MCATs, Affirmative Action, and DEI, Oh My

[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.

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

There's no inference of meaning or intent. There's observation of the impact of your chosen verbiage.

You were confused when I responded to you with "Actually" when the content expressed agreement. The same is equally true when you responded to me with "Actually". In both cases, the leading word suggests disagreement... because that's how normal people use the phrase "actually" in a back-and-forth discussion.

And in case you were wondering... yes, I'm being a pain in your ass in order to make a point. Yes, I'm lecturing you about your use of language. Yes, I'm probably being a bit of a bitch. But I'm tired of arguing with you when the confusion is completely avoidable. I try very hard to make my posts clear and understandable. I re-write things a lot of times, because when I review it before posting, I realize it's confusing, or ambiguous, or I got off track and distracted from my actual point, or simply because what I wrote could be read in a different tone than I intended.

 

[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.

There's no inference of meaning or intent. There's observation of the impact of your chosen verbiage.

You were confused when I responded to you with "Actually" when the content expressed agreement. The same is equally true when you responded to me with "Actually". In both cases, the leading word suggests disagreement... because that's how normal people use the phrase "actually" in a back-and-forth discussion.

And in case you were wondering... yes, I'm being a pain in your ass in order to make a point. Yes, I'm lecturing you about your use of language. Yes, I'm probably being a bit of a bitch. But I'm tired of arguing with you when the confusion is completely avoidable. I try very hard to make my posts clear and understandable. I re-write things a lot of times, because when I review it before posting, I realize it's confusing, or ambiguous, or I got off track and distracted from my actual point, or simply because what I wrote could be read in a different tone than I intended.

I will remind you that you have no obligation to read any of my posts. I’m not offended if you don’t.

But I have zero intention of writing while trying to figure out how you will interpret or misinterpret what I write.

 

[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.

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.

Education need not require a degree. Pursue knowledge, by all means. But wanting to know more things doesn't need a degree. Either way, I think I wasn't clear. Degrees are overrated, because a huge amount of work in the real world doesn't need a degree... but everybody has a degree, so now a degree ends up being a requirement for jobs that don't need a degree in the first place, and where a degree arguably doesn't add value at all. Like, why the hell does my entry-level product analyst role require a bachelors or higher? It adds nothing, and it limits my ability to hire people with the right skills and mindset. That's "degree inflation".

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.

Sometimes that's true. I've also seen people who absolutely had the ability to do more, but who were denied a promotion or advancement because they lacked a piece of paper. It depends very much on what the field is.

 

[Emily Lake]

I will remind you that you have no obligation to read any of my posts. I’m not offended if you don’t.

Most of the time I like reading your posts

But I have zero intention of writing while trying to figure out how you will interpret or misinterpret what I write.

Meh. If clear communication isn't important to you, then you get the arguments you get I guess.

 

[laughing dog]

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?

I was under the impression there used to be a meaningful distinction between the two.

Now, if you mean a distinction between racism and racial discrimination, then IMO it depends on what definition of racism one is using.

 

[ZiprHead]

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.

Why would you assume that? There's a lot of black students coming from rich backgrounds and had all the advantages that brings. When I said the student that had to work harder to overcome their generational racism it didn't mean every black student. Or do you believe such people do not exist?

For someone who doesn't like having thoughts put into your head by others you should be more careful before you do the same to others.

 

[Toni]

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.

Is there any doubt in your mind that Trump—and every other single major party POTUS/candidate chose his/her VP running mate from the pool of candidates limited to white males with the exception of Geraldine Ferrara and Sarah Palin? It was simply understood that the only candidate deemed suitable was white and male.

Why wasn’t that a problem?

 

[Emily Lake]

Now, if you mean a distinction between racism and racial discrimination, then IMO it depends on what definition of racism one is using.

Yes, I meant racial discrimination. Mostly I'm pointing out that there's only a wafer thin veneer of a difference between you calling Derec a racist and you saying this:

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.

Which makes your following statement... disingenuous.

And, if you actually read my words, you would have noticed no mention of racism.

 

[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.

Why would you assume that? There's a lot of black students coming from rich backgrounds and had all the advantages that brings. When I said the student that had to work harder to overcome their generational racism it didn't mean every black student. Or do you believe such people do not exist?

For someone who doesn't like having thoughts put into your head by others you should be more careful before you do the same to others.

It's the necessary outcome of your prior statement.

You said that because their grandparents were discriminated against, that justifies discriminating against other people who haven't engaged in any discrimination. You said that a person's grandparents being discriminated against forced the minority candidate to work harder for the position.

Your statements in red lead to the conclusion I formed.

 

[Emily Lake]

Is there any doubt in your mind that Trump—and every other single major party POTUS/candidate chose his/her VP running mate from the pool of candidates limited to white males with the exception of Geraldine Ferrara and Sarah Palin? It was simply understood that the only candidate deemed suitable was white and male.

Why wasn’t that a problem?

Yes, there is doubt in my mind. Prior to about 1980-ish, I'm sure that was the case. Post 2000-ish, I sincerely doubt that race was a major factor in any of those choices.

You've been told that "it's simply understood". You've been told it so many times that you've accepted it as truth. I genuinely don't think it's truth. I don't think they've gone out of their way to present a minority as running mate. But I also don't think that being a minority is somehow a desirable characteristic in a VP. I don't think it's a detriment either. I think it's irrelevant altogether.

 

[laughing dog]

Now, if you mean a distinction between racism and racial discrimination, then IMO it depends on what definition of racism one is using.

Yes, I meant racial discrimination. Mostly I'm pointing out that there's only a wafer thin veneer of a difference between you calling Derec a racist and you saying this:

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.

Which makes your following statement... disingenuous.

And, if you actually read my words, you would have noticed no mention of racism.

There was no mention of racism. White male privilege may be the result of racism and sexism, but regreting/wanting a lost advantage need not be racist.

So I find your conclusion the result of faulty reasoning. Maybe it was a bit if subconscious projection on your part.

 

[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.

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.

Why would you assume that? There's a lot of black students coming from rich backgrounds and had all the advantages that brings. When I said the student that had to work harder to overcome their generational racism it didn't mean every black student. Or do you believe such people do not exist?

For someone who doesn't like having thoughts put into your head by others you should be more careful before you do the same to others.

Do you think that that wealthy black students ( and their parents ) are not scrutinized and even followed in retail establishments ts more closely than white students?

What do you call it when Asian students are presumed to be good in math, black students better at basketball, girls better at tending children?

 

[ZiprHead]

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.

Why would you assume that? There's a lot of black students coming from rich backgrounds and had all the advantages that brings. When I said the student that had to work harder to overcome their generational racism it didn't mean every black student. Or do you believe such people do not exist?

For someone who doesn't like having thoughts put into your head by others you should be more careful before you do the same to others.

It's the necessary outcome of your prior statement.

You said that because their grandparents were discriminated against, that justifies discriminating against other people who haven't engaged in any discrimination. You said that a person's grandparents being discriminated against forced the minority candidate to work harder for the position.

Your statements in red lead to the conclusion I formed.

That sounds like you deny the effects of generational racism exists. It's they only way for your point to work.

 

[ZiprHead]

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.

Why would you assume that? There's a lot of black students coming from rich backgrounds and had all the advantages that brings. When I said the student that had to work harder to overcome their generational racism it didn't mean every black student. Or do you believe such people do not exist?

For someone who doesn't like having thoughts put into your head by others you should be more careful before you do the same to others.

Do you think that that wealthy black students ( and their parents ) are not scrutinized and even followed in retail establishments ts more closely than white students?

Absolutely not. We all know driving while black is a thing. Oprah being barred from a jewelry store. But I don't think being followed in a store will have much effect on the the student's academic career. That's all.

What do you call it when Asian students are presumed to be good in math, black students better at basketball, girls better at tending children?

I don't know. What do you call it? Forget it. I don't care. Why are people putting so much more into what I said than what I actually said?

 

[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.

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.

Why would you assume that? There's a lot of black students coming from rich backgrounds and had all the advantages that brings. When I said the student that had to work harder to overcome their generational racism it didn't mean every black student. Or do you believe such people do not exist?

For someone who doesn't like having thoughts put into your head by others you should be more careful before you do the same to others.

Do you think that that wealthy black students ( and their parents ) are not scrutinized and even followed in retail establishments ts more closely than white students?

Absolutely not. We all know driving while black is a thing. Oprah being barred from a jewelry store. But I don't think being followed in a store will have much effect on the the student's academic career. That's all.

What do you call it when Asian students are presumed to be good in math, black students better at basketball, girls better at tending children?

I don't know. What do you call it? Forget it. I don't care. Why are people putting so much more into what I said than what I actually said?

Being followed around/getting extra scrutiny has an emotional toll that accumulates and adds stress. Unfortunately the extra scrutiny/surveillance does not stop at a shop door. It all takes a toll. I doubt that the increased incidence of hypertension in black people is purely caused by genetics.

I think that all of us, including me, have some unconscious bias and that sometimes it drifts into racism, classism, various bigotries, however much we don’t want it to. I think we all want to be good people.

Sincerely, I did not mean to pick on you.

 

[ZiprHead]

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.

Why would you assume that? There's a lot of black students coming from rich backgrounds and had all the advantages that brings. When I said the student that had to work harder to overcome their generational racism it didn't mean every black student. Or do you believe such people do not exist?

For someone who doesn't like having thoughts put into your head by others you should be more careful before you do the same to others.

Do you think that that wealthy black students ( and their parents ) are not scrutinized and even followed in retail establishments ts more closely than white students?

Absolutely not. We all know driving while black is a thing. Oprah being barred from a jewelry store. But I don't think being followed in a store will have much effect on the the student's academic career. That's all.

What do you call it when Asian students are presumed to be good in math, black students better at basketball, girls better at tending children?

I don't know. What do you call it? Forget it. I don't care. Why are people putting so much more into what I said than what I actually said?

Being followed around/getting extra scrutiny has an emotional toll that accumulates and adds stress. Unfortunately the extra scrutiny/surveillance does not stop at a shop door. It all takes a toll. I doubt that the increased incidence of hypertension in black people is purely caused by genetics.

I think that all of us, including me, have some unconscious bias and that sometimes it drifts into racism, classism, various bigotries, however much we don’t want it to. I think we all want to be good people.

Sincerely, I did not mean to pick on you.

Don't worry about it. I have pretty thick skin. IMO, a requirement to run a place like this.

 

[bilby]

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?

Well if you are going to start asking relevant questions, how will you ever become a believer?

Didn't you even notice the graphic of a wing falling off a plane? I bet that happens all the time, and Boeing are covering it up by making me be too lazy to do even a cursory check.

You have to have faith.

Allegedly.

 

[Tigers!]

What do you call it when Asian students are presumed to be good in math, black students better at basketball, girls better at tending children?

If the people groups mentioned are 'better' at those things than other groups on average it is not racism to point that out. Rather an acknowledgement of reality.

 

[Toni]

What do you call it when Asian students are presumed to be good in math, black students better at basketball, girls better at tending children?

If the people groups mentioned are 'better' at those things than other groups on average it is not racism to point that out. Rather an acknowledgement of reality.

Better at taking tests is not the same thing as being better at treating patients, which is what most physicians do.

 

[Tigers!]

What do you call it when Asian students are presumed to be good in math, black students better at basketball, girls better at tending children?

If the people groups mentioned are 'better' at those things than other groups on average it is not racism to point that out. Rather an acknowledgement of reality.

Better at taking tests is not the same thing as being better at treating patients, which is what most physicians do.

Yet we give aspiring physicians tests to see what they have learned, or not.
Tests are by no means perfect but still one of the best ways to determine what knowledge has been imparted.