(split) Affirmative Action discussion

[Toni]

Sorry, but anyone who has passed all the obstacles in a certification process is credible. That is the entire point of the certification process. It is irrational to think otherwise.

The certification process is the bare minimum standard to allow someone to practice in the profession. There is a whole range of skills and abilities beyond the bare minimum.

I think there is a misunderstanding:

All who pass the requisite exams are equally qualified to practice medicine. However, equally qualified is not the same thing as equally skilled or equally knowledgeable.

Knowledge and skill should be improved upon throughout one's career. Skill at passing tests with high scores is not the same thing as skill at practicing medicine which requires, in addition to an extensive base of knowledge, diagnostic skills, listening skills, problem solving skills, an inquiring mind and a lot of empathy.

Also mandatory is the ability to manage time, to work as part of a team, including nurses, techs and the patients. And also to know when to ask for help. Add in the ability to manage stress, which is also extremely important.

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/are-med-school-grads-prepared-to-practice-medicine/?_r=0

 

[Axulus]

The certification process is the bare minimum standard to allow someone to practice in the profession. There is a whole range of skills and abilities beyond the bare minimum.

Do you agree or not that anyone who passes the certification process is a credible practitioner? A qualified practitioner?

Yes - they've shown an adequate level of competency to give trust in the decisions and responsibilities they are tasked with. Doesn't mean that being beyond this level isn't better for their patients and for society.

Regardless - if 50% of black medical students are failing to pass step one of the certification process while 85% of the rest of the students pass it, there is something wrong with your selection criteria.

 

[Axulus]

The certification process is the bare minimum standard to allow someone to practice in the profession. There is a whole range of skills and abilities beyond the bare minimum.

I think there is a misunderstanding:

All who pass the requisite exams are equally qualified to practice medicine. However, equally qualified is not the same thing as equally skilled or equally knowledgeable.

Knowledge and skill should be improved upon throughout one's career. Skill at passing tests with high scores is not the same thing as skill at practicing medicine which requires, in addition to an extensive base of knowledge, diagnostic skills, listening skills, problem solving skills, an inquiring mind and a lot of empathy.

Also mandatory is the ability to manage time, to work as part of a team, including nurses, techs and the patients. And also to know when to ask for help. Add in the ability to manage stress, which is also extremely important.

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/are-med-school-grads-prepared-to-practice-medicine/?_r=0

Yes, I agree with all of the above. Anyone who is certified is qualified, but not equally competent with equal potential in the profession.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I am surprised that nobody has challenged the stats presented as not being legit. Do we all agree they are? Is this not a very stark display of racism in practice against asians and for blacks?

No answer?

Instead we get a squabble over whether those who barely pass the tests are still competent doctors and the standard line that test performance only shows how well people perform on tests. Test performance of course does mean a little more than that (or why have tests) and certainly more than the racist thought that being a particular minority race magically makes you a superior doctor.

 

[laughing dog]

Do you agree or not that anyone who passes the certification process is a credible practitioner? A qualified practitioner?

Yes - they've shown an adequate level of competency to give trust in the decisions and responsibilities they are tasked with. Doesn't mean that being beyond this level isn't better for their patients and for society.

Regardless - if 50% of black medical students are failing to pass step one of the certification process while 85% of the rest of the students pass it, there is something wrong with your selection criteria.

Maybe, but I'd like to see the data by school attended.

- - - Updated - - -

I am surprised that nobody has challenged the stats presented as not being legit. Do we all agree they are? Is this not a very stark display of racism in practice against asians and for blacks?

No.

Instead we get a squabble over whether those who barely pass the tests are still competent doctors and the standard line that test performance only shows how well people perform on tests. Test performance of course does mean a little more than that (or why have tests) and certainly more than the racist thought that being a particular minority race magically makes you a superior doctor.

Where do you pull these fantastical straw men?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

If this is not unjust racial discrimination, why isnt it? Are you just unable to acknowledge it, or do you have a good argument?

 

[laughing dog]

If this is not unjust racial discrimination, why isnt it?

You have not made a case that it is.

Are you just unable to acknowledge it, or do you have a good argument?

I doubt that the author of "certainly more than the racist thought that being a particular minority race magically makes you a superior doctor" is capable of recognizing any argument, let alone a good one.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

The numbers make a strong argument. You can see that. If you can explain them away, go for it. Maybe you see something the rest of us dont. Maybe there is an alternative explanation that accounts for these big differences. What is it?

Trying really hard to give you the benefit of the doubt here.

Or do you really have nothing but a puffed up empty bag? Denial because the stats are uncomfortable? No? Then tell us how to explain this away.

I find these stats disturbing and would love to believe that this is explained by something other than racial discrimination. I can't just do that on quasi-religious faith though.

Oh, and telling me I am too stupid to understand the reasons you pretend to have, doesnt make those pretend reasons any more real.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The overall pass rate for the US medical licensing exam (step 1) is 85%. However, 50% of Blacks fail step 1.

So no. Medical schools are not doing a 'stellar' job by using racist admission criteria to admit Blacks that are less qualified than White and Asian colleagues.

In fact, given the differences in scores, the racist admissions criteria is doing long-term damage to Black physicians in the U.S., because their credibility is undermined by the very real lower performance of Black medical students in USMLE exams. The average Black doctor has lower scores on their licensing exams than the average White or Asian doctor.

Exactly. The result of AA is that when it matters and one has no other data to go on (say, picking from an insurance list) that people will tend to avoid black doctors. (Hopefully one has more data, though. "<x> is good!" counts for a lot more than knowing <x>'s race.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Raw numbers are available here.



The pattern across scores and the pattern across years is unmistakeable.

It's pretty easy to fail to see the forest when you are looking for one kind of tree.

These raw numbers do not say to how many or which schools black, Asian, white and Hispanic candidates submitted applications. To show discrimination one would have to look at numbers for each of the 171 medical schools in the U.S. and to compare acceptance rates and credentials of their pool of applicants.

Your link showed that OVERALL:

White applicants have an acceptance rate of 45.9%
Asian applicants have an acceptance rate of 42.7%
Black applicants have an acceptance rate of 37.0%
Hispanic or Latino applicants have an acceptance rate of 45.4%

None of the data linked show anything about any particular medical schools' admissions with regards to demographics.

It is not the case where there is a single pool of applicants and medical schools select from the same pool. Different candidates apply to different schools, based upon many criteria, including geography, chances of being accepted, expense, types of programs available, etc. Some students, particularly those who come from less wealthy families, specifically pick medical schools which have programs which reduce costs to students if they agree to practice in under served locations. Others attend medical school at the expense of the military and must make selections based upon that. Just for starters.

You're just trying to muddy the waters here. None of your rebuttals have anything to do with the issue of lower scores being accepted. All you've showed here is that the scores amongst the applicants have an even greater difference than the scores amongst those accepted.

- - - Updated - - -

It was from a time when only GPA and MCAT scores mattered. Who cared if the applicant could actually talk to other people. Or listen. Or cared to do either?

Arrogance is not a great quality in a physician.

And how are they supposed to check any of these things in a medical school admission packet?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Having been an Army x-ray technician I have dealt with surgeons. All were equally arrogant, but not equally skilled. When a doctor, technician, or nurse needed surgery there were two that none of them ever used.

And herein lies part of the problem. If you've got a surgeon that nobody in the know will use then they shouldn't be a surgeon. There should be some system to strip their license. As it stands, though, they'll almost certainly continue on hurting people unless their malpractice carrier refuses to cover them.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I am surprised that nobody has challenged the stats presented as not being legit. Do we all agree they are? Is this not a very stark display of racism in practice against asians and for blacks?

No answer?

Instead we get a squabble over whether those who barely pass the tests are still competent doctors and the standard line that test performance only shows how well people perform on tests. Test performance of course does mean a little more than that (or why have tests) and certainly more than the racist thought that being a particular minority race magically makes you a superior doctor.

I've seen that chart around the web before. IIRC it was well sourced.

They know it's honest, they're trying to pretend it doesn't matter.

 

[Metaphor]

The numbers make a strong argument. You can see that. If you can explain them away, go for it. Maybe you see something the rest of us dont. Maybe there is an alternative explanation that accounts for these big differences. What is it?

Trying really hard to give you the benefit of the doubt here.

Or do you really have nothing but a puffed up empty bag? Denial because the stats are uncomfortable? No? Then tell us how to explain this away.

I find these stats disturbing and would love to believe that this is explained by something other than racial discrimination. I can't just do that on quasi-religious faith though.

Oh, and telling me I am too stupid to understand the reasons you pretend to have, doesnt make those pretend reasons any more real.

Since the other side isn't doing a very good case of defending their views, I'll proffer two scenarios where numbers like the acceptance rates in the tables could reflect something other than racist admissions policies. These are both mathematical possibilities, but I find the first scenario extremely unlikely and I find the second scenario staggeringly unlikely.

i) No individual school is discriminating; Asians are merely applying to the most elite schools and no other schools and so the higher rejection rate for Asians is to be expected. This is Simpson's paradox. However, the confluence of events here have to amount to a perfect storm. Students apply for an average of 14 medical schools when they apply; it beggars belief that Asians are so uppity that they only apply to the elite schools and have no 'safety' schools in their applications. In fact, given that Asian students must have seen the MCAT results by race, they ought to be very aware of the racial bias against them and apply at even more schools.

ii) Blacks and Latinos are superior on a hidden variable which is detected by interviewers and this elevates them above Whites and Asians with similar aptitude and GPAs. Let's call this variable 'x'. High values of 'x' are good and are regarded positively by admissions administrators. The reason this is staggeringly unlikely is that
-- psychometric variables are positive manifold: aptitude scores correlate positively with grades correlate positively with other desirable psychometric properties. So, for Blacks to have variable 'x' in abundance whilst their GPAs and aptitude scores are so much lower is curious
-- The variable is most abundant in Blacks, followed by Latinos, followed by Whites, followed by Asians. And yet, aptitude and grades are highest in the exact reverse order.

I'm not sure why there is so much resistance to the idea that the medical schools are using racist admissions policies. The data are there for anyone without blinders on to see. I especially don't know why since I've been told it wouldn't matter even if they were; it's morally acceptable to discriminate based on race because 'the public' needs doctors who 'look like them'. This is literally admitting that medical schools should be racist because the public is racist.

Why that's morally acceptable I'm sure I don't know.

 

[laughing dog]

The numbers make a strong argument. You can see that.

Numbers make no arguments.

If you can explain them away, go for it. Maybe you see something the rest of us dont. Maybe there is an alternative explanation that accounts for these big differences. What is it?

Try reading with some comprehension for a change. I think there is a distinct possibility that these numbers may be the result of a few schools.

Trying really hard to give you the benefit of the doubt here.

Or do you really have nothing but a puffed up empty bag? Denial because the stats are uncomfortable? No? Then tell us how to explain this away.

I find these stats disturbing and would love to believe that this is explained by something other than racial discrimination. I can't just do that on quasi-religious faith though.

Of course you can. You've been exhibiting throughout this thread.

Oh, and telling me I am too stupid to understand the reasons you pretend to have, doesnt make those pretend reasons any more real.

I didn't tell you that you are too stupid. It has nothing to do with pretend. I am still awaiting a cogent answer (why isn't it discrimination does not qualify) to
Here is an example. A small university in Minnesota has a traditionally overwhelming white student population mostly from small towns. In an attempt to broaden its student body diversity, the university does extra high school visits to high schools in Milwaukee and Chicago with high ratios of black students in an attempt to publicize and attract the university to black students. Just how is that discriminating against white students?.

 

[Axulus]

I think there is a distinct possibility that these numbers may be the result of a few schools.

Why don't you rank the likelihood of the explanations in order for us: (1) the admissions policies arbitrarily favor blacks and then Hispanics over whites and Asians (2) Metaphor's explanation i), or (3) Metaphor's explanation ii). Please explain your reasoning - he already explained why i) and ii) are unlikely.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

What does high school visits have to do with the data Metaphor posted?

Try to help us here. Try not to be a prick while doing so. We really want to believe these school admission boards are not being racist.

What is your alternate explanation of the data?

 

[laughing dog]

I think there is a distinct possibility that these numbers may be the result of a few schools.

Why don't you rank the likelihood of the explanations in order for us: (1) the admissions policies arbitrarily favor blacks and then Hispanics over whites and Asians (2) Metaphor's explanation i), or (3) Metaphor's explanation ii). Please explain your reasoning - he already explained why i) and ii) are unlikely.

I don't see the need to expend energy on assessing likelihoods when better data would more likely settle the question.

 

[laughing dog]

What does high school visits have to do with the data Metaphor posted?

Nothing. You abandoned that discussion yesterday. I am still waiting for a cogent response. All I get is evasion.

Try to help us here. Try not to be a prick while doing so. We really want to believe these school admission boards are not being racist.

The evidence from your posts contradicts your claims.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Imagine if we took this smug handwaving approach to data that clearly appeared to show racism against black people. I think you would leading the charge to condemn us.

 

[Axulus]

Why don't you rank the likelihood of the explanations in order for us: (1) the admissions policies arbitrarily favor blacks and then Hispanics over whites and Asians (2) Metaphor's explanation i), or (3) Metaphor's explanation ii). Please explain your reasoning - he already explained why i) and ii) are unlikely.

I don't see the need to expend energy on assessing likelihoods when better data would more likely settle the question.

When better data is not available all we have left is various probability ranges based on what is available.

This seems to go back to your comment that you don't view social sciences as science. You seem to be uncomfortable with making judgment calls on possible likelihoods of various options unless the data and evidence come down strongly on one side or another.

I would highly encourage you to read this book: Proving History: Bayes's Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus

It is probably the best book I have ever read about how to more rigorously quantify uncertainties when the evidence is incomplete or unclear and to more rigorously quantify the probability of various explanations/hypotheses being true when the data/evidence does not allow for scientific certainty (as is the case in much of life). The methods explained in the book are applicable to every empirical method and also proves that every valid empirical method must ultimately be modeled on Bayes's Theorem.