MCATs, Affirmative Action, and DEI, Oh My

[Jimmy Higgins]

It is very possible to be an excellent test taker —and a less talented professional in any field you care to name.

You're not joking. I know I'm a bit biased... but some of the absolute worst practicing acturaries I've know breezed through exams like they were nothing. Great test takers, really crappy at doing the job. Some are good at both.

Doing well on tests doesn't guarantee success post exams. On the other hand... doing poorly on tests rarely results in success at the other end.

Exactly.

However, there is ZERO evidence that medical schools are admitting ANY students who do not meet their thresholds for admissions.

You somehow still believe that they do.

And that is where we seem to differ.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

Seriously, Toni. You haven't been reading my posts. Or you haven't been comprehending them. Or you just made some asinine assumption about me at some point in the past and can't get out from behind your own prejudice.

For fuck's holy sake, I've been making a point of demonstrating how a small change in the threshold to entry for EVERYONE can produce a different resulting mix, simply as a result of different means, standard deviations, and skew. I've also argued that a threshold that is lower than it was in the past isn't necessarily a bad thing, provided that it still produces good doctors.

I've also argued that preferencing acceptance or hiring on the basis of race is a bad idea, and that racism in 2026 is just nowhere near what it was in 1956, and that we really don't need this obsessive focus on skin color anymore... and that it's currently causing more harm than good.

But if you can't see past some knee-jerk "OMG THAT MUST BE RACIST!!!!" reaction that's on you.

The thing is, certain people are the ones focused on race. We've seen the stats. Students with better grades have higher acceptance rates. We've seen that drop out rates in Med School are very low. It also implies that MCAT's and GPA aren't holy grails to determining qualification for being a student that can be successful in medical school, or in that the spread in MCAT and GPA isn't highly relevant.

When looking at race, we see the races with better average scores have higher acceptance rates. We see that in general, drop out rates in Med School are very low across races. We see that Asians are much more over-represented in medical school than their percentage of population.

The statistics imply that admission (or lack there of) based on race isn't much of a thing. So, why in the heck is this thread up to 260 posts regarding race and admissions?

 

[Toni]

It is very possible to be an excellent test taker —and a less talented professional in any field you care to name.

You're not joking. I know I'm a bit biased... but some of the absolute worst practicing acturaries I've know breezed through exams like they were nothing. Great test takers, really crappy at doing the job. Some are good at both.

Doing well on tests doesn't guarantee success post exams. On the other hand... doing poorly on tests rarely results in success at the other end.

Exactly.

However, there is ZERO evidence that medical schools are admitting ANY students who do not meet their thresholds for admissions.

You somehow still believe that they do.

And that is where we seem to differ.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

Seriously, Toni. You haven't been reading my posts. Or you haven't been comprehending them. Or you just made some asinine assumption about me at some point in the past and can't get out from behind your own prejudice.

For fuck's holy sake, I've been making a point of demonstrating how a small change in the threshold to entry for EVERYONE can produce a different resulting mix, simply as a result of different means, standard deviations, and skew. I've also argued that a threshold that is lower than it was in the past isn't necessarily a bad thing, provided that it still produces good doctors.

I've also argued that preferencing acceptance or hiring on the basis of race is a bad idea, and that racism in 2026 is just nowhere near what it was in 1956, and that we really don't need this obsessive focus on skin color anymore... and that it's currently causing more harm than good.

But if you can't see past some knee-jerk "OMG THAT MUST BE RACIST!!!!" reaction that's on you.

The thing is, certain people are the ones focused on race. We've seen the stats. Students with better grades have higher acceptance rates. We've seen that drop out rates in Med School are very low. It also implies that MCAT's and GPA aren't holy grails to determining qualification for being a student that can be successful in medical school, or in that the spread in MCAT and GPA isn't highly relevant.

When looking at race, we see the races with better average scores have higher acceptance rates. We see that in general, drop out rates in Med School are very low across races. We see that Asians are much more over-represented in medical school than their percentage of population.

The statistics imply that admission (or lack there of) based on race isn't much of a thing. So, why in the heck is this thread up to 260 posts regarding race and admissions?

Especially: GPA and MCAT ( or GRE or LSAT) are measures of how students perform in that setting, for the exams, in that particular day.

In the end, students, like everyone else, are only human beings who have lives and in those lives have multiple facts that affect whether or not they stay in their course of study. Health, financial and family/personal stresses affect all of us, including medical students.

 

[laughing dog]

The statistics imply that admission (or lack there of) based on race isn't much of a thing. So, why in the heck is this thread up to 260 posts regarding race and admissions?

Jimmy, your color blindness leads makes you miss the tragedy that white men are not getting enough seats in medical schools!!!!!!

 

[Derec]

It is very possible to be an excellent test taker —and a less talented professional in any field you care to name.

How do you propose to assess knowledge and reasoning except with some kind of test?

What would you like to use for med school admissions instead of MCAT? Would you also scrap USMLE Step exams?

 

[Toni]

It is very possible to be an excellent test taker —and a less talented professional in any field you care to name.

How do you propose to assess knowledge and reasoning except with some kind of test?

What would you like to use for med school admissions instead of MCAT? Would you also scrap USMLE Step exams?

I’m not displeased with the current system except that higher education is far too expensive and too many are extremely overburdened by education debt, and too many are discouraged from pursuing advanced and professional degrees.

I don’t have any issue with med schools using the MCAT or with USMLE.

Med schools do an excellent job of selecting students who will do well in medical school and beyond. The graduation rate is extremely high, the drop out rate is extremely low and is more related to financial and life stress than any academic pressure.

You are the one who seems married to the idea that only the students with the X highest scores should be admitted, X being the number of seats in an incoming class.

MCAT and GPA provide a lot of good information but they do not select for students who have other requisite characteristics aside from intellectual capacity to make good physicians. And physicians who want to do the job including for underserved communities.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It is very possible to be an excellent test taker —and a less talented professional in any field you care to name.

How do you propose to assess knowledge and reasoning except with some kind of test?

What would you like to use for med school admissions instead of MCAT? Would you also scrap USMLE Step exams?

Haven't we demonstrated there is nothing wrong with the system as is? You, and others, appear desperate to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

 

[Emily Lake]

Denial of the generational effects of racism.

What possible concept of equity and equality should justify discriminating against a group of people for things that happened before they were born?

Because they are still suffering from the racism their parents and grandparents experienced.

"Well see, Bob, your great grandfather stole some money from my great grandpa 85 years ago. That's why you have to pay me $100 a month for the rest of your life."

It's a stupid idea, and it causes far more harm than good.

Two closely matched candidates for a position or scholarly program. Give it to the person whose parents or grandparents were discriminated against and forced the minority candidate to work harder for the position.

You're making a LOT of assumptions in there. And they're quite frankly racist assumptions. You're assuming across the board that black people cannot succeed on their own, unless noble white people give them a helping hand. You rob them of agency, and you dismiss the consequences of their own choices.

Simultaneously, you assume that white people have it easy and that their success is unearned. You ascribe to white people in general the sins of past generations, and ask white people to be accountable for it. You assume that the white people did NOT work as hard to get the position.

The white person from a Tennessee holler will have put in just as much effort as a black person from downtown LA. A white person from rural Arkansas very likely had to work much harder to get ahead than did the black person from upstate New York.

 

[Emily Lake]

You do realize people drop out of school for all sorts of non-academic reasons.

I dropped out for a few years because I got married and my spouse joined the military and they moved us to a different state.

Actually very few students drop out of medical school. Those who do almost always do fir personal or financial reasons, not academic ones

Actually most students stay in school and academic exits are uncommon.

I think that’s what I said?

Ya think?

Leading off my post with "Actually" comes across as disagreement. This is clearly in evidence by your confusion in response. To you, it sounds as if I'm disagreeing with you, even though I'm agreeing. The same is true for your post that I responded to. I'm clearly agreeing with LD, and adding my own personal experience to bolster his point. You responding with "Actually..." comes across as if you're disagreeing with me. But you're not.

And that's my point. Even if it's completely unintentional, you frequently write in a way that implies disagreement and opposition. It's very confusing, and it's been at the root of several arguments-that-aren't-arguments. You certainly don't have to take my advice, but I do hope you give some consideration and thought to whether or not your style of writing might contribute to friction. And whether or not a relatively minor alteration could avoid it.

 

[Emily Lake]

Denial of the generational effects of racism.

What possible concept of equity and equality should justify discriminating against a group of people for things that happened before they were born?

Because they are still suffering from the racism their parents and grandparents experienced.

"Well see, Bob, your great grandfather stole some money from my great grandpa 85 years ago. That's why you have to pay me $100 a month for the rest of your life."

It's a stupid idea, and it causes far more harm than good.

Two closely matched candidates for a position or scholarly program. Give it to the person whose parents or grandparents were discriminated against and forced the minority candidate to work harder for the position.

Yeah, as much as some people would like to believe racism is dead and gone ( Obama!) it certainly is not.

But if you are white and most of your friends and family and coworkers and neighbors are also white, it’s really easy to think there is no racism.

On what basis do you assume that most of my friends and family and coworkers and neighbors are white?

That's one hell of a convenient assumption for you to make. It lets you assume the moral high ground without actually bothering to climb the hill.

 

[Emily Lake]

I think that there’s a bit if sunlight reflecting off of that mirror and hitting you in the eye.

Maybe you're just not nearly as clear a communicator as you think you are.

 

[Emily Lake]

Your assumption still seems to be that standards are lowered to admit more non-white, non-Asian students.

My reading of admissions over time does not agree with that.

You suck at reading comprehension. I'm sure that will hurt your feelings, but oh the fuck well. It's true. You suck at it.

As far as I can tell, you make bad assumptions, and then you get stuck on those assumptions. So stuck that you can't seem to incorporate additional information if it conflicts with your assumptions.

Seriously. Go back and reread my posts and my various arguments. Read them WITHOUT your prejudice and your bias. Just read the words, and try to assume benign intent. And maybe give some thought to who I'm arguing with in each case, and what I'm arguing about.

 

[Emily Lake]

OMFG!! Boeings are sooooo dangerous! If it's a Boeing, I ain't going!!

How many planes does Boeing have in use, and how many planes does Airbus have? What average distance does each fly? In other words, what's the exposure unit?

Marginally related: I once had a discussion with someone from New Zealand, looking at the number of Maori drownings per year versus non-Maori. They opined that NZ needed to do something about it, since Maori drowned so much more often. What was missing was the fact that on average, Maori spent far more time in and on the water than other groups did, so their exposure was much higher. When the water-hours exposure unit was taken into consideration, the rate of Maori drownings per water-hours was quite a bit lower than for non-Maori.

 

[Emily Lake]

The evidence is in the data about MCAT and GPA distribution for matriculated students. You and your Ilk still have not found a way to explain it without admitting discrimination in the name of "diversity", aka "affirmative action".

You and your ilk cannot explain any reduction in white men’s chances without screaming discrimination. The notion that the world does not revolve around white men is inconceivable to you.

Honestly, I'm pretty well fed up with all of you.

I don't think that either Loren or Derec are racists. I do think they both oppose double standards and preferential treatment. I think they're both so invested in that view that they engage in flawed reasoning quite regularly, and see reverse racism where it doesn't necessarily exist.

On the other hand, youse will see any disagreement with policies that result in race-based preferences as being racism automatically, regardless of whether they result in such.

That is simply untrue. My conclusion about racism stems from many posts over the years over a wide range of topics.

And, if you actually read my words, you would have noticed no mention of racism. Obsessing over the perceived treatment of white men is not necessarily racist.

Are you trying to draw a meaningful distinction between racism and discrimination?

 

[Emily Lake]

The thing is, certain people are the ones focused on race. We've seen the stats. Students with better grades have higher acceptance rates. We've seen that drop out rates in Med School are very low. It also implies that MCAT's and GPA aren't holy grails to determining qualification for being a student that can be successful in medical school, or in that the spread in MCAT and GPA isn't highly relevant.

When looking at race, we see the races with better average scores have higher acceptance rates. We see that in general, drop out rates in Med School are very low across races. We see that Asians are much more over-represented in medical school than their percentage of population.

The statistics imply that admission (or lack there of) based on race isn't much of a thing. So, why in the heck is this thread up to 260 posts regarding race and admissions?

To oversimplify, it's up to 260 posts because having diversity, equity, and inclusion as stated goals will ALWAYS call into question the fairness of the criteria being employed.

There's no way around it, it's the natural and reasonable outcome of it. When Biden explicitly and openly limited his running mate to non-white females, it's impossible to avoid suspicion falling on Harris. Not because Harris was necessarily a bad choice, but because the pool of potential VPs was artificially limited on the basis of sex and race. And if you take a step back, and you actually look at it through the eyes of someone who is genuinely opposed to discrimination on the basis of sex or race... then it's blatantly apparent that limiting your consideration on the basis of sex and race is on its face discriminatory.

Here's my thinking on this. If DEI had NOT been elevated as a goal in itself, if there hadn't been such focus on non-merit characteristics as an objective... we wouldn't be having this discussion. If that had NOT been a target in education, then neither Loren nor Derec would have any complaint about the proportion of minorities having increased. Hell, I would bet they'd both be just fine with it, and would simply view it as the effect of removing explicit barriers.

But there is, and will always be, a difference between removing barriers and engaging in preference. Removing barriers is equal opportunity. I don't think anyone here is against that, in fact I think every single one of us thinks that's a wonderful thing. Having the stated goal of increasing the proportion of a group on the basis of race, after those barriers have already been gone for 50 years, isn't equal opportunity - it's preferential treatment.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Some degree of discrimination will always exist. Heck, some discrimination is good - discriminating against pedofiles at the day care is good, and I'll fight anyone who says otherwise.

Some discrimination is deleterious, and we should endeavor to minimize the impact of that. We should remove any explicit discrimination of that sort, and we should do what we can to mitigate implicit discrimination - that means questioning ourselves and our friends, evaluating our motivations and our biases. But to do that in a way that is fair and just, we have to do so without favor. We can't only challenge discrimination against black people, and turn a blind eye to discrimination against white people (or asians). We can't only challenge discrimination against women, and turn a blind eye to discrimination against men. If discrimination on the basis of melanin content is a bad thing, then it's always a bad thing. If discrimination on the basis of sex is a bad thing, then it's always a bad thing.

 

[Toni]

Denial of the generational effects of racism.

What possible concept of equity and equality should justify discriminating against a group of people for things that happened before they were born?

Because they are still suffering from the racism their parents and grandparents experienced.

"Well see, Bob, your great grandfather stole some money from my great grandpa 85 years ago. That's why you have to pay me $100 a month for the rest of your life."

It's a stupid idea, and it causes far more harm than good.

Two closely matched candidates for a position or scholarly program. Give it to the person whose parents or grandparents were discriminated against and forced the minority candidate to work harder for the position.

Yeah, as much as some people would like to believe racism is dead and gone ( Obama!) it certainly is not.

But if you are white and most of your friends and family and coworkers and neighbors are also white, it’s really easy to think there is no racism.

On what basis do you assume that most of my friends and family and coworkers and neighbors are white?

That's one hell of a convenient assumption for you to make. It lets you assume the moral high ground without actually bothering to climb the hill.

The ‘you/your’ was a general generic you/your.

I’m sorry that was not clear.

 

[Emily Lake]

I’m not displeased with the current system except that higher education is far too expensive and too many are extremely overburdened by education debt, and too many are discouraged from pursuing advanced and professional degrees.

This is an entirely different topic... but advanced degrees are overrated. Degrees are overrated, and trades are underrated. Degree inflation is a problem, and the price tag for degrees is an easily foreseeable outcome of degree inflation.

 

[Emily Lake]

The ‘you/your’ was a general generic you/your.

I’m sorry that was not clear.

Ahh, that makes sense. I appreciate the clarification.

 

[Toni]

You do realize people drop out of school for all sorts of non-academic reasons.

I dropped out for a few years because I got married and my spouse joined the military and they moved us to a different state.

Actually very few students drop out of medical school. Those who do almost always do fir personal or financial reasons, not academic ones

Actually most students stay in school and academic exits are uncommon.

I think that’s what I said?

Ya think?

Leading off my post with "Actually" comes across as disagreement. This is clearly in evidence by your confusion in response. To you, it sounds as if I'm disagreeing with you, even though I'm agreeing. The same is true for your post that I responded to. I'm clearly agreeing with LD, and adding my own personal experience to bolster his point. You responding with "Actually..." comes across as if you're disagreeing with me. But you're not.

And that's my point. Even if it's completely unintentional, you frequently write in a way that implies disagreement and opposition. It's very confusing, and it's been at the root of several arguments-that-aren't-arguments. You certainly don't have to take my advice, but I do hope you give some consideration and thought to whether or not your style of writing might contribute to friction. And whether or not a relatively minor alteration could avoid it.

You seem to infer meaning and intent that is not what I implied or intended to imply.

 

[Toni]

I think that there’s a bit if sunlight reflecting off of that mirror and hitting you in the eye.

Maybe you're just not nearly as clear a communicator as you think you are.

And maybe that chip on your shoulder affects your ability to understand what other people write.

 

[Toni]

I’m not displeased with the current system except that higher education is far too expensive and too many are extremely overburdened by education debt, and too many are discouraged from pursuing advanced and professional degrees.

This is an entirely different topic... but advanced degrees are overrated. Degrees are overrated, and trades are underrated. Degree inflation is a problem, and the price tag for degrees is an easily foreseeable outcome of degree inflation.

I do not disagree that trades are under-rated and that we should encourage more people to pursue careers in the trades.

I do not agree with your assessment of the value of pursuing advanced degrees —imo, education is important and should be continued throughout one’s lifetime. I believe this to be true fir personal growth and fulfillment even if you don’t care about professional advancement.

I’ve worked with people who did the same job I was doing but who had a lesser degree. They performed the actual job duties as well as I did and perhaps sometimes better. But they were not able to look beyond the strictly outlined job duties to recognize or understand implications of results and trends. Essentially, they were stuck at the level of work they were doing. Generally speaking, they were fine with that. They filled a valuable role. But they were not ever going to be able to step up into a more complex role if that was needed. Instead, someone with more education/higher degree would take on that work.