http://www.bostonmagazine.com/health/blog/2015/04/06/mindy-kalings-brother-posed-as-a-black-man-to-get-into-med-school/
ya think these quotas need to be scrutinized a little more thoroughly? the short answer=YES!! what do they need to require next, a dna test? how, it exposes the sad truth of affirmative action-many african americans and other minorities do not want to be seen as getting "favors" in order to get accepted into grad programs-they want to earn it the old fashioned way. they want to be seen as getting in under the same circumstances/standards as ALL of the applicants. many people assume minorities all get breaks. so the question becomes, who do you chose for YOUR doctor/dentist, etc? one that had the standards lowered for him/her to be accepted? or the BEST of the BEST who do you want taking that 3 a.m. phone call?
While I disagree with affirmative action, I think it's dishonest to say that people who get in to med school, even by lower acceptance standards, are not competent doctors. After all, they still have to succeed/graduate once they're in.
Quote from: rocket surgeon on April 07, 2015, 06:02:06 AM
http://www.bostonmagazine.com/health/blog/2015/04/06/mindy-kalings-brother-posed-as-a-black-man-to-get-into-med-school/
ya think these quotas need to be scrutinized a little more thoroughly? the short answer=YES!! what do they need to require next, a dna test? how, it exposes the sad truth of affirmative action-many african americans and other minorities do not want to be seen as getting "favors" in order to get accepted into grad programs-they want to earn it the old fashioned way. they want to be seen as getting in under the same circumstances/standards as ALL of the applicants. many people assume minorities all get breaks. so the question becomes, who do you chose for YOUR doctor/dentist, etc? one that had the standards lowered for him/her to be accepted? or the BEST of the BEST who do you want taking that 3 a.m. phone call?
Please, please, God, don't let a black man answer the phone.
Ooooh.... a minority did something wrong. Had to be either you or Chicos to point that out to everyone.
Does your hatred for minorities ever end?
Quote from: jesmu84 on April 07, 2015, 06:45:05 AM
While I disagree with affirmative action, I think it's dishonest to say that people who get in to med school, even by lower acceptance standards, are not competent doctors. After all, they still have to succeed/graduate once they're in.
What do you call the person who finished last in his class in medical school?
DOCTOR!
Quote from: rocket surgeon on April 07, 2015, 06:02:06 AM
http://www.bostonmagazine.com/health/blog/2015/04/06/mindy-kalings-brother-posed-as-a-black-man-to-get-into-med-school/
ya think these quotas need to be scrutinized a little more thoroughly? the short answer=YES!! what do they need to require next, a dna test? how, it exposes the sad truth of affirmative action-many african americans and other minorities do not want to be seen as getting "favors" in order to get accepted into grad programs-they want to earn it the old fashioned way. they want to be seen as getting in under the same circumstances/standards as ALL of the applicants. many people assume minorities all get breaks. so the question becomes, who do you chose for YOUR doctor/dentist, etc? one that had the standards lowered for him/her to be accepted? or the BEST of the BEST who do you want taking that 3 a.m. phone call?
I'm not so sure that he thought that being black would help him as much as he thought that being Indian would hurt him. Med schools receive LOTS of applications from Indians and Americans of Indian decent. It is pretty clear that Asians applying to ivy schools are held to a higher standard (e.g., comparing their test scores to the test scores of other Asians not to the average applicant) and so maybe he thought that med schools would hold him to a higher standard because he is Indian.
Quote from: brandx on April 07, 2015, 10:18:28 AM
Please, please, God, don't let a black man answer the phone.
Ooooh.... a minority did something wrong. Had to be either you or Chicos to point that out to everyone.
Does your hatred for minorities ever end?
Ben Carson has done very well sir. When we evaluate people for jobs, placements for graduate, Law or Medical Schools on their achievements rather than what group their in we are all better off.
Quote from: brandx on April 07, 2015, 10:18:28 AM
Please, please, God, don't let a black man answer the phone.
Ooooh.... a minority did something wrong. Had to be either you or Chicos to point that out to everyone.
Does your hatred for minorities ever end?
How does the OP have anything to do with a black person answering the phone? The Chicos bash is a nice touch, however.
Quote from: Benny B on April 07, 2015, 03:29:05 PM
How does the OP have anything to do with a black person answering the phone? The Chicos bash is a nice touch, however.
Answering the phone at 3 AM? Memories of a Republican commercial from 3 years ago.
Quote from: muwarrior69 on April 07, 2015, 12:17:14 PM
Ben Carson has done very well sir. When we evaluate people for jobs, placements for graduate, Law or Medical Schools on their achievements rather than what group their in we are all better off.
I would generally agree with what you are saying.
Quote from: brandx on April 07, 2015, 10:18:28 AM
Please, please, God, don't let a black man answer the phone.
Ooooh.... a minority did something wrong. Had to be either you or Chicos to point that out to everyone.
Does your hatred for minorities ever end?
how many times do i have to tell you-i am a character guy-where do you get a "hatred for minorities" from my post? nice try-classic-trying to shut me down-heyna?
i like everybody if they are nice! PERIOD!
Quote from: jesmu84 on April 07, 2015, 06:45:05 AM
While I disagree with affirmative action, I think it's dishonest to say that people who get in to med school, even by lower acceptance standards, are not competent doctors. After all, they still have to succeed/graduate once they're in.
completely agree. my main point is not one of "hatred" as brandi continues to try to label it and my relationship to minorities. i am merely pointing out that many minorities don't like affirmative action b/c unfortunately, they fear people will see dr. before their name and people will think they got in BECAUSE they were a minority. rather, they want to be seen as earning their way in with hard work and ability-that's all.
Quote from: Benny B on April 07, 2015, 03:29:05 PM
How does the OP have anything to do with a black person answering the phone? The Chicos bash is a nice touch, however.
I was bashed by Brand? Let me guess, he played the race card.....again.
Quote from: rocket surgeon on April 07, 2015, 06:49:13 PM
how many times do i have to tell you-i am a character guy-where do you get a "hatred for minorities" from my post? nice try-classic-trying to shut me down-heyna?
i like everybody if they are nice! PERIOD!
It's his go to the well calling card. I'm in your same camp, believe in character and meritocracy. Quotas, AA, etc, is 100% bullshyte and all it does is WORSEN race relations. It's racist at its very core.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 07, 2015, 09:51:48 PM
It's his go to the well calling card. I'm in your same camp, believe in character and meritocracy. Quotas, AA, etc, is 100% bullshyte and all it does is WORSEN race relations. It's racist at its very core.
I don't think being opposed to Affirmative Action is racist (though certainly plenty of racists are), but I do have to ask .... how do we as a nation level the playing field for fellow citizens who, through decades of systematic discrimination, do not have the same opportunities for success that the rest of us have?
If not a program like Affirmative Action, then what solution do you offer?
Or do you have no solution?
Do we just not try and say "Pfft... tough luck. Not my problem"?
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 07, 2015, 09:51:48 PM
It's his go to the well calling card. I'm in your same camp, believe in character and meritocracy. Quotas, AA, etc, is 100% bullshyte and all it does is WORSEN race relations. It's racist at its very core.
Excuse me - I didn't start the thread.
And Quotas are not bullshyte. For many, many, many years Police and Fire Departments refused to hire minorities regardless of qualifications. And, of course, almost all whites were fine with that. I've certainly never heard you complain about whites having unfair advantages.
Yet they are now offended that blacks are being hired for these jobs that they they have been shut out of for most of our country's history.
Yes, Quotas suck. Hopefully, we can reach the point where they are no longer necessary. But there is a reason they are in place. Left to their own devices and without rules, whites refused to hire blacks for a long, long time.
Quote from: Pakuni on April 07, 2015, 10:06:00 PM
I don't think being opposed to Affirmative Action is racist (though certainly plenty of racists are), but I do have to ask .... how do we as a nation level the playing field for fellow citizens who, through decades of systematic discrimination, do not have the same opportunities for success that the rest of us have?
If not a program like Affirmative Action, then what solution do you offer?
Or do you have no solution?
Do we just not try and say "Pfft... tough luck. Not my problem"?
Affirmative Action is racist. Pure and simple
Here are reasons for quotas, and I firmly disagree with the sentiment that the best performing students/MCAT scores are better equipped to be a doctor.
1. Undergraduate grades do not reflect ability or intelligence. Some students (from wealthy backgrounds) pay thousands and thousands of dollars on the best tutors to help them get better grades in their courses. In these situations typically the better grades does not reflect a better mastery of the material, rather just being coached to do well on tests.
Poorer (typically minority) students do not have access to these resources. They have to teach themselves often. That leads to poorer test scores, but usually a better retention of knowledge and better preparation going forward.
2. Poorer students do not have access to a lot of the volunteer (shadowing etc) opportunities as wealthy students who can use family friends as sources of training.
3. Prepping for MCATs cost thousands of dollars. They literally teach you how to beat the MCAT. Those students that can afford top notch MCAT classes get scores that do not reflect their ability. Meanwhile, minorities and other poor students have to again work on their own, leading to lower scores and less competitive applications.
In the end, the majority of med school students are ill prepared yet 98% graduate medical school regardless of ability. That is why you see doctors prescribing antibiotics for Ebola and sending patients home. Often the minority students with worse applications (numbers) are better prepared.
Affirmative action and quotas allow this to be taken into consideration and often improve doctor quality not subtract from it.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 07, 2015, 11:36:37 PM
Affirmative Action is racist. Pure and simple
You didn't answer the question.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 07, 2015, 11:36:37 PM
Affirmative Action is racist. Pure and simple
Ha. The "racism" you see in Affirmative Action is nothing compared to institutionalized racism rampant across American society that brought about the need for a solution like AA.
Think about this for 2 minutes.
We want our doctors to be the best and brightest.....or maybe we don't.
So instead of taking the best candidates to med school, we have quotas for the best, and then quotas for the pretty good, and then quotas for the so-so. It's just fundamentally wrong in any profession, but that one without question.
It does a TREMENDOUS disservice to minorities as well. These types of stories get out there and extremely qualified, well educated, good doctors have to deal with the painting of a brush that they may not have gotten in on the merits. That is awful, but unfortunately these things come up when you have BS nonsense where standards are different.
Same goes for certain people in the military, or the fire department, or whatever. It used to be we had certain physical standards that absolutely could not be changed. Then we started to change them, so some people could pass them. As a result, you dilute some of the capabilities. Not fair to anyone.
Judge people based on their abilities, not on their gender, color of their skin, ethnicity, etc. This is paramount if we ever want to get to a society that is colorblind. Is it realistic? I don't know, but I think if you have absolute firm standards it can be. You have to get X on the MCAT, or lift pounds, etc, etc.
Quote from: Aughnanure on April 08, 2015, 11:49:45 AM
Ha. The "racism" you see in Affirmative Action is nothing compared to institutionalized racism rampant across American society that brought about the need for a solution like AA.
Awesome...let's fight racism with racist policies. That's a wonderful solution.
Quote from: Pakuni on April 08, 2015, 10:09:35 AM
You didn't answer the question.
I answered how you don't do it....with a racist policy.
Problem with your picture you paint, who decides when it is solved? When the cure is complete? Too many people invested to NEVER let that happen. Need a villan, a cause.
That's a big part of the problem because you alienate perfectly reasonable and non racist folks who can't get a certain job, or their kids not into a school because of what some other a-holes did 150 years ago...or even 5 years ago.
Yup, life isn't fair and fundamentally unfair policies to bring about fairness is toxic from the start.
You want a race free society, you need to have race free policies. If you keep going down the path of saying we need to "make good" or whatever the nonsense is, well that means you really want to use racist policies FOREVER because it will never end. As long as racist policies are beign used, it will keep racism alive and well unfortunately. It is fundamentally flawed.
(sorry, this iPad keyboard sucks...edit to fix errors)
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 08, 2015, 07:45:08 PM
I answered how you don't do it....with a racist policy.
Problem with your picture you paint, who decided when it is solved? When the cure is complete? To many people invested to NEVER let that happen. That's a big part of the problem because you alienate perfectly reasonable and non racist folks so they can't get a certain job, or their kids not into a school because of what some other pretty boys did 150 years ago...or even 5 years ago.
Yup, life isn't fair and fundamentally unfair policies to bring about fairness is toxic from the start.
You want s race Fred society, you need to have race free policies.
I find it a tad ironic that you're OK with life being unfair for many minority groups and the poor thanks to historical and systematic oppression, yet you rage on about the "unfairness" of Affirmative Action or the wealthy paying a larger share of their incomes to taxes.
Apparently when life is unfair to the poor and non white, tough luck. When life is unfair to the white and privileged, it's an outrage.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 08, 2015, 07:01:21 PM
Think about this for 2 minutes.
We want our doctors to be the best and brightest.....or maybe we don't.
So instead of taking the best candidates to med school, we have quotas for the best, and then quotas for the pretty good, and then quotas for the so-so. It's just fundamentally wrong in any profession, but that one without question.
It does a TREMENDOUS disservice to minorities as well. These types of stories get out there and extremely qualified, well educated, good doctors have to deal with the painting of a brush that they may not have gotten in on the merits. That is awful, but unfortunately these things come up when you have BS nonsense where standards are different.
Same goes for certain people in the military, or the fire department, or whatever. It used to be we had certain physical standards that absolutely could not be changed. Then we started to change them, so some people could pass them. As a result, you dilute some of the capabilities. Not fair to anyone.
Judge people based on their abilities, not on their gender, color of their skin, ethnicity, etc. This is paramount if we ever want to get to a society that is colorblind. Is it realistic? I don't know, but I think if you have absolute firm standards it can be. You have to get X on the MCAT, or lift pounds, etc, etc.
You should at least admit that higher test scores don't equate to higher professional worth/ability
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 08, 2015, 07:01:21 PM
Think about this for 2 minutes.
We want our doctors to be the best and brightest.....or maybe we don't.
So instead of taking the best candidates to med school, we have quotas for the best, and then quotas for the pretty good, and then quotas for the so-so. It's just fundamentally wrong in any profession, but that one without question.
It does a TREMENDOUS disservice to minorities as well. These types of stories get out there and extremely qualified, well educated, good doctors have to deal with the painting of a brush that they may not have gotten in on the merits. That is awful, but unfortunately these things come up when you have BS nonsense where standards are different.
Same goes for certain people in the military, or the fire department, or whatever. It used to be we had certain physical standards that absolutely could not be changed. Then we started to change them, so some people could pass them. As a result, you dilute some of the capabilities. Not fair to anyone.
Judge people based on their abilities, not on their gender, color of their skin, ethnicity, etc. This is paramount if we ever want to get to a society that is colorblind. Is it realistic? I don't know, but I think if you have absolute firm standards it can be. You have to get X on the MCAT, or lift pounds, etc, etc.
See above on my comments for why it is necessary. Also, for the reasons I listed above, the best scores/grades mean very little.
Even the applications to med school/interviews. Students pay very high rates to have people coach them on writing the perfect purpose statement etc. It is getting to the point that very little of their accomplishments are their own, but rather tutors, coaches etc. All opportunities someone from a disadvantaged background doesn't have access to.
I think this Stanford University article sums up things rather nicely.
https://alumni.stanford.edu/get/page/magazine/article/?article_id=43448
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 08, 2015, 10:21:38 PM
I think this Stanford University article sums up things rather nicely.
https://alumni.stanford.edu/get/page/magazine/article/?article_id=43448
I'm not sure what it is suppose to sum up. That occasionally this system doesn't work, and a minority student from a wealthy background gets in instead of a poor white student. Yeah, that'll happen, no system will ever be perfect to provide equal opportunity. One is best playing an average.
If Universities would be willing to replace affirmative action with a "disadvantaged action" and also make all applications blind (names and addresses), the system would be better. But they won't do that.
If you get rid of affirmative action, what you will see happen is that there will be bias against minorities, but based on name (race) and address (also somewhat race). It is already well documented to be a fact in hiring decisions.
The fact is right now, the basis for getting into universities/med school, grades/scores/service, is biased against underprivileged populations and are not a valid measure of ability, but often rather privilege.
Quote from: forgetful on April 08, 2015, 10:46:26 PM
I'm not sure what it is suppose to sum up. That occasionally this system doesn't work, and a minority student from a wealthy background gets in instead of a poor white student. Yeah, that'll happen, no system will ever be perfect to provide equal opportunity. One is best playing an average.
If Universities would be willing to replace affirmative action with a "disadvantaged action" and also make all applications blind (names and addresses), the system would be better. But they won't do that.
If you get rid of affirmative action, what you will see happen is that there will be bias against minorities, but based on name (race) and address (also somewhat race). It is already well documented to be a fact in hiring decisions.
The fact is right now, the basis for getting into universities/med school, grades/scores/service, is biased against underprivileged populations and are not a valid measure of ability, but often rather privilege.
I think the authors points were very clear. AA diminishes the accomplishments of minorities because people question if they truly deserved to be there, it also prevents qualified people from gaining admission because they are the wrong race, and it keeps the evils of racism going. Furthermore, much like "global warming" is now "climate change", AA was about reversing discrimination has become promoting diversity...which is fundamentally backward. It implies diversity only comes through race and furthermore, that all people of one race must think similarly which is why the system encourage more acceptance into colleges to promote this so called diversity. WTH! Diversity should not be sourced by the color of one's skin, and most certainly all peoples of any particular race, creed, ethnicity, etc think all alike.
No system is perfect, but if we want a color blind society as Dr. King pushed so hard for, we need to act like it.
Chief Justice Roberts stated the obvious: "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 09, 2015, 12:00:23 AM
Chief Justice Roberts stated the obvious: "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."
Racism will almost Always exist. I get that it shouldnt and it would be great if everyone made every decision without considering race, political affiliation, etc. But it also doesn't seem very realistic. How can you be open to ideas that are good but unrealistic in some cases (complete meritocracy) but not others ( unions being a good thing)?
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 09, 2015, 12:00:23 AM
Chief Justice Roberts stated the obvious: "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."
Curious on your opinion, what about non-racial based systems? Like if colleges specifically target students who are 1st generation? Are they biased towards families with parents who have college degrees? What about targeting low income kids? Colleges acting classist? Admissions points based on geography? I imagine MU still gives "admission" points, to kids that graduated from Jesuit high schools? How is that fair?
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 08, 2015, 11:15:11 PM
I think the authors points were very clear. AA diminishes the accomplishments of minorities because people question if they truly deserved to be there, it also prevents qualified people from gaining admission because they are the wrong race, and it keeps the evils of racism going. Furthermore, much like "global warming" is now "climate change", AA was about reversing discrimination has become promoting diversity...which is fundamentally backward. It implies diversity only comes through race and furthermore, that all people of one race must think similarly which is why the system encourage more acceptance into colleges to promote this so called diversity. WTH! Diversity should not be sourced by the color of one's skin, and most certainly all peoples of any particular race, creed, ethnicity, etc think all alike.
No system is perfect, but if we want a color blind society as Dr. King pushed so hard for, we need to act like it.
If you are looking at a minority and questioning whether they truly deserve to be there, that is part of the problem. That implies a built in assumption that they can't be qualified to be there. Do those people do the same when they see someone who is wealthy, that they may have gotten in based on Daddy's checkbook?
There are a million exemptions to being qualified on test scores to get into a University. It is not that merit based of a process and Affirmative action may not even be the biggest player in the issue.
And as I said in my very first post, a lot of AA is overcoming historical economic barriers. For non-minorities there is preference for first generation college students (same idea).
The selection criteria for college is more often based on pure economic issues than actual ability (see my first post), often the most apt can get left behind because of economics.
As a curious side note, do you also have a problem with accepting students/recruiting students based only on their ability to pay full book rate on tuition and fees?
Quote from: forgetful on April 09, 2015, 09:34:34 AM
If you are looking at a minority and questioning whether they truly deserve to be there, that is part of the problem. That implies a built in assumption that they can't be qualified to be there.
This. So much this.
If you see a minority in a high-ranking position or elite institution and begin thinking they're potentially less deserving of being there, the problem is you, not Affirmative Action.
Quote from: Pakuni on April 09, 2015, 11:17:57 AM
This. So much this.
If you see a minority in a high-ranking position or elite institution and begin thinking they're potentially less deserving of being there, the problem is you, not Affirmative Action.
What about asking why they're there
after you've spoken to or dealt with them? Is that any better/worse?
Quote from: jesmu84 on April 09, 2015, 06:34:20 AM
Racism will almost Always exist. I get that it shouldnt and it would be great if everyone made every decision without considering race, political affiliation, etc. But it also doesn't seem very realistic. How can you be open to ideas that are good but unrealistic in some cases (complete meritocracy) but not others ( unions being a good thing)?
I don't disagree, but that is partly what I was saying to Pakuni yesterday. Under this understanding then, AA needs to continue in perpetuity....one racist policy to help "cure" others because "it will almost always exist". Put more bluntly, we'll battle racism with racism forever. Awesome.
How are unions a good thing in today's day and age? I don't see how an entity that rewards based on tenure and not merit or skill as a good thing. A ponzi scheme type structure that protects based on seniority. I'll need more clarity to answer your question, as I don't understand your comment.
Quote from: Benny B on April 09, 2015, 03:59:32 PM
What about asking why they're there after you've spoken to or dealt with them? Is that any better/worse?
I don't understand your question.
Quote from: reinko on April 09, 2015, 08:52:38 AM
Curious on your opinion, what about non-racial based systems? Like if colleges specifically target students who are 1st generation? Are they biased towards families with parents who have college degrees? What about targeting low income kids? Colleges acting classist? Admissions points based on geography? I imagine MU still gives "admission" points, to kids that graduated from Jesuit high schools? How is that fair?
I don't support any of it. I don't find it fair one iota. I thing legacy stuff is absolute horsecrap and should be removed. It's not fair and I don't support it.
I think you should be assigned a number, the school should not know your gender, your race, where you live, what your parents did. You should be evaluated based on how you did in high school, your test scores, your extra curricular activities. You meet the requirements or you don't. Now, if you want to say 10% of your student body will be wait listed and admitted based on other criteria, I'm all ears, but to say someone should have a better chance to get in because daddy went to MU, because Julie is from Alaska and we don't have enough Alaskans, because James is African American, or because Sally's parents are on the lower status of income is something I don't support for the initial acceptance of kids trying to get into school.
Reverse racism, or quotas that deny people that meet every requirement of admission but are not accepted is equally racist \ selective based on filtering traits that people complain about in the first place. Do you have the chops or not? Do you work hard, are you a good student, etc, etc. If not, there are other options for you, but don't deny perfectly solid kids that chance........now comes the classic comeback "but those kids will have other options available to them"....or "the poor white male, he's so discriminated against". Like clockwork. Thing is, that kid if he\she is good enough to go to Michigan, or UCLA, or wherever, should not be penalized because of how they were brought into this world...and that works across all races, ethnicities, etc. Nor should they be penalized or rewarded based on how much money their family has or whether pops went to the same school.
Quote from: forgetful on April 09, 2015, 09:34:34 AM
If you are looking at a minority and questioning whether they truly deserve to be there, that is part of the problem. That implies a built in assumption that they can't be qualified to be there. Do those people do the same when they see someone who is wealthy, that they may have gotten in based on Daddy's checkbook?
There are a million exemptions to being qualified on test scores to get into a University. It is not that merit based of a process and Affirmative action may not even be the biggest player in the issue.
And as I said in my very first post, a lot of AA is overcoming historical economic barriers. For non-minorities there is preference for first generation college students (same idea).
The selection criteria for college is more often based on pure economic issues than actual ability (see my first post), often the most apt can get left behind because of economics.
As a curious side note, do you also have a problem with accepting students/recruiting students based only on their ability to pay full book rate on tuition and fees?
But that is EXACTLY what these programs have done. That is no one's fault except for those policy makers that created these policies.
Question for you....you are in a burning building and you can't move, you are hurt. You magically have the ability to pick a firefighter. Your choice is a 6'3" guy that met the physical standards of picking up your 200lb body or carrying 100lbs of gear, or the 5'1" woman that went through a different set of standards? Now, I expect the firefighters here to say "well, the 5'1" gal isn't going to go into the building anyway"....but she IS taking up a position on the force. Back in the day when 100% of the firefighters met the physical requirements is now diluted because of the requirements have changed. Is that what we want? Is that good policy or good politics? Shouldn't we as citizens know that everyone in the department passed those physical tests and\or the tests didn't have to be diluted. Isn't that fair to the taxpaying public to know what they are getting?
If I'm going to be operated on, do I want the guy that was top of his class, was a no brainer in his\her medical school? Or the person that was borderline, but there was a spot for them. So on and so forth. When I choose a doctor, I always look to see where they went to school, what their rating is, etc. That's my health. I could care less what race, gender, or ethnicity they are....can they do the job?
These very policies have put those questions into the ecosystem and they flat out should not, but they do. Those questions would not even be asked or contemplated if you knew right from the start that EVERYONE met the same requirement, but since not everyone is required to meet the same levels of requirements, it is out there. That's a shame...it's not fair to anyone.
I want to say that there was a supreme court case (brooks bollinger at michigan state law school or something) and they found that schools can only use race in admissions as a "plus factor." So if the schools have quotas, it's their own doing, not imposed by the government.
Do you think government shoud intervene and have a say in who the school accepts/rejects?
Quote from: Pakuni on April 08, 2015, 08:10:06 PM
I find it a tad ironic that you're OK with life being unfair for many minority groups and the poor thanks to historical and systematic oppression, yet you rage on about the "unfairness" of Affirmative Action or the wealthy paying a larger share of their incomes to taxes.
Apparently when life is unfair to the poor and non white, tough luck. When life is unfair to the white and privileged, it's an outrage.
apples and atom-bombs-paying a majority of the taxes and affirmative action? sorry-paying 95% of the taxes-the numbers don't lie. how long are we to lift poor people, down on their luck people, out of their "life" dilemmas? we've been doing it for generations of families-it's become their profession and where has it got them? it was meant to be a safety net. al and jesse enjoy it though=thars gold in them thar hills. but as usual, i digress
as sultan will say-STRAWMEN
as brandy will say-RACIST
nm
Quote from: Pakuni on April 09, 2015, 05:15:36 PM
I don't understand your question.
Example: If you encounter a CEO who is black and make no judgment about the person, but then once you get to know him and find that his business acumen is absolutely horrible, you consequently think that he has no business being a CEO and must be there because of AA, is that racist?
Quote from: Benny B on April 10, 2015, 12:34:34 PM
Example: If you encounter a CEO who is black and make no judgment about the person, but then once you get to know him and find that his business acumen is absolutely horrible, you consequently think that he has no business being a CEO and must be there because of AA, is that racist?
I don't think I'd make the leap that the black person in question got the job because he is black.
Plenty of white CEOs have been shown to have horrible business acumen, and I've never assumed that they landed the job because they were white.
Quote from: Pakuni on April 10, 2015, 12:51:35 PM
I don't think I'd make the leap that the black person in question got the job because he is black.
Plenty of white CEOs have been shown to have horrible business acumen, and I've never assumed that they landed the job because they were white.
So let's say the reality is that the CEO got the job because his father is the chairman of the company. Can we at least assume his father is black, or is that racist?
Quote from: Pakuni on April 08, 2015, 08:10:06 PM
I find it a tad ironic that you're OK with life being unfair for many minority groups and the poor thanks to historical and systematic oppression, yet you rage on about the "unfairness" of Affirmative Action or the wealthy paying a larger share of their incomes to taxes.
Apparently when life is unfair to the poor and non white, tough luck. When life is unfair to the white and privileged, it's an outrage.
Decide "fair". How about the person that worked their ass off to get to their lot in life vs the person that did jack crap, lazy arse that put themselves in their lot in life. Is that someone's fault? Is that "fair"?
Fair comes in a lot of shapes and forms. Unfair does as well. I'm all for fairness. Everyone should pay taxes...that's fair. We should judge people by the content of their chacters...that's fair. We should admit people to college based on merit...that's fair. Etc.
I'm all about fairness. I'm all about eliminating racism. Seems like you are FOR racist policies and for unfairness. Beautiful. Always a great solution to promote those two.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 10, 2015, 10:04:07 PM
Decide "fair". How about the person that worked their ass off to get to their lot in life vs the person that did jack crap, lazy arse that put themselves in their lot in life. Is that someone's fault? Is that "fair"?
Fair comes in a lot of shapes and forms. Unfair does as well. I'm all for fairness. Everyone should pay taxes...that's fair. We should judge people by the content of their chacters...that's fair. We should admit people to college based on merit...that's fair. Etc.
I'm all about fairness. I'm all about eliminating racism. Seems like you are FOR racist policies and for unfairness. Beautiful. Always a great solution to promote those two.
How do we judge merit for college admittance or Med school admittance?
Quote from: forgetful on April 11, 2015, 12:31:01 AM
How do we judge merit for college admittance or Med school admittance?
I would base it on established benchmarks across the board for most. MCAT scores, course load, grades in those courses, etc.
Have a separate pool of candidates that don't meet those standards for a deeper analysis, let's call it 10% or 15% of the slots. Further analysis to see if they are adequate candidates based on other criteria.
The idea today that one person can have a strong GPA, very good MCAT score and NOT get in, but someone with a weaker GPA, weaker course load, weaker MCAT is allowed to get in because of a political policy is ridiculous.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 11, 2015, 12:38:51 AM
I would base it on established benchmarks across the board for most. MCAT scores, course load, grades in those courses, etc.
Have a separate pool of candidates that don't meet those standards for a deeper analysis, let's call it 10% or 15% of the slots. Further analysis to see if they are adequate candidates based on other criteria.
The idea today that one person can have a strong GPA, very good MCAT score and NOT get in, but someone with a weaker GPA, weaker course load, weaker MCAT is allowed to get in because of a political policy is ridiculous.
And yet there is little evidence - and, in fact, some contrary evidence - that links MCAT scores to the quality of a physician.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/15/health/14chen.html
https://cdr.lib.unc.edu/indexablecontent?id=uuid:f778259e-5078-4339-9d18-47385c1d6430&ds=DATA_FILE
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 11, 2015, 12:38:51 AM
I would base it on established benchmarks across the board for most. MCAT scores, course load, grades in those courses, etc.
Have a separate pool of candidates that don't meet those standards for a deeper analysis, let's call it 10% or 15% of the slots. Further analysis to see if they are adequate candidates based on other criteria.
The idea today that one person can have a strong GPA, very good MCAT score and NOT get in, but someone with a weaker GPA, weaker course load, weaker MCAT is allowed to get in because of a political policy is ridiculous.
As Pakuni already mentions, the above criteria have very little bearing on the quality of doctor. What you are describing as the established benchmarks are more often a measure of the financial well being of the students.
As I mentioned in my first post, high MCAT scores require very expensive (thousands of dollars) prep courses that teach you how to beat the test. Similarly, wealthy students are spending $10k plus on tutors to ensure they get top grades in their courses, where again, these expensive tutors often have test info to help them beat the test. These same students buy test banks off the internet etc, to further improve their grades.
The result are individuals that on paper look great, but in some cases make terrible physicians, meanwhile, less wealthy students who actually are better prepared are not scoring as well.
I offer a former student of mine as an example. She is brilliant, I would gladly send my children to her as a physician. She couldn't afford the expensive MCAT prep courses and tried to prepare on her own, while working part time to pay bills. She didn't score well enough to get into any respected med schools. I payed for an MCAT prep course for her. She scored well enough to get in anywhere in the country.
Test scores have become a measure of wealth.
Well off middle-aged white guys trying to make themselves out to be society's victims. It would be funny if it wasn't so embarrassing. Don't you guys have anything better to do with your time?
Quote from: Pakuni on April 11, 2015, 08:53:14 AM
And yet there is little evidence - and, in fact, some contrary evidence - that links MCAT scores to the quality of a physician.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/15/health/14chen.html
https://cdr.lib.unc.edu/indexablecontent?id=uuid:f778259e-5078-4339-9d18-47385c1d6430&ds=DATA_FILE
Then why do they keep the tests............I mean, it could have a negative effect on the quality of a physician. :'( Been used since 1928, must be because of the $$$$.
This just in, no test ever is full proof or 100% predictor of future success in that occupation. That's not what they are designed to do. It is designed to see who will be successful in medical school and to be licensed, which is what you need to become a doctor. The amount of money it costs to train doctors, they need to make damn sure applicants can get in, survive and do well. In other words, reduce attrition rates. You can't have good doctors if half of the candidates drop out and never become doctors.
At any rate, you left others out....must have been an oversight, but I'm glad to help you out because Cura Personalis, progress and it's Saturday.
http://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/medical-school-admissions-doctor/2012/02/27/demystifying-the-mcat
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/05/a-better-medical-school-admissions-test/?_r=0
Quote from: forgetful on April 11, 2015, 01:12:37 PM
As Pakuni already mentions, the above criteria have very little bearing on the quality of doctor. What you are describing as the established benchmarks are more often a measure of the financial well being of the students.
As I mentioned in my first post, high MCAT scores require very expensive (thousands of dollars) prep courses that teach you how to beat the test. Similarly, wealthy students are spending $10k plus on tutors to ensure they get top grades in their courses, where again, these expensive tutors often have test info to help them beat the test. These same students buy test banks off the internet etc, to further improve their grades.
The result are individuals that on paper look great, but in some cases make terrible physicians, meanwhile, less wealthy students who actually are better prepared are not scoring as well.
I offer a former student of mine as an example. She is brilliant, I would gladly send my children to her as a physician. She couldn't afford the expensive MCAT prep courses and tried to prepare on her own, while working part time to pay bills. She didn't score well enough to get into any respected med schools. I payed for an MCAT prep course for her. She scored well enough to get in anywhere in the country.
Test scores have become a measure of wealth.
And you'll also note, I never said anything of the kind about the MCAT and the quality of the doctor. I was asked what should be used for acceptance rates and I gave you my answer. You guys are changing the conversation, which you often accuse me of doing. Ironically.
Quote from: Ellenson Family Reunion on April 11, 2015, 01:32:46 PM
Well off middle-aged white guys trying to make themselves out to be society's victims. It would be funny if it wasn't so embarrassing. Don't you guys have anything better to do with your time?
You know what's even more embarrassing to society... well off middle-aged white guys being told their racist because they want to enable people to stand up on their own and shed the cloak of oppression.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 11, 2015, 01:35:00 PM
I mean, it could have a negative effect on the quality of a physician.
Said no one here ever.
But hey, the test has been around a long time, so it must be the best way to do things.
Also, neither link you provided contradicts my post.
As usual.
Quote from: forgetful on April 11, 2015, 01:12:37 PM
As Pakuni already mentions, the above criteria have very little bearing on the quality of doctor. What you are describing as the established benchmarks are more often a measure of the financial well being of the students.
As I mentioned in my first post, high MCAT scores require very expensive (thousands of dollars) prep courses that teach you how to beat the test. Similarly, wealthy students are spending $10k plus on tutors to ensure they get top grades in their courses, where again, these expensive tutors often have test info to help them beat the test. These same students buy test banks off the internet etc, to further improve their grades.
The result are individuals that on paper look great, but in some cases make terrible physicians, meanwhile, less wealthy students who actually are better prepared are not scoring as well.
I offer a former student of mine as an example. She is brilliant, I would gladly send my children to her as a physician. She couldn't afford the expensive MCAT prep courses and tried to prepare on her own, while working part time to pay bills. She didn't score well enough to get into any respected med schools. I payed for an MCAT prep course for her. She scored well enough to get in anywhere in the country.
Test scores have become a measure of wealth.
You are to be commended, forgetful, but I also offer that there are other avenues available to those who wish to pursue a medical degree. Just yesterday I reviewed the CV of a very prominent physician ,held in high regard, who obtained an M.D. from a school in the Caribbean and went on to train at Johns Hopkins and build a remarkable career. There are always those who have an advantage over us. Gosh, there are even some who are taller, better looking than me , more talented etc. We just have to make the best of what we are given. I think wasting what we have is the biggest sin. That person you spoke of used talent and drive to gain your attention and support. I believe we all want life to be fairer than it really is.
Quote from: elephantraker on April 12, 2015, 11:36:41 AM
You are to be commended, forgetful, but I also offer that there are other avenues available to those who wish to pursue a medical degree. Just yesterday I reviewed the CV of a very prominent physician ,held in high regard, who obtained an M.D. from a school in the Caribbean and went on to train at Johns Hopkins and build a remarkable career. There are always those who have an advantage over us. Gosh, there are even some who are taller, better looking than me , more talented etc. We just have to make the best of what we are given. I think wasting what we have is the biggest sin. That person you spoke of used talent and drive to gain your attention and support. I believe we all want life to be fairer than it really is.
Pretty much nailed it.
A good friend of mine didn't so much as even pick up a sample test, let alone go to any prep classes, and he nearly aced the LSAT. Was accepted to every law school he applied to. Three years of law school, and graduated in the top 10 of his class, yet some his text books were still in cellophane. Spent the two weeks before the bar exam at a different bar each night. Passed on his first try. 15 years later, he's no longer practicing law... his father passed away several years ago and he admitted the only reason he even went to law school was out of respect for his father (a very accomplished attorney in his own right). Says law isn't challenging enough.
Some people are just smarter than other people. Others are savants. Others have no business being in college. Its not fair, but that's life.
Quote from: Benny B on April 12, 2015, 11:20:17 AM
You know what's even more embarrassing to society... well off middle-aged white guys being told their racist because they want to enable people to stand up on their own and shed the cloak of oppression.
Ding ding. Go home, the Internet was just won!
Quote from: Benny B on April 12, 2015, 11:20:17 AM
You know what's even more embarrassing to society... well off middle-aged white guys being told their racist because they want to enable people to stand up on their own and shed the cloak of oppression.
Except where did I call anyone a racist? I merely said you are not society's victims. I won't even address the pomposity of the latter half of your response.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 12, 2015, 02:36:49 PM
Ding ding. Go home, the Internet was just won!
Wow, you have impossibly low standards.
A few basic points on affirmative action...I'm not here to get into an argument about it, but I thought I'd share these:
--Quotas in admissions are illegal.
--Affirmative action only deals with QUALIFIED applicants. Affirmative action does not allow unqualified individuals to get into a school. It only factors into deciding among a surplus of qualified applicants.
--Studies have shown that since the institution of affirmative action, the group to benefit most, admission-wise, are white women.
--Countless studies have shown that diversity among students has significant educational benefits for majority groups (i.e., white men in racially/ethnically diverse institutions come out better educated than if they had been in less diverse institutions.)
Quote from: Ellenson Family Reunion on April 13, 2015, 07:46:45 PM
Except where did I call anyone a racist? I merely said you are not society's victims. I won't even address the pomposity of the latter half of your response.
I was speaking in general terms, not specifically in reference to anything said here.
But I beg of you, please address the pomposity of the latter half of my response. I'd love to hear the rationalization for what is so patronizing about "teaching a man to fish."