MCATs, Affirmative Action, and DEI, Oh My

[Emily Lake]

Policies have always been set, both explicitly and implicitly, to favor a particular gender and race and perceived sexual orientation.

Do you think they should continue to be set both implicitly and explicitly to favor a particular sex, race, or sexual orientation?

Your question assumes
1) policies implicitly favor a particular sex, race, or sexual orientation,
2) policies explicitly favor a particular sex, race, or sexual orientation, and
3) a policy that neither implicitly nor explicitly favors a particular sex, race or sexual orientation exists.

What other possible option is there? Policies can have implicit bias, explicit bias, or no bias. Or perhaps a mix of implicit and explicit I suppose. But I'm failing to see what fourth alternative my question is eliding.

 

[Emily Lake]

Test scores presented to three significant digits are a great example of spurious accuracy.

I mean... I did previously mention that the question of materiality was being overlooked. Spurious accuracy falls into that heading.

 

[Emily Lake]

MCAT might not be a good predictor of success as a doctor. Is there some other objective measure that does a better job?

I don't know about "objective," but if you look at the study that I had posted, you might say that the last two years of med school begin to predict how well one might do as a doctor. This is because hands-on training (and work) is being performed. Think about this as possibly additional skill sets involving other dimensions: social and physical. southernhybrid mentions above: emotional intelligence and that would be one aspect, perhaps under a social category. There could also be some factors such as resilience after observing traumas, keeping your cool.

And there's also a kind of procedural dexterity: I remember in basic training, we were taught to shout some verbatim definition for an M16, but then later, shooting an M16 in target practice and scoring well is different from the capacity to shout a definition, and later on shooting an M16 on the battlefield is yet again different from target practice.

I'm sure that once people are well into their training, predicting who will ultimately succeed becomes easier.

The discussion thus far was around admittance. Realistically, there are probably more people who want to become a doctor than there are seats for med students. So there needs to be some means of making a judgement on which of the applicants represent the best investment. Logically, it seems like schools would want to ensure that they're turning out high quality doctors, becuase that reflects on the school.

MCAT is a measure that can be used during admission. Are there other measures that might do a better job of it? Is there something that could replace MCAT, or is that essentially the best we've got?

 

[Emily Lake]

Test scores presented to three significant digits are a great example of spurious accuracy.

THANK you. I am constantly trying to make this point. If someone thinks that a difference of twenty or thirty "points" on a standardized exam is an important matker of essential, immutable "qualification", either they haven't thought all that hard about what the points actually mean, or they'd do quite poorly themselves on any standardized measure of qualitative reasoning.

Ahem

Okay, look - they're different. Some of them look like they're even statistically significantly so. Here's what's missing:

• What is the overall mean and standard deviation of the population as a whole, and how representative is the sample?
• Do the ranges of the cohorts fall within the range of the population as a whole in a way that suggests sampling error is the more likely explanation for the differences?
• Is there bias or skew in the sample selection criteria, either intentional or inadvertent?

And most importantly:

• Is the difference material?

 

[Emily Lake]

Some people do better on standardized tests regardless of their intelligence and educational background and if anyone did a little research, they would realize as has been pointed out a few times, that MCAT scores do not make a good or a bad doctor. Things like emotional intelligence, willingness to keep learning, being open minded as new medical discoveries take place are far more important than MCAT scores.

Plus, a a nurse who has dealt with both good and horrible doctors, imo, many doctors don't bother to learn much of anything new once they begin practicing. This, imo is very true of while male doctors, not all of them of course, but far too damn many of them. Gotta go. Have fun with this silly argument or find something better to do with your time.

To add to this: for many undergrad students who are aiming for medical school, there is a strong competition for top scores, top grades, the most rigorous ( you name it) available—a kind of pseudo intellectual machismo.

This tends to produce students who are very very good at earning perfect scores but who do not necessarily develop good social skills, empathy, listening skills.

Social skills and empathy are nice to haves. Body of knowledge, ability to accurately diagnose and treat are foundational requirements.

 

[laughing dog]

I think you may have missed the point I was attempting to make.

You mean that because the admissions process has changed so that since white men are automatically at the front of the line, it must be unfair?

I really wish sometimes you (general) woudl take the sticks out of your asses and actually read for comprehension instead of assuming malice in other people.

Go fucking read my post again, LD. This time without your prejudice.

I responded to the content in your post #43. Perhaps you should be consistent with your points.

But you didn't respond to the content in my post #43. You responded to my interaction with Jimmy, which was about post #42.

If you wanted to respond to the content in my post #43... you should have responded to my post #43. That would have been consistent.

I know what I responded to. I responded to the content of post 43.

You know what? Don't bother, let me try to make this simpler for you:

Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if MCAT varies from actual success by a fair bit. The question is whether or not there's some other objective metric that correlates better than MCAT.

And I'll even do you the courtesy of dumbing it down even more:

MCAT might not be a good predictor of success as a doctor. Is there some other objective measure that does a better job?

An objective measure of success as a doctor is required for that. Good luck.

{shrug} You read as if you're being dismissive and condescending. I just don't know exactly what you think you're dismissing.

An objective measure of success of a doctor. Take your own advice and read without your prejudice.

 

[laughing dog]

Policies have always been set, both explicitly and implicitly, to favor a particular gender and race and perceived sexual orientation.

Do you think they should continue to be set both implicitly and explicitly to favor a particular sex, race, or sexual orientation?

Your question assumes
1) policies implicitly favor a particular sex, race, or sexual orientation,
2) policies explicitly favor a particular sex, race, or sexual orientation, and
3) a policy that neither implicitly nor explicitly favors a particular sex, race or sexual orientation exists.

What other possible option is there? Policies can have implicit bias, explicit bias, or no bias. Or perhaps a mix of implicit and explicit I suppose. But I'm failing to see what fourth alternative my question is eliding.

Reread my post without your prejudice and you might begin to see it presumes current bias (implicit or explicit) in policy without identifying how a policy could have no implicit or explicit bias at all.

Whenever there is a change in policy, there are those who gain and those who lose. The losers can and usually cry about the unfairness or bias.

 

[Toni]

Some people do better on standardized tests regardless of their intelligence and educational background and if anyone did a little research, they would realize as has been pointed out a few times, that MCAT scores do not make a good or a bad doctor. Things like emotional intelligence, willingness to keep learning, being open minded as new medical discoveries take place are far more important than MCAT scores.

Plus, a a nurse who has dealt with both good and horrible doctors, imo, many doctors don't bother to learn much of anything new once they begin practicing. This, imo is very true of while male doctors, not all of them of course, but far too damn many of them. Gotta go. Have fun with this silly argument or find something better to do with your time.

To add to this: for many undergrad students who are aiming for medical school, there is a strong competition for top scores, top grades, the most rigorous ( you name it) available—a kind of pseudo intellectual machismo.

This tends to produce students who are very very good at earning perfect scores but who do not necessarily develop good social skills, empathy, listening skills.

Social skills and empathy are nice to haves. Body of knowledge, ability to accurately diagnose and treat are foundational requirements.

So are social skills and some degree of empathy, depending on the field of medicine.

Patients do not follow the advice of doctors they do not trust. If they do not believe the doctor hears what they are saying and understands what they are saying, there is a break down in communication and the patient is less inclined to follow the doctor’s advice.

 

[Derec]

From Google AI:

Always inspires confidence.

Marshall University Joan C. Edwards School of Medicine requires a minimum MCAT score of 505 for general consideration, though preferences and averages vary by residency status.

What exactly is selecting one school supposed to prove? The overall data show that overall, across medical school as a whole, whites and Asians are disadvantaged in admissions, while blacks, Hispanics and American Indians are advantaged.

MCAT Score Requirements
Hard Minimum: A minimum score of 505 is officially required for application consideration, though it does not guarantee an interview or admission.

In-State vs. Out-of-State Preferences: An MCAT score of 500 or greater is preferred for West Virginia residents and specific designated surrounding counties (in Ohio and Kentucky). An MCAT score of 505 or greater is preferred for out-of-state applicants.

Average/Median Scores: Matriculating students typically have an average or median MCAT score of 504 to 506

Typical AI slop! These statements are mutually contradictory. You can't have a "hard minimum" of 505 and then say ≥500 is preferred for in-state applicants and ≥505 is preferred for out-of-state applicants.

West Virginia is significantly less racially and ethnically diverse than the United States as a whole, with a population that is over 90% White.
At the Marshall University Joan C. Edwards School of Medicine, the student body's racial and ethnic breakdown is predominantly White, with reported percentages around 82% White, 9.7% Asian, 2.34% Black or African American, 1% Hispanic/Latino, and 0.33% American Indian or Alaska Native.

Assuming the clanker is not hallucinating here, whites are still significantly underrepresented at Marshall. And as I said, looking at a single school is not disproving nationwide trends. Especially when you pick a med school in a very non-representative state.

The in-state acceptance rate is 36.15% and out of state acceptance rate is 1.21%.

Yes. Many schools, especially public ones, have an in-state preference. That does not disprove the overall AAMC data, especially since premeds generally apply to a lot of schools, typically around 16 or so. Since West Virginia has three medical schools, a typical WV student will apply to a lot of out-of-state schools too.

 

[Derec]

Which is exactly why they DON'T do as you are claiming.

BS. That's what the desire at racial balancing (aka "diversity") above all else is all about.

 

[Derec]

There are schools of medicine where the median MCAT score is less than that. Also, there are schools where the racial demographics are very different from the US generally. Each school doesn't have the same thresholds nor the same racial breakdown.

I do not see how that invalidates overall data.

You know about HBCUs. There's also some schools in Puerto Rico.

Are you saying these schools reject people who are not black and Hispanic respectively?

San Juan Bautista School of Medicine requires a minimum MCAT score of 492 (with 495 often cited as the threshold for interviews), and has a median/average MCAT score of 499 for accepted students.

Those are some horrible stats. Juan Bautista is basically a glorified Caribbean school. I wonder what their drop out rates are.

 

[Emily Lake]

I think you may have missed the point I was attempting to make.

You mean that because the admissions process has changed so that since white men are automatically at the front of the line, it must be unfair?

I really wish sometimes you (general) woudl take the sticks out of your asses and actually read for comprehension instead of assuming malice in other people.

Go fucking read my post again, LD. This time without your prejudice.

I responded to the content in your post #43. Perhaps you should be consistent with your points.

But you didn't respond to the content in my post #43. You responded to my interaction with Jimmy, which was about post #42.

If you wanted to respond to the content in my post #43... you should have responded to my post #43. That would have been consistent.

I know what I responded to. I responded to the content of post 43.

I'll agree that you know what you intended your response to be related to... but what you actually literally responded to was post 45. And my post 45 was in response to Jimmy's comment on post 42.

You observably did not, in actuality, respond to post 43. Follow the links.

So let's chalk it up to misinterpretations and move on.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

As a professor, I'll throw in my opinion that the MCATs, like all multiple choice standardized exams, are at best an incomplete representation of student ability. I am not an expert in its study area, but did review a bank of social and psych section example questions recently, and I don't think you would need to have taken a college level couse in the behavioral sciences to pass it. It also heavily overemphasizes psych theory and theories, which is going to be very important for sone medical fields especially anyone that is going to be prescribing psychoactive meds, but is no sort of preparation on its own for a cross-cultural clinical exchange, or even a post-connectome cog science discussion. So what is it testing for? Ability to cram your way through a test prep booklet? Serious medical programs are correct to backpedal on the over-emphasis on this particular metric. There are no 60 multiple choice questions that can, on their own, tell you if a student is ready for medical school.

Sure, but I'm betting they can, on their own, tell you if a student is NOT ready for medical school.

Of course they can.

Science doesn't care where you came from, who you are, or if intangible and ever changing sociological trends are adhered to.

Pre-reqs for medical based careers tells schools whether the applicant has an aptitude for the subject; chemistry, biology, microbiology, anatomy, etc. It's the only way to know.

And even then, the applicant has to have the mental fortitude to get through the schooling process. It's not just the subject matter, it's the amount of subject matter and the achievement of high test scores on rigorous exams along with grueling internships after which comes an intense and high pressure jobs where lives are at stake.

Medical schools don't have room for, nor should they be expected to lower standards for any person.

 

[Derec]

Well, yes, it is. A very specific theoretical paradigm that Wikipedia summarizes accurately and you did not. ???

How so? Which part of my summary do you disagree with?

The main point is that it is a very political theoretical paradigm. Your statement made it sound like conservatives were rejecting it because they hate critical thinking, and not because "critical theory" is a left-wing paradigm with ties to Marxist conflict theory.

That is the entire point of critical theory. Funny how conservatives hate that more than anything.

More or less the entirety of critical theory is, as Loren put it, "looking for what's causing it". Marxism is part of the stew, but critical theory was also a response to and partial rejection of oversimplified Marxist explanations. Disastisfaction with convential emotionalist or knowledge deficit theories of racism was a driving force in the revival of critical race theory in particular.

I do not think "critical race theory" for example is honestly looking at the issue of racism. It is still the old "white oppressors, non-white oppressed" paradigm, but dressed up with verbiage such as "structural racism" and acronyms like "BIPOC".

I never understand why conservatives so predictably post links to things that contradict what they themselves say. Were you hoping I perhaps did not know how to read?

Calling everybody who is not on the left a "conservative" does not make us conservative. And saying that something is contradictory does not make it so. Also, wikipedia editors being favorable toward "critical theory" is not in itself a contradiction either. So, what specific points do you have in mind, if any?

 

[Emily Lake]

An objective measure of success of a doctor. Take your own advice and read without your prejudice.

There are several measures of effectiveness for doctors, some are more objective than others, but your point is taken. On the other hand, I think there are perhaps better measures for what makes a bad doctor than what makes a good doctor.

Stepping back, I don't think this is really unusual in the grand scheme. There are tons of stuff in our lives where the bar is realistically "good enough". It's very difficult to give a concrete ranking of products and services, and identify which is the best versus the second best. On the other hand, it's not usually difficult to give a grouping of the "top" items. And there's usually a better-defined criteria for what's unacceptable.

 

[Emily Lake]

Some people do better on standardized tests regardless of their intelligence and educational background and if anyone did a little research, they would realize as has been pointed out a few times, that MCAT scores do not make a good or a bad doctor. Things like emotional intelligence, willingness to keep learning, being open minded as new medical discoveries take place are far more important than MCAT scores.

Plus, a a nurse who has dealt with both good and horrible doctors, imo, many doctors don't bother to learn much of anything new once they begin practicing. This, imo is very true of while male doctors, not all of them of course, but far too damn many of them. Gotta go. Have fun with this silly argument or find something better to do with your time.

To add to this: for many undergrad students who are aiming for medical school, there is a strong competition for top scores, top grades, the most rigorous ( you name it) available—a kind of pseudo intellectual machismo.

This tends to produce students who are very very good at earning perfect scores but who do not necessarily develop good social skills, empathy, listening skills.

Social skills and empathy are nice to haves. Body of knowledge, ability to accurately diagnose and treat are foundational requirements.

So are social skills and some degree of empathy, depending on the field of medicine.

Patients do not follow the advice of doctors they do not trust. If they do not believe the doctor hears what they are saying and understands what they are saying, there is a break down in communication and the patient is less inclined to follow the doctor’s advice.

As a counterpoint... having a doctor that has a great bedside manner and is very compassionate doesn't count for much if they misdiagnose you or fail to provide an appropriate treatment.

"That surgeon had fantastic social skills and was really empathetic. It's such a shame he operated on the wrong leg and left a rag inside when he closed."

Like I said - nice to have. It's desirable, and it will make the difference between a good doctor and a great doctor. But it's not a foundational requirement - the foundational requirement is knowledge of their field of practice, ability to accurately diagnose, and being able to recommend the best option for treatment for the specific scenario.

 

[Emily Lake]

What exactly is selecting one school supposed to prove? The overall data show that overall, across medical school as a whole, whites and Asians are disadvantaged in admissions, while blacks, Hispanics and American Indians are advantaged.

But it doesn't.

That may be a possible explanation for the observed differences, but it is not at all the only, or even the most likely explanation. You're working on incomplete data, and filling in the gaps with assumptions that you have no backing for. The assumptions you're making are driven by your belief.

The same outcomes could be explained by different standard deviations with in each cohort combined with different skew.

You don't know what the driver of the differences are. You've latched on to your preferred narrative explanation - but you are no more justified in that assumption than are those who assume racism. Both are based on preconceived notions of what the cause is, without actual data to back it up.

 

[Emily Lake]

Medical schools don't have room for, nor should they be expected to lower standards for any person.

In generalities, I agree. But I think there may be room for some squish that you're not taking into consideration. For example, it could be that in the past the bar has been set very high, as a means to limit the number of doctors, and thereby command higher rates. That's great... until we end up in a situation where there aren't enough doctors for the population and access becomes a problem.

If the bar is set higher than is required, then lowering that bar may be appropriate if doing so doesn't jeopardize quality.

Potentially timely analogy: It's all well and good to have your toilet paper bar set at soft, thick, doesn't pill, doesn't tear, doesn't have a nap when supplies are abundant. But when supplies run low, you might very well decide that all you actually care about is whether or not it will block your pipes.

 

[southernhybrid]

Some people do better on standardized tests regardless of their intelligence and educational background and if anyone did a little research, they would realize as has been pointed out a few times, that MCAT scores do not make a good or a bad doctor. Things like emotional intelligence, willingness to keep learning, being open minded as new medical discoveries take place are far more important than MCAT scores.

Plus, a a nurse who has dealt with both good and horrible doctors, imo, many doctors don't bother to learn much of anything new once they begin practicing. This, imo is very true of while male doctors, not all of them of course, but far too damn many of them. Gotta go. Have fun with this silly argument or find something better to do with your time.

To add to this: for many undergrad students who are aiming for medical school, there is a strong competition for top scores, top grades, the most rigorous ( you name it) available—a kind of pseudo intellectual machismo.

This tends to produce students who are very very good at earning perfect scores but who do not necessarily develop good social skills, empathy, listening skills.

Social skills and empathy are nice to haves. Body of knowledge, ability to accurately diagnose and treat are foundational requirements.

So are social skills and some degree of empathy, depending on the field of medicine.

Patients do not follow the advice of doctors they do not trust. If they do not believe the doctor hears what they are saying and understands what they are saying, there is a break down in communication and the patient is less inclined to follow the doctor’s advice.

Not only that, but I will not continue going to a doctor who lacks empathy and knows how to relate to patients. I originally went to one doctor to have my knee replacement surgery, but didn't like his attitude. The one I ended up with was kind, and considerate and had a much better reputation than the first one. I do have some mild to moderate pain in my knees which is very common, but a friend of mine who went to the other doctor had much worse pain that made it impossible for her to exercise. Besides, I prefer NPs but they they don't do surgery. Sure, I've known one who was a jerk and didn't seem to be very bright, but she was the exception. I'm not a fan of PAs, as they often push unneeded things on patients. I've only known one who I liked.

 

[Emily Lake]

For the record... I'm aware that I'm arguing with pretty much everyone in this thread on at least one point.