<p>A classic example of numbers trumping wisdom, quantitative thinking excluding qualitative thinking. Very slippery slopes are constructed that way.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, not. Quantitative thinkers would want to see a multivariate statistical analysis of educational achievement and attainment stratified by not just race, but by numerous factors that are associated with educational achievement and attainment, such as socioeconomic status, race, immigrant/generation status, parents’ education level, etc. in order to determine the magnitude of difference associated with each factor.</p>
<p>But it appears that most people just want to argue with very limited information, or information where the indicated factor (e.g. race) may be confounded by other factors.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have no idea what defines a low score (I never took the MCAT). I <em>do</em> know that medical schools look at a lot more than merely your MCAT - I have never heard of a single school that looks at nothing except numbers and transcripts - and I also know that test scores are only moderately indicative of success. You are right in that blacks and Hispanics are at the bottom, test-wise, and perhaps this is why you want to see the odds tipped back in your favor. </p>
<p>You know, as we all do, that colorblind admissions will limit the (already small) amount of blacks and Latinos accepted into colleges, both undergraduate and graduate. You also know that by and large, blacks and Latino children are subject to inferior educations - and as long as we are, we will never catch up to those scores. That apparently doesn’t bother you one bit. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wouldn’t know anything about that. My first university was an HBCU - intentionally chosen so that nobody could whine about me being an AA admit - and my current school first rejected me, then auto-accepted me because of my GPA. Sorry. <em>Kanye shrug</em></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No uh-oh, Nrdsb4. Anti AAers use the same arguments over and over. I don’t even need to read the rest of the post to tell you what it says.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Disrespect a race? Seriously?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>On the other hand, it is likely that many schools (not just medical schools) use test scores and GPAs as a first screen to eliminate a large number of applicants, where only those who pass the test score and GPA screen get looked at in more detail or holistically.</p>
<p>In non-medical school contexts, there are schools (often moderately or less selective state schools) that admit strictly by the test score and GPA numbers, probably because it is easy to do.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You didn’t know? Black people’s guiding star should be striving to achieve the admiration and approval of white folks. That’s what Dr. King would do!</p>
<p>Speaking of America’s Top Negro - and before somebody breaks out that “content of character” trope:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>and</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Since anti-AAers are always BAWWWWWing about equality, it looks like we would have to put white people in bondage for 400 years to get started. Actually, we would need to give all this land back to the Native Americans and all go back to our respective lands. Gee, too bad that most black Americans were stolen from our lands and have no earthly idea where we would go in Africa. But if we have a choice, I pick Gambia!</p>
<p>We need no new arguments, as the preexisting ones work just fine. I have yet to see an adequate rebuttal.
Now that Blacks have been released from the horrible torment whites once subjected them to, why don’t they take a look at where they came from and decide if that is a better alternative. The poorest continent in the world. Plagued with aids and lack of sophistication and basic civility. The very injustices you claim warrant repayment are the “injustices” that indirectly saved you from the destitute continent you were unwillingly torn from. </p>
<p>In actuality, Whites are the ones owed a debt.</p>
<p>^^^^^^double uh oh.</p>
<p>I agree with you on this one Nrdsb4.
Counter intuitive yet factual posts usually elicit quite interesting reactions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Interesting how that’s all you have to say to such rhetoric - unless you, like I, are doing little more than saying “uh-huh” and moving on. Judging by your your arguably antagonistic replies (“are you going to take that? Huh? HUH? Why don’t you do something while I grab some popcorn and pull up a chair?”), I seriously doubt if that’s the case.</p>
<p>“People do think that if they avoid the truth, it might change to something better before they have to hear it.” -Marsha Norman</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sounds like a history lesson/refresher is needed…or else this obliviously made argument wouldn’t be made due to the many barrels of worms they’d open up. </p>
<p>Or are you really ready for the truth as to who shares most of the responsibilities for the conditions you’re describing above? </p>
<p>Hint question: Which societies/regions had the advanced weapons and desires for colonialist adventures from the 1400s onwards?</p>
<p>ucbalumus:</p>
<p>Your post suggests a potential way of using numbers more wisely. I think that using numbers unwisely for pejorative conclusions about various races is quantitative analysis without qualitative thought - manipulating data without judgment. I agree that it is poor qualitative analysis.</p>
<p>The liberal justice excuses herself to let the conservative justices repeal AA. The country, then has a bunch of angry minorities on it’s hands, in addition to looking for terrorists. Wow, this must be the season to bait angry white conservatives (who cannot help picking a fight with everyone), so Democrats can win the next election. </p>
<p>It is too bad how the young get drawn in like little pawns. Nihility, when will you know if you got into Stanford and do you think your seat will go to a URM?</p>
<p>Nihility:</p>
<p>I don’t believe that anyone posting here was torn from Africa, willingly or not. (“Unwillingly torn” is redundant isn’t it, or at least the unwilling part is superfluous?) Theories of racial superiority never end well for anyone. According to your logic, enslaving African children to serve rich Americans for a pittance is just and merciful because they get to live on a much nicer continent. I am not sure that many non-sociopaths would see it that way.</p>
<p>We saved the Indians from their benighted lives and primitive religions with our beneficence and enlightenment as well. I would not wish such good fortune even on you.</p>
<p>Stanford? I suppose Shockley was an intelligent person too.</p>
<p>
Back under the bridge ■■■■■ - no one even finds you amusing let alone relevant.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Don’t forget the other two hotbed topics: abortion (embryos before hoes!) and gay marriage. Heck, the Republican race has so many clowns in it that you’d think it was being run by Ringling Bros. Remember when Democrats were actually scared for Obama in 2012? Neither do I.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m saying “Uh oh. Bye bye thread.” I believe some are deliberately inflammatory so that a thread which was going quite well will be poofed.</p>
<p>Sylvan in response to nihilarity:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1859</p>
<p>By please…do let us all know from whom you wish to hear, what you wish to hear and which ideas you would like censored.</p>
<p>^So you do not believe in the IDEA of a ■■■■■, or you just don’t think this particular poster is a ■■■■■?</p>
<p>I think forum dynamics are hugely fascinating.</p>
<p>“a ■■■■■ is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[4]”</p>