 

[Paws]

Originally posted by hightrump
[B

I dont have an axe to grind. I just do this for the principle of the thing. And im bored. [/B]

... and maybe a little immature ?

C'mon guys this is becoming one of those unwinable AA threads.

Hightrump, could you be a little more sympathetic considering what you told us about your mom being on her own with you and your sibling? I don't think we can really know what it's like for another person (color, race, gender) unless we actually walk in their shoes. And you sound completely wack when you don't bother to spell check or even write decently. On the face of it, I'd say the women won this round, even based soley on the appearance of their postings !

😉

 

[bigbaubdi]

"My claim is merely descriptive "people no not have equal inteligence amogst race or within races" It does not say anything about oughts or shoulds. Dont put racism in my mouth. "

Actually, here is the textbook definition of racism:

racism

n 1: the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races

from dictionary.com

In your above statement, you claimed that races are not equally intelligent; i.e. some races are more intelligent than others. If that isn't a belief in the racial superiority of one race over another, then I don't know what is.

"If you actually belive that their is not genetic componet to inteligence....well....you and I have nothing more to talk about."

No, I asked you about genetic differences in intelligence BETWEEN races. Of course, there is a genetic component to intelligence.

"Beacuse there are fewer women applying than men!"

Overall, there may be fewer women applying than men. However, there are many medical schools in which more than 50% of applicants are women:

http://www.aamc.org/data/facts/famg32002.htm

 

[....]

""Hightrump, could you be a little more sympathetic considering what you told us about your mom being on her own with you and your sibling? I don't think we can really know what it's like for another person (color, race, gender) unless we actually walk in their shoes. And you sound completely wack when you don't bother to spell check or even write decently. On the face of it, I'd say the women won this round, even based soley on the appearance of their postings """

And we all know that the spelling in an agrument is more important than the agrument itself. 🙄

 

[bigbaubdi]

and for whatever it's worth, I'm male

 

[....]

Racism

1: the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races" "

Superior how? Do you belive that the differnt anatomy of black athletes makes them naturaly better than whites at sports like basketball? Could you say that they are superior players?? Of course you could....But the definition of racism is talking about intrinsic worth. there is a difference.

Do you have the right to hit or otherwise harm a person with downs syndrome? heck no. beacuse even though they are metaly hadicaped their intrinsic worth is the same. They are humans. "All men are created equal" I belive that. But i dont belive all men have equal abilities, but that they have equal worth.

Id bet my left one that your an URM male though. For an asian or white to get the interviews that you did. not just harvard or hopkins or Yale...but to be batting 1000 an getting all of them you would have to have 3.8+ and 35+. And a person with those numbers would make and defend points better than you have.

 

[bigbaubdi]

""All men are created equal" I belive that. But i dont belive all men have equal abilities, but that they have equal worth."

We are talking about genetic differences between entire groups, not individuals.

"But the definition of racism is talking about intrinsic worth."

The definition of racism is refers to intrinsic superiority/inferiority not worth. If you say that some racial/ethinic GROUPS are genetically better than others at anything, then you are a racist. Period.

"Id bet my left one that your an URM male though. "

No, I am an Indian male.

 

[....]

"But the definition of racism is talking about intrinsic worth."

The definition of racism is refers to intrinsic superiority/inferiority not worth. If you say that some racial/ethinic GROUPS are genetically better than others at anything, then you are a racist. Period.

So you dont belive that ANY race is better than ANY other at ANYTHING? Thats beyond ******ed.

"Id bet my left one that your an URM male though. "

No, I am an Indian male.

An American indian male?

 

[bigbaubdi]

"So you dont belive that ANY race is better than ANY other at ANYTHING? Thats beyond ******ed. "

Uhh, no I don't believe in racial superiority in any facet of life. I suppose that is where we will agree to disagree.

I am a South Indian male (born in US but parents are from Bangalore and Chennai).

 

[....]

Ok Black men have a superior abiltiy to avoid Tay Sachs disease compared to white jews.
Have you ever seen a black child with downs synrome? cystic fibrosis? didnt think so... so with respect to their genetic ability to aviod these deseases would you not call them superior?

Explain why basketball is uterly dominated by black athletes, as are 80% of the track and feild events in the olympics. When did the last white male sprinter win a medal? ......hmmmm sisnce befoe i was born at least.

See that stuff above?? thats called evidence.
Are you going to sit at sling mud at me or are you going to actually defend these mindboggling claims your making?

 

[bigbaubdi]

"Ok Black men have a superior abiltiy to avoid Tay Sachs disease compared to white jews.
Have you ever seen a black child with downs synrome? cystic fibrosis? didnt think so... so with respect to their genetic ability to aviod these deseases would you not call them superior?

Explain why basketball is uterly dominated by black athletes, as are 80% of the track and feild events in the olympics. When did the last white male sprinter win a medal? ......hmmmm sisnce befoe i was born at least.

See that stuff above?? thats called evidence. "

I didn't say there were no genetic differences between populations - only that the variations between populations were minor.

Differences in these types of diseases are random events due to having ancestors in some particular region where some particular allele was selected for. Sickle-cell anemia for example, is commonly thought of as a black disease but in fact, the allele for sickle-cell anemia is found in a variety of populations that have been heavily exposed to malaria.

BTW, Tay Sachs is not a disease associated with only "white Jews." In fact those most heavily affected by Tay Sachs are Ashkenazi Jews not Sephardic Jews. There are also non-Jewish French Canadian populations and Cajun populations with higher incidences of Tay Sachs disease.

All of this underscores my point that race is a useless analytical category with no relevant biological significance whatsoever.

As for the athletics example, what you are really saying is that black PROFESSIONAL athletes are much better than white PROFESSIONAL athletes. These are people who make their living on sports. It is crazy to make generalizations about entire populations of people based on an extremely small subset of the population. Besides, a lot of black people will naturally turn their attention to sports when they are largely excluded from other avenues to success.

"...are you going to actually defend these mindboggling claims your making?"

Mindboggling claims? My claims are no different than those of the leading scientists:

http://www.pbs.org/race/000_General/000_00-Home.htm

Take a look at some of the background readings

 

[....]

""Differences in these types of diseases are random events due to having ancestors in some particular region where some particular allele was selected for.""

Sounds like evolution to me, where one population accumulates genetic ADVANTAGES.


BTW, Tay Sachs is not a disease associated with only "white Jews." In fact those most heavily affected by Tay Sachs are Ashkenazi Jews not Sephardic Jews. There are also non-Jewish French Canadian populations and Cajun populations with higher incidences of Tay Sachs disease.

I wasnt trying to distingish between the Ashkenazi and the Sephardic. I dont need to, to prove you wrong i just have to show that one race is better that another at SOMTHING.


""All of this underscores my point that race is a useless analytical category with no relevant biological significance whatsoever. ""

That is not true.


That website is ridiculous....it even goes out and says we need AA. It has an agenda. And it filled with double speak. "85% of genetic variaion is within races" So WHAT IS LEFT?? 15% between races, by their statistics. But then they go on to say that there is no genetic basis for race. Its self contradictory.
They say that skin color in inhereted independantly of other traits like eye shape and athletic ablity. Anyone who has taken i genetics class knows this is true. But then tries to use that to give the impression that skin color is not CORRELATED with those traits. Which is a ridiculous "correlation causation falacy. It simply shows that they are not physicaly CAUSED by skin color.

"The concept of race helped justify denying rights" SO WHAT.
The concept or God has helped justify the spilling of enough blood to fill the mississipi river. So god doesnt exist beacuse SOME people use the idea that he does exist for evil??? What the heck is their point?

Here is what is clear to me. My argument "That races have genetic differences which give them advantages in certian things, be it resistance to certian diseases or ananotmy condusive to certian sports" it is a simply and very intuitive claim. A claim that has been thought on long and hard with the benifit of an extremly though education in the relevant areas (genetics, biochemistry, evolution, philosophy).

Your argument however is NO argument. You saw a special on tv or found it on the web and took their little fact sheet and tried to turn it into a cohesive argument that you dont understand. It wont work. TV specials from an ultra liberal organizaition are not going to give you any sound arguments, not even liberal ones.

 

[....]

LEADING EXPERTS??

""We hope this series can help clear away the biological underbrush and leave starkly visible the underlying social, economic, and political conditions that disproportionately channel advantages and opportunities to white people. Perhaps then we can shift the conversation from discussing diversity and respecting cultural difference to building a more just and equitable society."""


Axperts in any feild look at their evidence objectivly and then make conclutions, this guy.....who isnt a doctor of anything.....has AA to push, objectivity be dammed.

 

[Blackstars]

The last time I check the FEMNAZIS were still running this coutnry and trying to exterminate the men.

Bring on the flame femis

 

[omores]

Originally posted by hightrump
Ok Black men have a superior abiltiy to avoid Tay Sachs disease compared to white jews.
Have you ever seen a black child with downs synrome? cystic fibrosis? didnt think so...

I get the point you're trying to make here and I don't wish to argue with that, but you're building it on a shaky foundation that I'd like to address.

Tay Sachs is caused by a recessive allele that happens to be present at a high rate in certain formerly genetically isolated populations. So if absence of that defect is evidence of superiority of genotype, then yes, you're correct.

Likewise, cystic fibrosis is a recessive allele that shows certain ethnic proclivities. Its prevalence is lower in the black population, but it certainly exists there, and plenty of black children have the condition.

Down's is generally caused by a non-dysjunction event that occurs irrespective of race. If you've never seen a black child with Down's, you haven't been looking. There are plenty of them.

Now I'll let you get back to your discussion.

Oh, and owusu-dentist: you'll have to argue a bit more aggressively if you want flaming. A single offensive sentence like the one you just posted will get an eye-roll, a sigh, and then be forgotten.

 

[....]

Bigbauidi and i have agreed to quit the convo so, im out.

 

[OrthoFixation]

solid argument hightrump. Seems like we can all be treated as one group, equally.

Some say this test is biased, or that method is unfavorable to certain groups, etc. . . . whatever. I can tell you this: set the rules of the game, apply them equally to all applicants, and I always find the way to achieve my goal.

No matter the obstacle, I will overcome. Nothing else matters.

 

[seev99]

ONLY IF THE CHICKS ARE HOT SHOULD THERE BE ANY GENDER QUOTAS, AND THEN IT SHOULD BE RAISED TO 60% INSTEAD OF 40%..

 

[Fumoffu]

Not to throw wood into the fire or anything but isn't the class composition for virtually every school over 50% female? (~52% in most cases).

 

[SarahGM]

Originally posted by wholehealth
I have to agree with stomper, I think we women have it pretty good. It is unfortunate that the numbers are still there, but think of how things were even twenty years ago. Girls, we are so blessed to be applying to medical school in these days...we've come a long way. We should be thanking our lucky stars...now the blonde joke, c'mon now that deserves a little bit of bitching...

Why should we feel "lucky" and "blessed"? Why can't we throw our collective hands up in exasperation and yell out, "FINALLY!"

Equality between the sexes is not a blessing. It is an intrinsic right. And the sooner we all get into that mentality (including some women, apparently!), the better.