<p>Studies have shown that MCAT scores are inversely proportional to malpractice. I suppose you could argue that URM's are an exception to this pattern (i.e., they perform better than their MCAT scores would predict,) but this fact is indisputable with respect to the population at large. However, making statements like "they received the same medical education" is pretty nonsensical. MCAT scores generally do correlate to performance.</p>
<p>I think it's rather nonsensical to assume a URM just skated by instead of, for example, an asian. They DID receive the same education. BUT you don't know how they performed. If you use RACE to assume how one performed...then that's just prejudice.</p>
<p>Bravo that it took you a few posts to call me prejudiced! </p>
<p>Just because I take the same class as someone doesn't mean that we received the same value from that class. Someone else might have earned As while I may have barely passed. </p>
<p>Because Asians are at a disadvantage when applying to schools, they have to work even harder for their spots. </p>
<p>If the playing field were level in that race were not a factor in admissions, then I would not have any concerns, not even in life or death situations, because I am not prejudiced. </p>
<p>I wish that you could discuss the value of your own point without twisting mine. </p>
<p>Peace out.</p>
<p>You know what prejudice means right?</p>
<p>Whether you work hard for a spot or not (which DOESN'T mean that a URM didn't work just as hard), both receive the same education. Both would have to perform well to pass classes. WHY do you assume the URM would earn grades that barely pass the class and an Asian would earn the the A? Because the Asian had to work harder for his spot? Why do you assume the URM did not work just as hard? People who are URM don't just go, "ok I'm not going to work that hard because AA will help me, yay!" Assuming without knowing the facts IS prejudice, whether you think it is or not. It's the definition!</p>
<p>Work ethic is only relevant inasmuch as it relates to performance. A person who works really hard to get a "B" is not a better candidate for admission than another does no work but gets an "A" because of a photographic memory.</p>
<p>I agree that you can't make assumptions on people's work ethic. And you don't know the performance of a given individual. However, let me make an analogy. Consider a case where you have two groups of people trying out for the high jump team. Group A will qualify only if they can clear 7 feet. Group B will qualify if they clear 6 feet 9 inches. If you are picking a person who made the team at random, the probability is higher that a group B person will not have cleared 7 feet. There may be plenty of people from Group B that do clear 7 feet. </p>
<p>In order to say that this analogy is false you would have to argue that the selection process does not correlate to future performance. Or that there are confounding factors which held back people of Group B in particular in the selection process that would no longer inhibit them once they made the team (or got into a school.) (One example would be if they received worse recommendations for the same performance because an undergrad professor is prejudiced.) Alternatively, you could say that AA does not have the effect of "lowering the bar."</p>
<p>Or I could argue that A) in order for your jump team to win nationals you only need to clear 6 feet 8 inches, making everyone on the jump team qualified</p>
<p>and B) That after going to Jump team training camp all members are able to clear 7 feat 6 inches. </p>
<p>Both those analogies hold water in real college admissions. Everyone admitted to an elite college is qualified, with URMs having equal graduation rates, possibly even higher if you factor out economic status, the single greatest reason for dropping out of school. </p>
<p>And if you consider the fact that while non-Urms receive very little boost in long term income and performance from attending an elite vs a nonelite school, URMs, specifically African Americans, receive the most significant bump in income and performance from an elite school.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Work ethic is only relevant inasmuch as it relates to performance. A person who works really hard to get a "B" is not a better candidate for admission than another does no work but gets an "A" because of a photographic memory.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, of course not. By just viewing stats, then the person with an A is a better candidate than the person who earned a B. But, there are other variables. Isn't that the whole point of holistic admission? Adcoms don't just look at stats...or else you wouldn't need people, just computers. Which is where your analogy is false. I don't have to argue that the selection process does not correlate to future performance because, according to the analogy, the selection process is based on just stats, and the last time I heard, college admissions weren't just about stats. Adcoms don't just look at grades; on the other hand, the judges of a jumping contest only look at the results.</p>
<p>"Well, of course not. By just viewing stats, then the person with an A is a better candidate than the person who earned a B. But, there are other variables. Isn't that the whole point of holistic admission? Adcoms don't just look at stats...or else you wouldn't need people, just computers. Which is where your analogy is false. I don't have to argue that the selection process does not correlate to future performance because, according to the analogy, the selection process is based on just stats, and the last time I heard, college admissions weren't just about stats. Adcoms don't just look at grades; on the other hand, the judges of a jumping contest only look at the results."</p>
<p>Well, we are talking about medical school admission rather than undergrad admission. And while admissions are somewhat holistic, grades and MCAT scores are a good predictor of future performance. (In comparison, SAT scores are not great predictors of even college performance.)</p>
<p>"(2) That after going to Jump team training camp all members are able to clear 7 feat 6 inches. "</p>
<p>Well, I stated this reason in different words in my post.</p>
<p>Reason (2): Or that there are confounding factors which held back people of Group B in particular in the selection process that would no longer inhibit them once they made the team (or got into a school.)</p>
<p>"Or I could argue that (1) in order for your jump team to win nationals you only need to clear 6 feet 8 inches, making everyone on the jump team qualified"</p>
<p>Actually, reading your reason #1 over, it's not quite what I said. Among people who get into medical school, MCAT scores inversely correlate to malpractice. So the differences are significant and have consequences. I'm not talking about Harvard Medical School or Johns Hopkins. I have seen no published studies that are limited to top medical schools.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Well, we are talking about medical school admission rather than undergrad admission. And while admissions are somewhat holistic, grades and MCAT scores are a good predictor of future performance. (In comparison, SAT scores are not great predictors of even college performance.)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If grades and MCAT scores are a good predictor of future performance (not saying they aren't), then why have the rest of the application with the interviews, recommendations, etc.? Right, because there's a person behind those numbers.</p>
<p>Yeah, well, I guess if you are talking about bedside manner then interviews are important for that. Recs can tell you that too. However, bedside manner doesn't help you to be a better practicioner. In fact, there was a study that I read that concluded that "chatty" doctors were not as good.</p>
<p>Recs could also tell you who is an academic star in a certain class as opposed to merely getting the "A." However, when looking at a large population, I would guess that overall and science GPA would correlate to how good the recs are.</p>
<p>One reason that has been bandied about for favoring URMs in admissions is that URM's are more likely to practice in communities with underserved populations (namely URM's.) This may be a valid reason. It would be helpful if some of these things were actually studied. For example, are people from poor communities likely to practice in those communities are would they want to move to a posh suburb. What percentage of people who do community service in a third world country as an undergrad do the same thing after they graduate from medical school?</p>
<p>Yeah, I like those questions. Can they even be measured?</p>
<p>Affirmative Action is blatant racism. It is a sham and should be stopped. Hell, if you want my "honest" opinion, we should do Affirmative Action of only admitting well-to-do Protestants with ancestry that came to America in the 1600s for the next twenty years to counter the social imbalance caused by this mockery of a policy.</p>
<p>
[quote]
They DID receive the same education.
[/quote]
They DID receive the same education, but that doesn't mean they MASTERED the same amount.
[quote]
If grades and MCAT scores are a good predictor of future performance (not saying they aren't), then why have the rest of the application with the interviews, recommendations, etc.? Right, because there's a person behind those numbers.
[/quote]
to filter out the loonies.
As far as AA goes, URMs love it, Asians hate it. Now the real question is, the majority out there who are pro-AA and aren't URMs or Asian, why?<br>
Studies showed that white applicants aren't affected by AA. So one day, if AA finally caught up to these white applicants, I wonder how the political climate will change. White applicants make up of more than 60% of top colleges. It's easier to support AA when they don't get the short end of the stick.</p>
<p>According to a study done by Princeton sociologists, the data from the study represents disadvantage and advantage in terms of SAT points, these were the results: african american:+230, hispanic: +185, asian: -50. Which is probably why Asians hate it. Asian Americans are disadvantaged in the admissions process. AA based off of race is in place to help those who have been disadvantaged in the past, and Asian Americans have been treated unfairly by the US in the past before. The Jewish American population had a similar "quota system" (call it what you want) placed on them and it was deemed illegal.
Diversity does not translate into different skin colors. I get a much more "diverse" perspective from my friend who's mother's on pot and kicked him out at sixteen, than I do from the African American who attends a private high school with me and lives in a more affluent neighborhood than I do. Either way, the rich African American kid gets the helping hand, and the white kid doesn't, which doesn't make sense at all.
Anything based off of the color of your skin is racism, end of story. You can't fight racism with racism, it doesn't make sense. I agree that AA should be in place, but not based by race, maybe based off of socioeconomic status.
Well, thats my honest, and somewhat long opinion.</p>
<p>Does being an immigrant help?</p>
<p>middsmith, you quoted one part of my whole statement. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I think it's rather nonsensical to assume a URM just skated by instead of, for example, an asian. They DID receive the same education. BUT you don't know how they performed. If you use RACE to assume how one performed...then that's just prejudice.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You see what I wrote after what you took out of context. Yeah, that part where I talk about performance.
What I don't like is that people automatically assume URMs work less hard or are under-qualified because of AA or because of any reason. That's prejudice.</p>
<p>howfarwevecome:</p>
<p><em>Sigh</em></p>
<p>How relevant do you think that information is now? The study used data collected in the 1980s.</p>
<p>Also, affirmative action does not put Asians at a disadvantage. Affirmative action is about increasing the representation of underrepresented groups. Since Asians are minorities but are not underrepresented, affirmative action has no affect on them. </p>
<p>If you want to know what puts Asians at a disadvantage, Asians put other Asians at a disadvantage--holistic admissions hurts Asians' chances too. They all apply in huge numbers to the same schools and often have stereotypical applications.</p>
<p>All of the Asian kids I know who were admitted to HYP were all unique and did not have stereotypical applications. The ones who were rejected typically had better grades and test scores than the Asians who were admitted but they had stereotypical/bland ECs--if any at all--like math team, science team, etc. Few of these stereotypical Asian kids had leadership positions because most of them were pretty shy and kept to themselves. Moreover, few of these kids did any sort of activities that showed they cared about people, like tutoring, mentoring, etc. The closest thing these kids had to this was "volunteering" at a hospital--also known as volunteering in a gift shop in most cases.</p>
<p>This is why I like holistic admissions--the thing that contributes to the Asian-problem. Why should some bland, shy kid with no leadership skills, no charisma, etc. get in over a kid with leadership, drive, etc. just because he or she has a good SAT score or a higher GPA? The shy kid is not going to have the life skills to actually make a difference with that degree from an HYP-caliber school.</p>
<p>^^ Yay you make complete sense!</p>