<p>^You can use that example in any field. Women were once underrepresented in EVERY field (with the exception of nurse and a few others), because they stayed in the home and took care of the kids.</p>
<p>cross-posted with the two above me.</p>
<p>
[quote]
i'm all for affirmative action based on socio-economic factors, because you're bound to establish diversity that way, too.
[/quote]
people say this all the time but how would such an AA policy create racial diversity. there are more poor White people than poor people of any other race. such a policy would disproportionally benefit whites and would be an adequate way of promoting racial diversity. (such a program would be MANY TIMES "worse" for Asians.)</p>
<p>in addition, colleges always say that you are judge within the context of your opportunities. this is merely another way of saying that they take socioeconomic factors into account.</p>
<p>
<p>I agree that a lot of things affect how good a doctor is. However, it is also naive to say that test scores don't decide anything. There have been some studies that showed LSAT scores were the most accurate general indicator of pass/fail on the bar exams.</p>
<p> [QUOTE=Newjack99] no it's people like you who create this negative stereotype about URMs.
</p>
<p>No.</p>
<p>
<p>I have read up on Supreme Court Cases regarding affirmative action. That was just my personal opinion, not that of the Supreme Court.</p>
<p> [QUOTE=Newjack99] how exactly does it sacrifice quality, and what exactly do you mean by quality? also how does one quantify quality in regards to college admissions?</p>
<p>anyways, a lot of people would argue that not promoting a diverse student body would actually hurt the quality of the school.
</p>
<p>Oh no! Our school isn't diverse. How will we ever study? How will our school provide funding and education for us without a certain amount of minorities?</p>
<p>By choosing a significant portion of people with lower grades and scores over higher scoring people, that is sacrificing the quality of students, which often (but not always) translates to the quality of doctors</p>
<p>Our health care system's main problem is the constant influx of illegal immigrants and the USA's poor infrastructure for health care in general. I'm not saying that minorities in the health care profession is bad or hurtful, but that health care could potentially be better. Please don't take my words to their absolutes. Maybe I could have picked a better argument, but that's just how I feel on the issue.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I admitted that MCAT isn't necessarily the best predictor. But along with GPA, that is still a relatively accurate estimate.</p>
<p>And no, not all races benefit from not having a cut-off score. Some race has to have a higher % of people if there are less of other races.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I admitted that MCAT isn't necessarily the best predictor. But along with GPA, that is still a relatively accurate estimate.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I actually really don't think so. I will admit that it is probably clear that someone with a 3.2 gpa and ~24 MCAT probably should not be accepted into medical school. However, I think that once an individual passes a certain threshold (let's say somewhere around 3.4 and ~29), that other intangible qualities come into play and decide which person is the better doctor.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I agree that a lot of things affect how good a doctor is. However, it is also naive to say that test scores don't decide anything.
[/quote]
well yea but too bad no one has been saying that...?</p>
<p>
[quote]
There have been some studies that showed LSAT scores were the most accurate general indicator of pass/fail on the bar exams.
[/quote]
law school = medical school? ehhh, no.</p>
<p>
[quote]
No.
[/quote]
actually yes it is people like you who promote that stereotype. believe it or not there are some people out there who believe would never believe that it was a person's race that determined how/whether or not they became successful. but i guess you're not one of them...</p>
<p>
[quote]
Oh no! Our school isn't diverse. How will we ever study? How will our school provide funding and education for us without a certain amount of minorities?
[/quote]
simply ignorant. quality is more than just about test scores and grades.</p>
<p>
[quote]
By choosing a significant portion of people with lower grades and scores over higher people
[/quote]
now you're being racist. people of all races have those among them with high scores and low scores. this statement seems to indicate that you believe that all URMs have lower test scores than Asians and Whites.</p>
<p>
[quote]
which often (but not always) translates to the quality of doctors
[/quote]
i don't think you understand what medical school is about. i also don't think you understand/know what the USMLE is.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Our health care system's main problem is the constant influx of illegal immigrants and the USA's poor infrastructure for health care in general. I'm not saying that minorities in the health care profession is bad or hurtful, but that health care could potentially be better. Please don't take my words to their absolutes. Maybe I could have picked a better argument, but that's just how I feel on the issue.
[/quote]
sorry dude but you have a pretty poor and somewhat ignorant understanding as to what the problem is with America's healthcare system so how about let's just drop the whole MCAT and quality of health care argument?</p>
<p>EDIT:
[quote]
I admitted that MCAT isn't necessarily the best predictor. But along with GPA, that is still a relatively accurate estimate.
[/quote]
QUIT MAKING STUFF UP. DROP IT!</p>
<p>EDIT2:
hpa10 is a sage.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I said how my medical school analogy was flawed in many aspects, however the studies in law school were more quantitative. I guess you ignored them.</p>
<p>
<p>Oh, so now I am a racist. I don't disagree that all races have high and low scores. However, take any med school and look at the median enrollments for each race and tell me that the blacks aren't the lowest. All I'm saying are black applicants have lower test scores of those accepted by a significant margin. Please assume more from my statements.</p>
<p> [QUOTE=Newjack88] i don't think you understand what medical school is about.
</p>
<p>I think you think grades are nothing in medicine.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>NEVAR!!1!</p>
<p>I think that AA gets a lot of attention, and I personally disagree with it. Just because a kid is black doesn't mean that s/he is any different from a white kid. I think it just further stereotypes that black kids are weaker students and need the extra help to get into good universities.</p>
<p>I also think that people should be paying more attention to how women are treated. 57% of the applicant pool is female and that number climbs every year, and schools want to keep a 50-50 ratio of men to women. That means they are going to have to reject more women than men because women are doing better and a higher percentage of them are applying to college. It's essentially affirmative action for men, so I think we really need to start asking ourselves how valid the concept for AA is anymore.</p>
<p>"we really need to start asking ourselves how valid the concept for AA is anymore"</p>
<p>We really need to identify our goal. If we want, on average, caucasians and asians to get richer, and blacks and latinos to get poorer, then we'll leave things as they are, and do nothing about it. We are told regularly that the gap between richer and poorer is growing, and it's predominantly along racial lines (because the "races" value education to different degrees, again on average).</p>
<p>But if we want the races to become more equal economically, we'll implement some policies (whatever we call them) toward that end. Without such policies, caucasians and asians will continue to dominate education, and therefore the upper economic strata.</p>
<p>I am very liberal, but I am totally against AA. I hate discrimination, including reverse discrimination. If the goal of AA is truly to help groups who actually have fewer opportunities (e.g. Latinos and blacks), it is a very admirable goal. However, such a goal should have no role in college admissions. If we really want to give "minorities" a better chance at a better life, we need to improve the quality of education for them at the grade-school level. This means that the government needs to provide more funding for better facilities and teachers, especially in inner-city neighborhoods. If we start at the root of the problem, so to speak, AA will become unnecessary. No one will need to rely on AA as a crutch to get into college. Instead of being less prepared for a college, people who would have normally gotten in because of AA will be more prepared for their entire life and will not need to rely on special favors like AA. Only then will "equality of opportunity" truly hold true.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But if we want the races to become more equal economically, we'll implement some policies (whatever we call them) toward that end. Without such policies, caucasians and asians will continue to dominate education, and therefore the upper economic strata.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I highly doubt that is what private colleges are thinking. Private institutions couldn't care less about racial economic-equality.</p>
<p>Spidey1588:
your intentions are good but the real world is not that simple. also, Mentor is right. this is not how or why private colleges use AA. these colleges only use it to achieve a racially diverse student body.</p>
<p>"I highly doubt that is what private colleges are thinking."</p>
<p>The issue goes way beyond private colleges; relatively few students attend private colleges.</p>
<p>"Private institutions couldn't care less about racial economic-equality."</p>
<p>Yours may not, but I know mine does. Private institutions are made up of individuals who make the decisions.</p>
<p>"these colleges only use it to achieve a racially diverse student body"</p>
<p>That begs the question of why they want a racially diverse student body.</p>
<p>AA just makes no logical sense. YEah you may be giving oppurtunities to some people, but by that act, you are taking away oppurtunities from others. just stupid. I say on application, race should not even be a choice.</p>
<p>
[quote]
That begs the question of why they want a racially diverse student body.
[/quote]
that is a whole different discussion. according to the Supreme Court, encouraging different races to interact helps to wear away the hundreds of years of prejudices between the races. encouraging diversity, especially in education, has had many benefits. just look at this years elections. we have a woman and an underrepresented minority with realistic chances of winning running for office.</p>
<p>
[quote]
AA just makes no logical sense. YEah you may be giving oppurtunities to some people, but by that act, you are taking away oppurtunities from others. just stupid. I say on application, race should not even be a choice.
[/quote]
again it's more about creating a diverse student body than about creating equal opportunity.</p>
<p>My understanding of Affirmative Action was that it was set up to assist underprivelidged minority students to have equal opportunities to get into college. However, last year, I saw first hand an african american student get into duke with a full scholarship (yale as well). both of their parents were doctors and they lived in a wealthy suburb of nyc. that was a bit unfair, but they declared their major in math but weren't one of the best math students in the school (of which only a couple students went to other top schools). racial based AA has gotten insane over the years. I strongly believe in economic based affirmative action, though. This would bring the focus back to the original one of having students with unequal opportunities represented. Inner-city students, rural students, and students with unfortunate circumstances would get the helping hand they need.</p>
<p>"encouraging different races to interact ... encouraging diversity"</p>
<p>These are policies that work toward equal opportunity. We don't have to call them AA if some find that term offensive. </p>
<p>"you may be giving oppurtunities to some people, but by that act, you are taking away oppurtunities from others"</p>
<p>This is what private schools do when they craft their classes; it's a zero sum game. They do it in many ways; AA is one small factor, along with other small factors. Academics sometimes complain about jocks getting special treatment.</p>
<p>bohemianlikeyou:
colleges already consider socioeconomic factors.</p>
<p>socioeconomic AA would not create racial diversity. in fact it would hurt it, since the group who would benefit the most from socioeconomic AA is whites since they have the most poor people. Asians would be MUCH worse of in this sort of system especially if colleges took socioeconomic diversity and racial diversity equally serious.</p>
<p>
[quote]
that was a bit unfair, but they declared their major in math but weren't one of the best math students in the school (of which only a couple students went to other top schools). racial based AA has gotten insane over the years.
[/quote]
AA has not gotten insane over the years it's just that you are aware of it now. race is actually starting to matter less and less.</p>
<p>also, if you want to see something insane look at what you said. so because he's not one of the best math student at your high school he shouldn't be allowed to major in math?</p>
<p>Affirmative Action is like a face.</p>
<p>First, i'm aware of the socioeconomic factors. my mom was accepted into mit because of that (she grew up in a place that sent its students to the army- if that), so the whole process is very familiar to me. I was only stating that it should be what is focused on more in this day and age.</p>
<p>Also, i would never suggest that my peer shouldn't major in math. I took class with them for two years and they were very bright. I just can't get over the fact thought that their race boosted them to a higher position than someone who had an even greater drive. Obviously, they had no disadvantages in their life.</p>
<p>I agree, insane was a bad word choice, i was tired, but just a few decades ago, it was needed. Race put people at an obvious disadvantage even in the middle and upper-class schools. Things have changed though (at least in certain areas) and all i was saying is that now the help should be shifted to those who need it.</p>