Bush's Comments on racial quotas

[Ryo-Ohki]

Have you read about the UMich AA case that's going on right now?
If quantification of applicants is required because of the sheer number of applicants (as in the case of UMich undergrad), we get to see AA in its natural form. It gives you a good idea of what the admissions process is like.

No, you're right. It's not adding points to your test score. It's converting your test scores/GPA to a composite number and adding additional points to that composite number based on your race.

Is there a functional difference between this and adding points directly to your GPA/test scores? Absolutely not.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[SistaKaren]

Womansurg has a really good point about how admissions committees shoot for diversity. So now I have a question for everyone who's against AA.

What if you found out that the reason that you got into med school is not because your GPA or MCAT...or because your essay was good....but because someone on the adcom really liked the fact that you loved to do something (let's say kayaking for example) and upon speaking to you at an interview, thought that your quirkiness would be an asset to their school...even though they traditionally accept people with a bit higher GPA or MCAT than yours. Would you reject your acceptance? Would you feel like you don't deserve to be there?

(for clarification purposes, this person had a GPA and MCAT that were pretty decent...but below average for this school)

I would hope that the answer to that would be no. But this sometimes happens. Having a good GPA or a good MCAT doesn't necessarily mean that you're what the adcoms consider a good fit for the school...period. and saying that someone just got in because of their race is kinda ludicrous when there are so many other factors involved.

Yes, I can see how the Michigan case is different...but I think that's a bad system.

So Pillowhead, if you're reading this...I think I'm back on the AA bandwagon (after a year of being off it). It's a good thing.

 

[SistaKaren]

Originally posted by Ryo-Ohki
Have you read about the UMich AA case that's going on right now?
If quantification of applicants is required because of the sheer number of applicants (as in the case of UMich undergrad), we get to see AA in natural form. It gives you a good idea of what the admissions process is like.


No, you're right. It's not adding points to your test score. It's converting your test scores/GPA to a composite number and adding additional points to that composite number based on your race.

Is there a functional difference between this and adding points directly to your GPA/test scores? Absolutely not.

Perhaps. (though come on...those test scores categories are ridiculous.....my 1390 would have been equivalent to a 1600 for their SAT category!)

The UM case isn't indicative of every undergraduate adcom in the country...though you're confusing me because I keep thinking we're talking about med school. I don't like their system.

But at the same time...do you also have a problem with their atheletes category? Or the disadvantaged applicant category? Hell, even the URM category can apply to some white people.

But that case is definitely not indicative of an AA policy. I could be wrong, but from my reading on the case and knowledge of other policies, it's not.

 

[elin]

Ryo- Ohki-
I don't really know what your deal is, but you seem to bring up these same tired points over and over, and when someone answers them or raises evidence that you don't want to look at, you stop responding and then post some more ****. When you talk about people who have low GPA's or MCAT's, I find it funny that you only talk about URM"s. There are white people and other ORM's who have low GPA's who have similar averages and still get in. You just choose never to talk about them. And what the hell really is the difference between 2 pts on the MCATs and .1 GPA, school's vary- things vary. Like I have said many many times, the biggest form of AA is given to people whi have money in this country. Even your little idol, Ward Connerly, used his chancellor privilege to get people with 700 SAT into the UC system, and like I have said many times- chancellor's privilege also gets you 20 pts on that UMich scale. Unlike many people on this board who are anti-AA- you are like a sponge, nothing can get into your mind, and nothing useful comes out. If you really care about people who would get advantage in admissions, you would be working your butt off to get rid of the AA for rich people and people w/connections in admission- because those people make up almost 2x the URM poplation in most schools.

 

[Ryo-Ohki]

If you can change a person's race and have that fact affect his admittance, then that person got in because of his race.
You're probably thinking of inter-factors within races that causes a black person to admited over another black person.

Meritocracy should not be sacrificed for diversity. All discriminators should be open group, defined, relevant and achievable. When we start having closed, undefined and irrelevant discriminators such as "bring diversity to campus", we will be discriminating unfairly. It leads to ridiculous discriminators. For example, a person may decide Main Island Puerto Ricans should be protected class URMs while Off-Main Island Puerto Ricans should not be protected. A person may decide that Hot Chicks are severely under-represented in medical schools and decide to give bonuses based on hotness.

Sound far fetched? Would you be surprised to learn that you are a protected class URM if you are a main island Puerto Rican but not if you're an off-main island Puerto Rican?


How do I feel about some other discriminators used by UMich and other colleges?
Legacy= legalized bribery.
SES= If we do not expect poor people to compete with middle class people, why do we expect middle class people to compete with rich people? Do you want best and brightest doctor? Or the best and brightest doctor within this doctor's parent's SES range?
Athletics= I played baseball and tennis in high school. You can budget your time to make A's in your classes and study for the SAT. Colleges should be institutions of higher learning, not entertainment providers for alumni. Athletes should be "student athletes", representative of the colleges they go to, not the cash cows that many athletes of the more popular sports are.

 

[LoneCoyote]

Originally posted by rbassdo
Hey...Let's call a truce. We could go back and forth forever (ie - polls staying open an extra 2-3 hours in St. Louis in order to let minorities vote, allowing unregistered people to vote, etc.). It doesn't make much difference to me about how one expert saw the election shake down. I don't care about luring criminals away from the polls or luring them to "Foot Locker" for that matter. Should people who have warrants out be able to vote anyhow? Well...like I said...the world could end before this issue was extinguished. Thanks for the dialogue.

Truce is cool by me too. I just took my diagnostic MCAT all day and am wiped out I don't think I could have a serious dialogue on this issue if I tried right now. And I'm sure we could go back and forth for the next ten years. Thanks for the posts also

 

[Garibaldo]

Originally posted by SistaKaren
Womansurg has a really good point about how admissions committees shoot for diversity. So now I have a question for everyone who's against AA.

What if you found out that the reason that you got into med school is not because your GPA or MCAT...or because your essay was good....but because someone on the adcom really liked the fact that you loved to do something (let's say kayaking for example) and upon speaking to you at an interview, thought that your quirkiness would be an asset to their school...even though they traditionally accept people with a bit higher GPA or MCAT than yours. Would you reject your acceptance? Would you feel like you don't deserve to be there?

(for clarification purposes, this person had a GPA and MCAT that were pretty decent...but below average for this school)

I would hope that the answer to that would be no. But this sometimes happens. Having a good GPA or a good MCAT doesn't necessarily mean that you're what the adcoms consider a good fit for the school...period. and saying that someone just got in because of their race is kinda ludicrous when there are so many other factors involved.

Yes, I can see how the Michigan case is different...but I think that's a bad system.

So Pillowhead, if you're reading this...I think I'm back on the AA bandwagon (after a year of being off it). It's a good thing.

Hobbies are something you work on and get good at. They are rarely (pretty much never) a deciding factor in medical schools or undergraduate institutions. How exactly can you generalize that being black is the same as being a chessmaster, black belt, etc?! They're born black! It doesn't take a degree to be black and they aren't necessarily bringing anything unique to an environment. All of my black friends and my black roommate are basically the same as my white friends.

 

[Garibaldo]

Originally posted by womansurg
Good lord, dear, I hope you can see the absurdity of your arguments here. How in the world can you logically defend the idea that marginal differences in standardized testing and grading somehow constitute the best, or even a defensible, way to select future physicians?

Female perspective, black perspective, hispanic perspective, non-traditional perspective, appalachian backwood perspective, muslim perspective, perspectives resulting from struggles with poverty, so on and so forth.....all of these are important and desirable in the medical community. Having been told by a male gynecologist that menstrual cramps were "all in my head" and that he had the scientific data to prove it, I was more than happy to take my business to the (back then) only female in town, who appropriately addressed the situation. When an elderly black woman came to our surgery clinic with a cancerous growth in her thyroid that needed immediate excision, the preppie resident who worked her up was impatient and condescending to the point that the patient was leaving AMA - against medical advice. The nurse asked me to intervene, and because I was able to draw on multiple factors in my background to connect with her - my understanding of her skepticism of the medical community, of her need to delay a final decision before speaking to her minister (a common request in the African American community), and her concerns about the impact of treatment on her financial situation - I was able to convince her to undergo the needed surgery, and very likely saved her life. Examples such as these are endless...

Having representatives for as many different peoples as possible in the medical community is an important, effective, and worthwhile goal. It's good that admission committees recognize and attend to this philosophy.

Good lord, dear, I hope you can see the absurdity of your arguments here. How in the world can you logically defend the idea that differences in skin color constitute the best, or even a defensible, way to select future physicians?

Ummm...females outnumber males in college admissions now, so they don't really benefit from AA. Muslims are not considered an AA group. Non-traditional backgrounds can be considered on their own merits and they don't necessarily have a correlation with race. You're spreading hatred of whites (i.e. your "preppy" example, as if that's how the typical white person is). You're also showing an illogical bias against males (i.e. your stupid example of an insensitive gyno). You can't say that white doctors can't deal with minority\female patients as well unless you want to suggest that they're all insensitive, sexist, racist, etc. I guess white people can't draw from their background or knowledge of different cultural backgrounds to deal with a patient. I guess we should have a doctor of each culture and background of the thousands of different ethnicities around the world in each hospital to deal with each patient separately. Or we can have the most competent doctors we can find.

The differences in admission are NOT marginal. The difference between a 3.6 and 3.2 is often the difference between someone who can stand up to the pressure of medical school vs. someone who cannot. Someone who can't cut it academically (no matter what background) will not likely be able to rise to the challenges of medical school. In med. school, someone who doesn't put what's necessary into their education can result in deaths later. How will that be helpful?

WAKE UP PEOPLE! These lame arguements are based on ridiculous generalizations about whites vs. URMs. We all can think of counter-examples in our own life that are not being presented here. They hold no ground in reality, they're based totally on lame anecdotal evidence and bias against different groups.

 

[mamie]

Originally posted by Garibaldo


The differences in admission are NOT marginal. The difference between a 3.6 and 3.2 is often the difference between someone who can stand up to the pressure of medical school vs. someone who cannot. Someone who can't cut it academically (no matter what background) will not likely be able to rise to the challenges of medical school. In med. school, someone who doesn't put what's necessary into their education can result in deaths later. How will that be helpful?

.

Man, you know a lot about med school and what it takes to make it through. Which med school have you graduated from or are enrolled in at this present time?

 

[SistaKaren]

Originally posted by Ryo-Ohki
If you can change a person's race and have that fact affect his admittance, then that person got in because of his race.
You're probably thinking of inter-factors within races that causes a black person to admited over another black person.

Nope. I'm not thinking of that. But there is NEVER going to be a case where you can compare two applicants like that. Med schools don't admit profiles...they admit people. And no two people are the same. You could argue that for undergraduate admissions...but not for medical school.

Meritocracy should not be sacrificed for diversity. All discriminators should be open group, defined, relevant and achievable. When we start having closed, undefined and irrelevant discriminators such as "bring diversity to campus", we will be discriminating unfairly. It leads to ridiculous discriminators...

But the fact of the matter is that admissions is NOT or never has it been a meritocracy. I learned this from someone who sits on an adcom. It's very much arbitrary.

All of my black friends and my black roommate are basically the same as my white friends.

Would you say that all your female friends are the same as your guy friends? Or all your friends from the north are the same from your friends from the south? I doubt you would. Undoubtedly being black...or being male...or being from eastern NC...or going to Duke vs. UNC....skews your perspective in a different way. I seriously doubt your black roommate would agree with that assessment. I never generalized that being black was the same as having a hobby...the comparison was that an attribute of a person could, and does, influence admissions decisions.

If admissions were a meritocracy, then why wouldn't a computer do the choosing??

Edit: http://www.aamc.org/newsroom/pressrel/2001/011104a.htm <-- this link is from another thread and outlines the AAMC president's view on how admissions processes should be and what they tend to look for. It's pretty far from a meritocracy. I'm interested to know what everyone commenting on this thread thinks...it seems like that if you disagree with some of my arguments, then you must probably disagree with the view of the AAMC president as well....but I suppose that remains to be seen.

 

[womansurg]

Originally posted by Garibaldo
I guess we should have a doctor of each culture and background of the thousands of different ethnicities around the world in each hospital to deal with each patient separately. Or we can have the most competent doctors we can find.

Physicians who cannot effectively treat patients because of their own bigotry and ego are not competent - regardless of their MCAT score.

Having the presence of women physicians has altered the character of our surgery department in ways which delight the patients and the ancillary staff, and which offer improved patient care. Having a hispanic resident around has altered our department's understanding of hispanic culture, beliefs about disease, health practices, and has enabled us to provide improved care. It is not only the individual work of each member which makes the difference, it is the effect on the medical community of having the input and influences from that person's perspective.

Garibaldo, on the other hand, would merely add another arrogant, rude, dismissive, self absorbed person to the medical pool. Thanks, but we've got plenty of those.

 

[Ryo-Ohki]

And having a hot chick on staff will help promote healthier doctors who will have longer, more productive lives. I propose adding Hot Chicks as a new designated URM class.

http://www.studentdoctor.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=56995

 

[DAL]

Originally posted by womansurg
Garibaldo, on the other hand, would merely add another arrogant, rude, dismissive, self absorbed person to the medical pool. Thanks, but we've got plenty of those.

Where did Garibaldo say he would add another arrogant, rude, dismissive, self absorbed person to the medical pool? After reading his post I gathered that he would add the best person qualified for the job, regardless of race. I didn't see anything about intelligence equaling all of the things you mentioned.

 

[NB-Sirius]

Originally posted by Garibaldo
You can't say that white doctors can't deal with minority\female patients as well unless you want to suggest that they're all insensitive, sexist, racist, etc. I guess white people can't draw from their background or knowledge of different cultural backgrounds to deal with a patient. I guess we should have a doctor of each culture and background of the thousands of different ethnicities around the world in each hospital to deal with each patient separately. Or we can have the most competent doctors we can find.

The differences in admission are NOT marginal. The difference between a 3.6 and 3.2 is often the difference between someone who can stand up to the pressure of medical school vs. someone who cannot. Someone who can't cut it academically (no matter what background) will not likely be able to rise to the challenges of medical school. In med. school, someone who doesn't put what's necessary into their education can result in deaths later. How will that be helpful?

I agree with you.
But Minority doctors can also be one of the most competent doctors,you know.
If there are a BLACK applicant & a WHITE applicant whose acaademic records are copletely same,
it is natural to choose BLACK one ,I suppose.
There are more White pre-meds who has straight A than
Minority ones,I think.

You can't say that BLACK doctors can't deal with MAJORITY(white?)\female patients as well unless you want to suggest that they're all insensitive, sexist, racist, etc.

So I think racial talent should be an optional choice.

 

[womansurg]

Originally posted by DAL
Where did Garibaldo say he would add another arrogant, rude, dismissive, self absorbed person to the medical pool? After reading his post I gathered that he would add the best person qualified for the job, regardless of race. I didn't see anything about intelligence equaling all of the things you mentioned.

Originall posted by Garibaldo
subtilis, I think growing up in a liberal disneyworld has warped your mind into believing the cascade of pure bull****

you have to be out of your *#$! mind.

I doubt any of the pro-AA whiners will be able to answer any of the real questions in this thread.

your stupid example of an insensitive gyno

These lame arguements are based on ridiculous generalizations about whites vs. URMs.

You say you don't see anything about intelligence equaling the things I mentioned. So...his tirades mark your idea of intelligent debate? You may very well find no problem with someone who cannot conduct a civilized debate with colleagues without dissolving into childish schoolyard bullying; I think most of the professional world would disagree.

No one is saying, or has said, that majority representative physicians (male, white, middle to upper class...) are "insensitive, sexist, racist, etc.". Rather, people are saying that the medical community - and thereby the patients - are improved by the matriculation of groups which are disproportionaltely underrepresented. The explosion of alternative medicine in America is fueled by people's drive to escape the traditional paternalistic medical approach, and the harms and abuses to minority groups from years of neglected care are well documented.

Patients literally line up outside my office to avoid having to deal with physicians who treat their concerns as 'stupid' - and they are relieved and grateful to have the option available to them.

 

[pathdr2b]

Womansurg:

Thanks for your insightful arguments. Too bad most of them are wasted on folks who just don't get it!

I really liked that passage you end your posts with so much that I copied it and have a copy above my desk.

Now back to the argument:

I have a black female dermatologist.

I have a white female OB/GYN.

I have an indian (fr. India) female primary care physician.

And I have an asian female endocrinologist.

Now ain't diversity grand!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[DAL]

Originally posted by womansurg
You say you don't see anything about intelligence equaling the things I mentioned. So...his tirades mark your idea of intelligent debate? You may very well find no problem with someone who cannot conduct a civilized debate with colleagues without dissolving into childish schoolyard bullying; I think most of the professional world would disagree.

No one is saying, or has said, that majority representative physicians (male, white, middle to upper class...) are "insensitive, sexist, racist, etc.". Rather, people are saying that the medical community - and thereby the patients - are improved by the matriculation of groups which are disproportionaltely underrepresented. The explosion of alternative medicine in America is fueled by people's drive to escape the traditional paternalistic medical approach, and the harms and abuses to minority groups from years of neglected care are well documented.

Patients literally line up outside my office to avoid having to deal with physicians who treat their concerns as 'stupid' - and they are relieved and grateful to have the option available to them.

As a member of the professional world for a few years now, I rarely see civilized debate dissolve into the type of bullying seen here. I don't agree with his method of argument, but I can relate to some of his beliefs about AA. At the same time, I agree with a lot of your beliefs about AA. I think diversity is great in the medical field, but I don't believe in lowering the standards.

 

[womansurg]

Originally posted by DAL
As a member of the professional world for a few years now, I rarely see civilized debate dissolve into the type of bullying seen here. I don't agree with his method of argument, but I can relate to some of his beliefs about AA.

No argument there. This is an important topic to many people and deserves lots and lots of open debate. There are many different ways to see an issue, and usually no single right answer. I'm quite happy to listen to alternate viewpoints. I do feel compelled to call out abusive behaviors.

 

[bigdan]

It is clearly very difficult to remain completely objective in what is an inherently sujective and polarized debate. Some SDN members do a better job than others.
I am in agreement with the IDEALS of AA, but do have some degree of concern with how it is applied. Perhaps, in specific regard to the U of M case, race would still be a factor, but maybe not a 20 point factor? I just don't know how to apply it...and I don't think anyone does.
A recurring factor that reappears, usually covertly, throughout the postings in this thread is the undisputable fact that those without having lived through the minority perspective CANNOT accurately comprehend "the way things are", and it seems minorities are unable to see why other groups don't want URMs to be "boosted" through a race-only benefit.
Womansurg does an extrodinary job of describing various scenerios in which a race/cultural factor is the underlying issue in a healthcare system.

 

[Garibaldo]

womansurg does nothing more than glorify herself and try to convince us that the exception to the rule should dictate the rule. It's ridiculous to assume that every hispanic or black person necessarily adds something that a white person couldn't. What if I said that white doctors are better able to serve patients that would be racially biased against black or hispanic physicians? Does that sound like a good reason to favor whites? Her examples do nothing more than to breed sexism against men and racism against whites.

womansurg said:
"No one is saying, or has said, that majority representative physicians (male, white, middle to upper class...) are "insensitive, sexist, racist, etc.". Rather, people are saying that the medical community - and thereby the patients - are improved by the matriculation of groups which are disproportionaltely underrepresented."

It's quite foolish to believe that the very insensitive examples given here about the white physician and the black patient and the male gyno and the female patient do not promote stereotypes. What if I said that I went to a hospital and the black doctor let the black patients go in front of me because he resented me because I'm white (which I'm not)? If I said that, dozens of people would jump all over me and call me a racist. What is the difference between that and the example of the "preppie resident" who ignored the black woman? Are whites more racist than blacks?

Additionally, if I had a doctor like womansurg who actively boasts about the number of patients lining up at her door, I'd go running for the hills. What ever happened to humility?

womansurg said:
"Patients literally line up outside my office to avoid having to deal with physicians who treat their concerns as 'stupid' - and they are relieved and grateful to have the option available to them."

I'm not sure what this comment has to do with AA. Was this meant to boast about your personal qualities? Were you trying to make a link between being a woman or minority and dealing with patient concerns with more empathy than other doctors? If it's the latter, do you realize what you're implying about white males?

 

[pillowhead]

Originally posted by SistaKaren

So Pillowhead, if you're reading this...I think I'm back on the AA bandwagon (after a year of being off it). It's a good thing.

ack! i haven't even said anything on this thread! Been reading though. SistaKaren, I think you make some great points and ask some excellent questions. We just happen to answer them differently...I guess we agree to disagree, but hey, that's okay so long as everyone stays respectful.

just one thing...this thread (and many others about aa) is caught up in the morality of affirmative action. the morality of it aside, what about its legality? Is it unconstitutional?

 

[womansurg]

For Garibaldo:

Originally posted by pathdr2b
Womansurg:

Thanks for your insightful arguments. Too bad most of them are wasted on folks who just don't get it!

 

[Teufelhunden]

Originally posted by CJ2Doc
I am a soldier in the ANG, have been so for over 6 years. I train, stay fit (somewhat), mold my schedule around drill schedules and annual trainings, volunteer for state active duty (blizzard, flood, airport security), and am currently on a warning order that could send me to Kosovo and end my medical career aspirations. Is that not serving my country? No matter what branch it is, when a person signs that enlistment paper he is stating that he will lay down his life in defense of this country. How dare someone who has never worn a uniform dare question the integrity of another man's service. Un freakin beleivable!

Well said, my friend.

To piggyback on CJ2Doc's comments...as a former Marine Corps Sergeant who served in Division (read: 6 years in the field with the infantry)....I have earned the right to make fun of Army cooks, Navy Yeoman, and anyone in the Air Force...but it's all in good fun...because as CJ2Doc said, every person in every military branch took an oath to defend the constitution...an oath that may someday mean following an order that could result in the loss of your life....so to reiterate...if you haven't served, you don't have to right to criticize the service of others.

 

[ComplexPuzzle]

so i have been thinking...i believe for the most part AA was created to alleviate the problems resulting from from mostly economic inequality...discrimination affected the ability of URMs to enter higher economic brackets for the most part...URMS have access to subpar education which later in life affects their ability to obtain higher paying jobs...statistically URM's fall into a lower socioeconomic bracket...i mean when you are discriminated against and that affects your ability to earn and provide a living...and i think and feel somehow we should address the issue...so i think i am no longer on the official AA bandwagon...but then again i think its just a question of semantics...everyone seems to agree that socioeconomic status does affect one's opportunities and such...so if AA is revised to address social plight would it then be constitutional and would people accept it then...and it just so happens that URM's would still heavily fall into this category and get the necessary assistance with having to deal with social stigmatism...just my thoughts

 

[SistaKaren]

Originally posted by pillowhead
ack! i haven't even said anything on this thread! Been reading though. SistaKaren, I think you make some great points and ask some excellent questions. We just happen to answer them differently...I guess we agree to disagree, but hey, that's okay so long as everyone stays respectful.

Hahaha...I only said this because remember when I said I was undecided awhile back? I was just referring to that is all

And as for the legality...I have no idea! I'm a philosophy major...not a poli sci (the law and its application is so complicated and politicized...)

 

[Mutterkuchen]

Originally posted by Teufelhunden
Well said, my friend.

To piggyback on CJ2Doc's comments...as a former Marine Corps Sergeant who served in Division (read: 6 years in the field with the infantry)....I have earned the right to make fun of Army cooks, Navy Yeoman, and anyone in the Air Force...but it's all in good fun...because as CJ2Doc said, every person in every military branch took an oath to defend the constitution...an oath that may someday mean following an order that could result in the loss of your life....so to reiterate...if you haven't served, you don't have to right to criticize the service of others.

I reread the original posts and I don't think that anyone was criticizing the service of you, CJ2Doc, or any branch of the military. I think you are being unnecessarily sensitive.

 

[DAL]

After a lot of thinking about what everyone has said in this and the many other AA threads I've come to a personal conclusion that a SES system would work best. I see a great need for diversity in the field of medicince, but I don't think the current AA system addresses that need correctly. As the stats show, URM's would be the greatest beneficiaries of a SES based system by far.

The only logical reason that I and many other posters have given for lower average stats at the URM level is due to decreased educational opportunities at the K-12 level. Therefore, URM's that suffer from the decreased educational opportunities should be the only beneficiaries of lower average standards. But whites, asians, and others should also benefit from lower SES status. They go to the same schools as lower SES status URM's and are subjected to the same lack of educational opportunities. Why should they be held to a 3.5GPA, 30 MCAT standard when their URM counterparts are not?

As far as the diversity issue is concerned, I don't think just letting in a bunch of URM's necessarily increases your diversity and therefore better serves your patient population. The current system says that a rich URM can better identify with a patient than a white doctor who grew up poor and went to the same schools and lived in the same neighborhood as the URM population that he now treats. I don't buy that. I think diversity can come in many various forms and just because someone is white that doesn't mean that they can't add diversity to a med school class. Right now we say diversity is people of various skin color, and I don't think that's true all of the time. Yes, it is most of the time, but a SES based system would allow it to be right more often than our current AA system.

I do agree that far more URM's grow up poorer and suffer from lack of educational opportunities and would therefore be more likely to serve a medically underserved area once they got their MD. But our current AA system doesn't allow for any applicants other than URM's to receive the same advantages when applying. I don't think that's fair, and I think that a SES based system would better answer the question of who should be allowed more leeway as far as GPA and MCAT are concerned when it comes to applying to med school.

Now, if the GPA and MCAT standards were the same across the board, then our current AA system wouldn't be a problem for me. But the fact remains that the standards aren't the same, and I think SES is a better determing factor of who should be allowed a little more leeway with GPA and MCAT.

Of course, please don't take offense as this is just my humble opinion.

 

[sarah_viola]

It seems as though many people on this thread think that African Americans are being granted special privileges in the admissions process based on traits that they were born with (the color of their skin). With that being said, it is obvious that the word racism has been misrepresented in this thread. Racism is distinct from prejudice. Racism is not thinking you are better than someone else because they are different from you, the dictionary definition most white people are taught (who wrote the dictionary?) That is the definition of prejudice. Racism is a system of advantages based on race, a system that grants white people many more advantages than it grants African Americans. (http://www.utoronto.ca/acc/events/peggy1.htm -this link is by no means all encompassing, but a starting place for people to think about what they may be taking for granted)

It is obvious why white people are not taught to recognize the policies and practices that grant them these special privileges ? as others have pointed out, these privileges contain access to better schools, housing, and jobs, as well as access to change social, cultural, and economic policy- in other words, power. Racism is prejudice plus power. In discussing affirmative action, it is essential that everyone recognize this disparity in power that is divided across racial lines. If you don?t recognize the privileges that have been granted to you, then it is easy to believe that you are entitled to all that you have earned, because your hard-work, dedication, and natural ability have gotten you where you are, when in fact you have unknowingly benefited from the systematic advantages being non-black has afforded you. Granted, not all white people benefit from these advantages equally, as socioeconomic, gender, sexual orientation, etc, play a role, but some privileges do exist- they?re just seen as good luck/good fortune, etc.-they are never connected to their whiteness.

Affirmative action may not be an ideal system, but the ?reverse discrimination? that many white Americans feel because ?that minority stole my seat? is imaginary white disadvantage. It?s easy to fall into the trap of thinking that because your grades/MCAT scores were better than a minority?s, you must have worked harder, were more motivated/devoted to reaching your goals, and that the minority student was accepted because of the ?privilege? of her skin color afforded her. When this sense of entitlement is threatened it is seen as an unfair personal attack on one?s credentials, instead of a much-needed tool to counter the privileges that brought about the disparity in the first place.

I?m not saying that whites and Asians are bad guys, and that minorities are better people, ryo-ohki. I?m saying that I don?t really care if my doctor got straight A?s in her premed requirements if she is oblivious to the opinions and feelings of others, or worse, chooses to ignore their claims and dismisses them, instead of fighting along side them. I?ve found those traits in some of the worst doctors I?ve seen, and if you are dismissive and condescending, you?re patients are not going respect you or your medical advice, so your great USMLE scores and top-notch residency aren?t going to amount to much.

?NO, IT IS NOT OK TO SCORE SO MUCH LOWER THEN YOUR PEERS.? I agree fully. I think we just disagree where the problem lies. And I?m willing to bet that just as many white people are admitted to med schools with the same stats as those ?unqualified? URMs you are so familiar with.

One does not need to be the victim of active racism (police brutality, racial harassment) to be a victim of racism. Nor is it the job of minorities to educate white people about racism, or to convince them that it exists, ryo-ohki. It?s up to those who recognize their privilege to educate others. I?m not trying to flame you, or to make you feel guilty, or to bore those of you who tire of this issue (after all, it is very easy for white people to ignore their skin color), I?m trying to teach other white people about the advantages we inherit because we?re white, just as someone had to teach me, and to create a dialogue, because without active participation by all Americans (no, it?s not the job of black Americans to fight racial injustice), these issues will never be close to resolution.

 

[cbpremed]

I agree with sarah_viola, and would like to remind everyone that it is very easy to debate the AA in a hypothetical since, because many of you don't have to actually experience racism on a daily basis. I know people are going to try and pull the argument that once they were treated bad in a minority neighborhood etc., but many of you don't know how it is to be conscious of your color constantly. I have already been treated differently during med school interviews by many other applicants who assumed I had lower stats and/or looked at me or questioned me about how I got there. Many of you need to open your eyes and realize that at the MOST there are about 5-10% African American students in each med school class....if that, so if anything it's they are not the ones stealing your seats because of lower performance, but other majority students...which sometimes do have lower stats and do get accepted. I said I wasn't going to get into this debate, but I had to share my opinion, because I am tired of anti-URM, racist posting on SDN.

 

[Garibaldo]

Clearly, I think many of you are ignoring one of the most fundamental problems with AA. The system has been in place for nearly 30 years to address "institutional racism" and it has yet to change the institution itself. I'm talking about the poor primary and secondary education that this thread has brought up. Affirmative action was intended to be a bandage for a much larger problem. We can't pretend that everything will be made right in college after a failed basic education. Perhaps part of the reason there are so few minority applicants in the pool is due to the fact that they don't see college as a realistic goal. Why should they see it as a realistic goal when nearly every black leader (Jackson, Sharpton, Waters, etc) continually emphasizes the inherent disparity of the system and the lack of opportunity that awaits them? They have created a system of government-dependence and perpetually victimization for their own political and financial benefit.

If we look at other minority groups such as Asians and we look at areas like Chinatown (SF), which has historically had some of the highest poverty rates and highest disease rates (esp. TB), we'll see a case of clear institutional racism that has clearly not been reflected in the college admission rates within the UC system (which is nearly 45% Asian at many of the schools). Given a very similar history and a very different outcome, isn't it possible that other factors aside from institutional racism might come into play here?

There are plenty of things that could have been done to change the system within the last 30 years. Perhaps they could try to pass a measure that would redistribute local school funds more equally across the state so poorer schools would have more resources. Maybe more funding for outreach efforts in urban high schools to convince minority applicants to apply to colleges. I could think of a whole host of such measures. How many have been applied on more than a local level?

If racism is reflected in the system and in institutions, then what about poor whites and Asians that attend urban schools with blacks? Aren't they given the same disadvantages?
I personally don't buy the arguement that people looking at you differently and calling you racist terms can cause you to fail in life.
I was called "sand ni**er", beaner and a variety of racist terms growing up because I'm Middle-Eastern. I got into a lot of fights because of it too. However, I also happened to be top of my class. It's not because my school was excellent or because my parents are rich. I think the only difference is that I didn't see it as a potential excuse to fail where others might have. Also, I noticed that nobody addressed DAL's point that diversity isn't necessarily reflected in a minority.

womansurg, I didn't expect you to be able to address the points I made about your post. It's not suprising to me that someone who would perpetuate such stereotypes and brag about herself so openly, would engage in more than a one-way debate.

cbpremed, anti-AA DOES NOT EQUAL racism.

 

[SistaKaren]

Originally posted by Garibaldo
Clearly, I think many of you are ignoring one of the most fundamental problems with AA. The system has been in place for nearly 30 years to address "institutional racism" and it has yet to change the institution itself. I'm talking about the poor primary and secondary education that this thread has brought up. Affirmative action was intended to be a bandage for a much larger problem. We can't pretend that everything will be made right in college after a failed basic education. Perhaps part of the reason there are so few minority applicants in the pool is due to the fact that they don't see college as a realistic goal.

I wholeheartedly agree with this. In fact, it's the reason why I was anti-AA for a quite some time.

Why should they see it as a realistic goal when nearly every black leader (Jackson, Sharpton, Waters, etc) continually emphasizes the inherent disparity of the system and the lack of opportunity that awaits them? They have created a system of government-dependence and perpetually victimization for their own political and financial benefit.

Okay. Let's not misplace the blame here (if it's possible for it to be misplaced...). It's true that black leaders point out this problem...but it's not like it isn't obvious to most black people in the first place. Secondly, they aren't the ones responsible for the current system of AA...it was the Democrats of the 60s who bent over backwards to get the votes of millions of newly franchised black voters who were created our current system. It was for THEIR benefit that it was put in place...and current democrats viciously attack anyone who's against it by using illogical arguments to call them racist and therefore maintain the black vote. The democrats....not black leaders...are the ones who are using AA for their advantage the most. But this is a peripheral point.

If we look at other minority groups such as Asians and we look at areas like Chinatown (SF), which has historically had some of the highest poverty rates and highest disease rates (esp. TB), we'll see a case of clear institutional racism that has clearly not been reflected in the college admission rates within the UC system (which is nearly 45% Asian at many of the schools). Given a very similar history and a very different outcome, isn't it possible that other factors aside from institutional racism might come into play here?

I think the main argument against this is that these groups aren't really that similar. Most Chinese immigrants currently in this country have only come here within the past 30 years, due to discriminatory immigration laws early last century. On the other hand, most blacks have been here for at least 200 years or so. Considering the differences in levels of oppression of these two groups, I don't think it's possible to draw a direct correlation.

If racism is reflected in the system and in institutions, then what about poor whites and Asians that attend urban schools with blacks? Aren't they given the same disadvantages?

But no one has ever answered my question about this...how don't colleges take this into account? No, it's not stated in a formal policy like AA is (which was done for political reasons in the first place, mind you)...but it's definitely done...at least at my school I can say it is for sure. Even in the UM policy, consideration was explicitly given to these students.

I personally don't buy the arguement that people looking at you differently and calling you racist terms can cause you to fail in life.
I was called "sand ni**er", beaner and a variety of racist terms growing up because I'm Middle-Eastern. I got into a lot of fights because of it too. However, I also happened to be top of my class. It's not because my school was excellent or because my parents are rich. I think the only difference is that I didn't see it as a potential excuse to fail where others might have. Also, I noticed that nobody addressed DAL's point that diversity isn't necessarily reflected in a minority.

I dunno if that was the cause...or if it's more complicated it. But the fact of the matter is that no matter what income level black people are at, they still lag behind whites academically. That's a fact. I dunno the reasoning though....

And about DAL's point...I don't see it. Maybe it's because I grew up in an upper-middle class area that was mostly white and my race was always an issue growing up....but that hasn't been everyone's experience. However, my life experiences have differed markedly from my white neighbors. Maybe it's because I'm in the south...but I do think that race is a larger factor than most people consider it to be. Just as your gender is....where you grew up is...(seeing as I just qualified my statement as saying that I'm from the south)....make you a bit different..but now I'm repeating my same post from earlier....

 

[Garibaldo]

Originally posted by SistaKaren
Okay. Let's not misplace the blame here (if it's possible for it to be misplaced...). It's true that black leaders point out this problem...but it's not like it isn't obvious to most black people in the first place. Secondly, they aren't the ones responsible for the current system of AA...it was the Democrats of the 60s who bent over backwards to get the votes of millions of newly franchised black voters who were created our current system. It was for THEIR benefit that it was put in place...and current democrats viciously attack anyone who's against it by using illogical arguments to call them racist and therefore maintain the black vote. The democrats....not black leaders...are the ones who are using AA for their advantage the most. But this is a peripheral point.

I don't buy the arguement that blacks aren't aware of root of the educational divide. Perhaps they don't realize that there is a cultural divide in the weight that is given to college attendance. I know in the Iranian community, college is a must. I think this is the same in many Asian communities as well (so my friends tell me).

It's funny that you mention the Democrats, because it seems like they take the black vote for granted. Currently over 90%+ of blacks vote for democrats and I think they figure that you're not really the population they have to worry about. They really want to get all the moderate swing voters and that's where the focus has been recently. Really, the Democrats could have been doing a lot more in last 20-30 years than they have.

I think the main argument against this is that these groups aren't really that similar. Most Chinese immigrants currently in this country have only come here within the past 30 years, due to discriminatory immigration laws early last century. On the other hand, most blacks have been here for at least 200 years or so. Considering the differences in levels of oppression of these two groups, I don't think it's possible to draw a direct correlation.

I don't think the length of time one's ancestors have been in this country really matters if the experience in the present day is the same. If both groups experienced racism and extreme poverty (which they both certainly did), why does it matter that one group had a great great grandfather here a long time ago who was enslaved? Plus, one group had to overcome more of a language barrier.

I dunno if that was the cause...or if it's more complicated it. But the fact of the matter is that no matter what income level black people are at, they still lag behind whites academically. That's a fact. I dunno the reasoning though....

I realize that this is a fact, I don't necessarily think it's the case that blacks who get a college education necessarily want to return to impoverished communities and teach inner city kids or treat poor patients.

And about DAL's point...I don't see it. Maybe it's because I grew up in an upper-middle class area that was mostly white and my race was always an issue growing up....but that hasn't been everyone's experience. However, my life experiences have differed markedly from my white neighbors. Maybe it's because I'm in the south...but I do think that race is a larger factor than most people consider it to be. Just as your gender is....where you grew up is...(seeing as I just qualified my statement as saying that I'm from the south)....make you a bit different..but now I'm repeating my same post from earlier....

This is an important point. These issues vary widely around the country. There is MUCH less racism in California than some parts of the South where they still wave a confederate flag. I've actually noticed some white people in the bay area (San Francisco) treating blacks better than other whites. They're obviously overcompensating to make it seem like they're really really not racist and they've just got to prove it by going that extra step. Funny stuff. I still get stares around my hometown, which is like 90% white, but that is quite different from my experiences in Boston and Berkeley.

 

[SistaKaren]

Originally posted by Garibaldo
I don't buy the arguement that blacks aren't aware of root of the educational divide. Perhaps they don't realize that there is a cultural divide in the weight that is given to college attendance. I know in the Iranian community, college is a must. I think this is the same in many Asian communities as well (so my friends tell me).

When did I say that blacks weren't aware of it? Of course they are! But are they currently responsible for the system of AA...no, they aren't. That's all I'm saying. You said that black leaders have caused the system of government dependence...I say you're wrong about that. That is not to say that they don't help to perpetuate it....(but that is extremely arguable...)

It's funny that you mention the Democrats, because it seems like they take the black vote for granted. Currently over 90%+ of blacks vote for democrats and I think they figure that you're not really the population they have to worry about. They really want to get all the moderate swing voters and that's where the focus has been recently. Really, the Democrats could have been doing a lot more in last 20-30 years than they have.

I agree that they probably don't actively court our vote..but it's not like they don't take every opportunity to say that they are "culturally aware" or whatever. This AA thing is case in point. Sen. John Edwards...among other Dem presidential nominees...made it a point to blast Bush on being against civil rights because of his stance. So, I wouldn't say that we're not still a population that they worry about. The democrats definitely could be doing better...but appearances are what counts, and they appear to be working in the favor of blacks...and they do just enough to maintain that facade.

I don't think the length of time one's ancestors have been in this country really matters if the experience in the present day is the same. If both groups experienced racism and extreme poverty (which they both certainly did), why does it matter that one group had a great great grandfather here a long time ago who was enslaved?

It matters a lot about the length of time. Because the length of time that a group has been continually oppressed certainly puts a spin on what members of that group perceive they can do given their history of being put down, wouldn't you think? Many blacks who have parents that just emigrated from elsewhere have higher success rates than "native born" blacks. Different attitudes towards one's ability to succeed is a factor in this...and history plays a big role in this.

I realize that this is a fact, I don't necessarily think it's the case that blacks who get a college education necessarily want to return to impoverished communities and teach inner city kids or treat poor patients.

I never said this was the case either. Nor do I think it's a valid argument for AA, really.

I'm liking this debate. I think you're bringing up some interesting points!

 

[LoveDoc]

Originally posted by rbassdo
It's funny that you have "delight thy self in the Lord" at the end of your statements, yet you seem to be so anti-Bush. From what I understand, Pres. Bush gets on his knees and prays before doing anything, in the morning. When asked who his hero was by a member of the liberal press - I believe he stated "Jesus Christ." That takes guts - truly. Any Comments LoveDoc?

I am sure Saddam prays 3x a day too.

There are at least 3 ingredients that must be added to a relationship with God that should dictate your actions: obedience, faith, and being submissive. If Bush feels that he has made his decisions based on those components then so be it.

I do not agree with his decision because it is apprarent he is making decisions for a society which he has and never will understand. Perhaps his words would be more understood if I *saw* examples of him trying to see how the 'other side' lives and then use that insight to color his decisions.

Clinton consulted every minister in town (even my own) after his indescretions so I consider public displays of Godly relationships very personal and do not judge based on that.

Actually, I did not have a problem with Bush. My approval rating of him was beginning to increase and took a NOSEDIVE last week.

 

[LoveDoc]

Originally posted by subtilis
anyway, there will be a little over 400 black males in the next class of american medical schools- nationwide. i will be one of them. i will be at a top 10 school. for those who will be my classmates, i hope that you don?t assume i?m a dumb f--k with a low mcat score and crappy grades. that kind of attitude just encourages the abuse of aa by minorities. i know the importance of probabilities, but take the time to do a little research if you have the opportunity and someone might surprise you, in fact, statistically, someone will almost certainly surprise you. on the other hand for those who think that i?m taking one of their spots, i apologize. But you?re wrong.

oh, and I like kathleen edwards.

too late subtilis...i was already informed by some black doctor's i shadowed that they spent 4 years trying to convince their race counterparts that they had 'earned' their slot and were just as smart as they were. they specifically said their answers were continuously questioned over and over and over and 2nd guessed.

 

[LoveDoc]

Originally posted by Garibaldo
All of my black friends and my black roommate

Have I heard this before?

 

[DAL]

Originally posted by LoveDoc
Actually, I did not have a problem with Bush. My approval rating of him was beginning to increase and took a NOSEDIVE last week.

So you disapprove of Bush because of his comments concerning the U of M policy? Does that mean you gained a great amount of respect for Colin Powell because he supports the U of M policy? I don't like our current AA system, but how can anyone approve of the U of M policy? Giving additional points simply because of the color of your skin? And you wonder why black doctors have to fight so hard to prove the earned everything they've achieved. If Bush would've said the U of M policy was ok then I believe it would've been a smack in the face of everything minorities are trying to achieve in this country. If every school was able to adopt the U of M policy then why would you expect anyone to look at a minority physician and say they earned their achievements. It would be common knowledge that whatever school they went to gave them additional points in the admissions game simply because of the color of their skin. Nothing to do with overcoming racism, nothing to do with overcoming poverty or other hardships, but simply because they were a minority.

SistaKaren, I realize that every black person rich or poor faces racism in American. But is that the diversity you bring to your future medical school class? If we say every minority adds diversity simply because they were subjected to racism then that's greatly narrowing what I believe to be diversity should be. AA has tarnished our image of diversity in my mind. I would think you can add a great amount of diversity because you are a philosophy major or because you can increase the cultural awareness and teach your fellow med students how to better relate to a minority patient. That's increasing diversity. Or perhaps Garibaldo because he can increase the cultural awareness of Iranians, or because he went to school at Berkeley, or because he had a rough time growing up and can perhaps better relate to what a lot of children go through when they are discriminated against. Limiting diversity to those who are subjected to racism defeats the purpose of diversity anyway. Anyone can add diversity, not just a person who has faced racism.

 

[LoveDoc]

All I have to say to those who question why race should matter with admission criteria....is take off your racial blinders for a second and step into my shoes.

Racism and bipartisian are two terms that are alike in nature. We make decisions across racial lines. There are strength in numbers. Keep these thoughts in mind.

Now, go to the upscale town on the far north side and go to the coach store. What race is the sales lady?

Go to the med school of your choice and go into the room with your interviewer? What race is he?

Sit in your first day of class (with butterflies in your stomach) looking around to find one person who may have something in common with you. Which person do you gravitate to?

Go on a job interview where your resume was chosen out of 1,000s of applicants. When your interviewee comes to the desk to get you how does their facial expression reveal what their first thoughts are?

When URMs encounter environments that are normally infiltrated with non-URMs they will always be low in number. There is a bias that exists within each one of us that causes us to favor people that we have something in common with. This translates to an initial prefererence for non-URMs in leadership, education, and social roles. You may disagree but this is only common sense.

As for UMich by purely inviting people of color to their school they are enabling decisions and processes to include diversity. There is nothing wrong with this concept. I am confident if they feel people are not capable of completing college they will not accept them.

My undergrad had a similiar program which invited people of color to school pre-freshmen year and accepted them based on lower admission standards. I was accepted into this program because I was a first-time college student but turned down the program b/c I received a merit-based MINORITY scholarship.

Enough already about this topic b/c your mind will not be changed. You will still see AA as a potential reason that you will not make it into a slot in school vs. seeing how much that slot is better suited to someone who will make a greater impact on society.

 

[pathdr2b]

Originally posted by Garibaldo

I don't buy the arguement that blacks aren't aware of root of the educational divide. Perhaps they don't realize that there is a cultural divide in the weight that is given to college attendance. I know in the Iranian community, college is a must. I think this is the same in many Asian communities as well (so my friends tell me).

I'm a FIFTH generation college graduate and Black. In my experience, there are black communities that believe going to college is a must. The gentleman that drives the shuttle bus I ride in to work is Asian. I guess his family didn't stress college

 

[alphabeta53]

Diversity comes from taking people from different socio-economic levels as opposed to people from different races.

If the parents of both a white applicant and a black applicant are making over a 100k a year: the only potential difference between the black and white applicant will be the color of their north face fleece.

 

[SistaKaren]

Originally posted by DAL
SistaKaren, I realize that every black person rich or poor faces racism in American. But is that the diversity you bring to your future medical school class? If we say every minority adds diversity simply because they were subjected to racism then that's greatly narrowing what I believe to be diversity should be. AA has tarnished our image of diversity in my mind. I would think you can add a great amount of diversity because you are a philosophy major or because you can increase the cultural awareness and teach your fellow med students how to better relate to a minority patient. That's increasing diversity. Or perhaps Garibaldo because he can increase the cultural awareness of Iranians, or because he went to school at Berkeley, or because he had a rough time growing up and can perhaps better relate to what a lot of children go through when they are discriminated against. Limiting diversity to those who are subjected to racism defeats the purpose of diversity anyway. Anyone can add diversity, not just a person who has faced racism.

Nah...I wouldn't say that my race is the only thing I have to add. Actually, I never said it. My point was that race should be factor...I never said that it should be the only factor. Look what else I said: " Just as your gender is....where you grew up is...(seeing as I just qualified my statement as saying that I'm from the south)....make you a bit different..but now I'm repeating my same post from earlier...." And in that same post I brought up the same points that you're bringing up now.

So no....I don't think that.

 

[DAL]

Originally posted by LoveDoc

As for UMich by purely inviting people of color to their school they are enabling decisions and processes to include diversity. There is nothing wrong with this concept. I am confident if they feel people are not capable of completing college they will not accept them.

Once again you equate color of skin to diversity. You don't think anyone other than a minority has anything to offer a med school class as far as diversity is concerned other than their GPA, MCAT, and volunteer activities? I don't agree at all.

Whether or not they can complete college is not the point. The point you should be worried about is the fact they were let in partly because of the color of their skin? That's saying that minorities can't compete with the majority at the academic level. What does that say to the minority as a person, that they weren't good enough so the color of their skin had to be an included as criteria for admittance? You want minority doctors to be respected because they achieved success based on their own merit. Having systems in place that gives additional help simply based on the color of your skin will in no way help minorities achieve that goal.

Originally posted by LoveDoc

My undergrad had a similiar program which invited people of color to school pre-freshmen year and accepted them based on lower admission standards. I was accepted into this program because I was a first-time college student but turned down the program b/c I received a merit-based MINORITY scholarship.

Congrats!!!

Originally posted by LoveDoc

Enough already about this topic b/c your mind will not be changed. You will still see AA as a potential reason that you will not make it into a slot in school vs. seeing how much that slot is better suited to someone who will make a greater impact on society.

This is simply a debate about the topic, not about changing each other's minds. If someone's opinion concerning AA does happen to change, then so be it. When did I say someone was taking my spot in med school? Please tell me because I haven't even applied yet. If I get in it will be because of my own merit and if I don't gain acceptance, it will be the fault of no one but my own.

Thanks for sharing your belief that minorities have a greater impact on society than everyone else.

 

[LoveDoc]

Originally posted by DAL
Thanks for sharing your belief that minorities have a greater impact on society than everyone else.

Clarification: If a male/female earns an MD in my community it has a far reaching impact and shows hope for many inner city children to believe they can do the same.

 

[Garibaldo]

pathdr2b, your anecdotal evidence is totally contrary to the general trend and you know it. Do you really want me to present data on the number of black applicants to college and the number of Asian applicants?

I'm going to have to flatly reject every theory lovedoc has presented. The notion that people naturally favor people who look like them and that is the reason why blacks get rejected is ridiculous. It is to suggest that we are all racist, which we are not. Who here on this board naturally gravitates to people of only their race? I've had minorities as interviewers and I'm sure I could find minorities working in a coach store if I knew what the hell a coach store was.

My undergrad had a similiar program which invited people of color to school pre-freshmen year and accepted them based on lower admission standards. I was accepted into this program because I was a first-time college student but turned down the program b/c I received a merit-based MINORITY scholarship.

This doesn't make sense. Were you accepted or not? You called the school your undergrad, but said you were turned down. Did they actually tell you that you were rejected because of a minority scholarship. Are there potential reasons for this that don't include racism? Did you even consider those reasons before jumping to the conclusion that it is racism?

Admissions of blacks dropped in Berkeley after AA policies were banned. Since quotas have been illegal for quite some time, what could have accounted for the drop other than a shift in focus away from race and towards merit. Doesn't this suggest that it's not the admission committee's decision to reject blacks because of their race, but merely a reflection of the law?

The problem with people like Lovedoc is that they are trained to think solely in terms of racism, so every situation must break down into a racial analysis as if everyone is driven by race and racism like he suggests. The vast majority of us who are not racist do not focus on whether the person next to us is Asian, hispanic, black, etc.

Also, I don't think that a MD in your community necessarily shows hope when society in general puts the focus on sports and music celebrities who present a very different image of success.

P.S. Lovedoc, what religion is Clinton practicing exactly? I wasn't aware that Christianity was big on getting blowjobs from numerous women out of wedlock.

 

[smilez428]

i think they should just remove the box that asks for your race on primary applications... that should even out the "that URM got lower scores than me but got in when i didn't" problem.... if the school screens for interviews, then they will see the top "URMs" when it comes time to actually see what race someone is. Also- I really feel bad for those poor white kids living in the ghetto working to feed their little brother because they hardly ever get a chance to get out.


aa needs to be modified... i don't know about all together dropped...but modified

just my two cents

 

[Garibaldo]

smilez, racism in admissions is only ONE of the excuses used to justify AA. If you knock out that arguement, they'll say there is racism in the school system and they didn't have a fair chance. Or there isn't enough money for URMs to apply to college, so you have to entice them with endless scholarships and an advancement over non-URMs. Or URMs bring something special to the environment (the arguement U.Michigan is making). There are many such arguements and we've witnessed many of them here. If all else fails, they resort to the arguement that blacks have gone through centuries of oppression and this is simply payback.

 

[ComplexPuzzle]

Originally posted by Garibaldo
smilez, racism in admissions is only ONE of the excuses used to justify AA. If you knock out that arguement, they'll say there is racism in the school system and they didn't have a fair chance. Or there isn't enough money for URMs to apply to college, so you have to entice them with endless scholarships and an advancement over non-URMs. Or URMs bring something special to the environment (the arguement U.Michigan is making). There are many such arguements and we've witnessed many of them here. If all else fails, they resort to the arguement that blacks have gone through centuries of oppression and this is simply payback.

who exactly are these "they" that you keep speaking about...it seems to me that both sides...those for and against AA are making gross generalizations...and you are not exempt from that either...and it seems that you feel a need to deny or negate the fact that a lack or insufficient amount of educational and financial resources early in life affect you later in life...i think anyone would agree...and i dont believe it is a black or URM thing...isnt that why people come to the US for education...because it is the "land of opportunity"...though i feel one must make the best of what they are given...if you are given less then someone else that may affect how far you go in life...isnt that why parents work hard to give their children opportunities that they did not have...OPPORTUNITY makes a huge difference

 

[Garibaldo]

Originally posted by ComplexPuzzle
who exactly are these "they" that you keep speaking about...it seems to me that both sides...those for and against AA are making gross generalizations...and you are not exempt from that either...and it seems that you feel a need to deny or negate the fact that a lack or insufficient amount of educational and financial resources early in life affect you later in life...i think anyone would agree...and i dont believe it is a black or URM thing...isnt that why people come to the US for education...because it is the "land of opportunity"...though i feel one must make the best of what they are given...if you are given less then someone else that may affect how far you go in life...isnt that why parents work hard to give their children opportunities that they did not have...OPPORTUNITY makes a huge difference

They refers to the supporters of AA who resort to a variety of failed arguements to defend their point. Complex, I've already acknowledged that I think a lack of resources early on has contributed to the problem. I'm already addressed what I think of that. Earlier in the thread I mentioned what the real goal of AA should have been (fixing the education divide) and then I mentioned ways in which democrats and black leaders could have fixed the problem. You chose not to read the thread, so it's not surprising to me that you're talking out of your ass.

 

[ComplexPuzzle]

with the response to my last post...i will make this my last post in this thread...and i would like to sincerely apologize for "talking out of my ass"...i try not to do that too often...Garibaldo i did read your earlier post...that doesnt change the way in which you are coming across...in your last post you again made a gross generalization...why do you assume only democrats and black leaders are responsible for FIXING the problem...or maybe i should not assume that this is in fact what you are thinking...i am just going by what you wrote...this issue is obviously personal to you because you are unable to refrain from making personal attacks against people...you are entitled to your opinion...just as i am...i neither wish to change your mind or show that one of us is right...its a forum...where you can voice your opinion and hear the opinion of others

 

[LoveDoc]

Gar,

Do you mind me asking what your MCAT verbal score was? You are doing a lot of MISINTERPRETING HERE...

Originally posted by Garibaldo
I'm going to have to flatly reject every theory lovedoc has presented. The notion that people naturally favor people who look like them and that is the reason why blacks get rejected is ridiculous

You missed the point. I won't clarify. Just re-read and stop wasting my time.

Originally posted by Garibaldo
This doesn't make sense. Were you accepted or not? You called the school your undergrad, but said you were turned down. Did they actually tell you that you were rejected because of a minority scholarship.

I was not turned down I was accpeted to both programs.
You missed the point. I won't clarify. Just re-read and stop wasting my time.

Originally posted by Garibaldo The problem with people like Lovedoc is that they are trained to think solely in terms of racism, so every situation must break down into a racial analysis as if everyone is driven by race and racism like he suggests. The vast majority of us who are not racist do not focus on whether the person next to us is Asian, hispanic, black, etc.

I'm a female. America "trains" people with institutional racism. YOU WOULD NEVER UNDERSTAND. I reitterate, you are a total waste of time.

I am rejected socially by people of my own race on a much wider scale than by other races. But I understand the plight therefore I voice it to those who do not.

Don't bother responding. You are a total waste of my time.