MCATs, Affirmative Action, and DEI, Oh My

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

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.

Individuals are not groups, though.

Thus the term "on average".

Toni, though, wasn't writing about aggregate statistics.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

If we are wrong why is the response always denial rather than addressing the facts?

I dunno if you noticed, but I've been challenging your logic and your conclusions pretty heavily.

Note that in most cases I do not believe that there is an intent of reverse racism, but rather a belief that the metrics are wrong. But almost never is any demonstration of the metrics being wrong presented. Faith in everyone is born equal exceeds reason in seeing that's clearly not true.

Both of youse are stuck in your own beliefs. Affirmative action served a purpose for a while, but that purpose is no longer needed and continuing to elevate race and other non-merit and non-capability characteristics accomplishes nothing good. In fact, it reduces trust in our institutions and it leaves ALL minorities facing the constant question of whether they got where they are through their own accomplishments or whether they were given special privileges denied to others.

Exactly.

You know you're one of the "both of youse", don't you?

There used to be a problem that putting blacks in a position of equality carried a downside. This meant nobody would take advantage of the undervalued resource. I don't like affirmative action but I think was probably the best solution. But the stigma is gone, in the big picture you can't have substantial effects because someone would see the undervalued resource. This does not mean there can't be racists, in restricted situations they can even be an issue (anyone in a position where there is only one employer in town for their profession and something is tying them to that town), but these will be local, not nationwide.

But now we have a stigma against not admitting/hiring them. This has the same effect the other way around--discriminates against everyone else. It's gone from solving a problem to creating a problem. And it's not like the hard sciences where a convincing demonstration of reality is possible.

Conceptually, sure, I agree. And I think there are probably some cases where that reversed stigma is actually in play - Arday being one of those.

For me, the problem is that having DEI as a goal in and of itself creates a perception of discrimination, regardless of whether or not it's actually occurring. And that inevitably creates racial tension where none need exist in the first place, and wouldn't exist if that obejctive were set aside and a "blind" approach simply instituted.

It's like conflict of interest. An actual conflict isn't necessary. The perception of conflict is enough to call any decisions into question and weaken trust.

 

[Emily Lake]

There is zero data that suggests that non-white and non-Asian students fail to fully meet the requirements first admission to the medical schools they are admitted to.

The basic problem is that those standards have been lowered so as to include enough minorities.

Why do you think this is a bad thing? Do you think minorities aren't good enough at being doctors? Do you have any reasonable evidence to support the implied argument that a lower standard produces less skilled doctors?

Standards either mean something or they don't.

Standards yes. The specific threshold though, is something different.

If they mean something then the expected outcome is some are inferior doctors (or it means the inferior ones flunked out, but there are not enough flunks for this.) If they don't mean something why do they exist at all?

Only if you assume that the original threshold was the necessary threshold to ensure competence. If the original threshold was higher than necessary, then lowering it does not mean that any doctors would be inferior.

Expiration dates on canned canned goods is an example. They're there, but having a one-year expiry on canned peaches is overkill. It could probably be changed to five years without any measurable difference in the quality of fruit. Lowering the threshold (pushing the expiration date out further) doesn't result in inferior canned peaches, because the current dates are unnecessarily restrictive.

 

[Emily Lake]

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

Some might exist, sure. But I also think that just falling back and crying "generational racism!!!!" is a cheap out that gets used to shortcut actual discussions about how to best address issues. It gets used as an excuse to avoid accountability and agency.

The worst part is that it gets used by white people as a way to negate the agency of black people.

I think closing your eyes and sticking your fingers in your ears whenever generational racism is a good way to avoid having to actually think about how much racism has worked for or against you and your family.

PS: Racism still exists. In spades. I see it frequently.

Yeah, well I think providing preferential treatment to people today because their great grandparents were discriminated against is a stupid and counterproductive approach that doesn't actually address the underlying cause and just tries to shift blame while treating black people like they're not capable of succeeding without the noble and superior white folks to give them a fucking hand out.

 

[Emily Lake]

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

True.

Do you have a recommendation on what objective measure colleges can use to reasonably predict which applicant will better at treating patients?

Why would any rational person think an objective (whatever the fuck that means) measure could be devised to reasonably predict such a complex question as "ability to treat patients"?

I don't - I think standardized testing is the best we can reasonable do. Anything else is adding subjectivity into the mix in a way that can be exploited, and that also creates a perception of favoritism and special privileges.

 

[Emily Lake]

Early 20th Century on line 5 for you, they want their eugenics back.

Early 21st Century on line 6, reminding you that blank slate theory is widely considered debunked, and that evolution is real.

Observing that some skills and traits diverge when populations are geographically isolated isn't a prescription. Populations that stayed in Africa, under high levels of sun exposure, passed along higher melanin content. Populations in Northern European regions lost melanin in a way that allows for better Vitamin D processing. Some populations sexually selected for height, other populations sexually selected for aggression or muscle density or big breasts or any number of other heritable traits. To some extent, intelligence is heritable... but cultural emphasis on intellect also matters. To some extent, athletic performance is heritable... but social focus on competition and sports also makes a difference.

It's not one or the other. And accusing anyone who observes the real differences between groups of engaging in eugenics is a low blow that ignores evolution. Nobody at all has proposed controlled reproduction or sterilization in order to enhance specific traits, thus it's a misplaced ad hominem. On the other hand... if you want to pretend that sexual selection has no impact, I have a wolf here for you to consider:
View attachment 55165

Assigning intellectual capacity by race has been seriously debunked by all but the most ardent racists. Assuming that more wealthy people and their offspring as smarter and have greater capacity is obviously ridiculous. See the Trump family. .

Again, I'm pretty sure you don't actually read the entirety of my posts before responding.

 

[Toni]

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

Some might exist, sure. But I also think that just falling back and crying "generational racism!!!!" is a cheap out that gets used to shortcut actual discussions about how to best address issues. It gets used as an excuse to avoid accountability and agency.

The worst part is that it gets used by white people as a way to negate the agency of black people.

I think closing your eyes and sticking your fingers in your ears whenever generational racism is a good way to avoid having to actually think about how much racism has worked for or against you and your family.

PS: Racism still exists. In spades. I see it frequently.

Yeah, well I think providing preferential treatment to people today because their great grandparents were discriminated against is a stupid and counterproductive approach that doesn't actually address the underlying cause and just tries to shift blame while treating black people like they're not capable of succeeding without the noble and superior white folks to give them a fucking hand out.

People are being discriminated against today.

Again, setting a minimum threshold and looking at all candidates who meet that threshold for suitability for the studies and also for the type of work at the end of the course of study. It is not a case of the highest scorers on a qualifying exam ultimately mage the best physicians.

 

[laughing dog]

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

True.

Do you have a recommendation on what objective measure colleges can use to reasonably predict which applicant will better at treating patients?

Why would any rational person think an objective (whatever the fuck that means) measure could be devised to reasonably predict such a complex question as "ability to treat patients"?

I don't - I think standardized testing is the best we can reasonable do. Anything else is adding subjectivity into the mix in a way that can be exploited, and that also creates a perception of favoritism and special privileges.

So, you don’t think an objective test could be devised to reasonably predict the “ability to treat patients”, but a standardized test is the best we can do?

A substandard (by your own admission) test should be used because it avoids the perception by some of favoritism and special privilege, rather than use expertise and experience that is working?

 

[Gospel]

MCAT and GPA matter! They do tell something about whether someone is prepared for the academic side of medical school. The AAMC itself says MCAT scores predict performance in medical school, especially when combined with GPA.

But...


They also explicitly say schools look at experience, attributes and other factors, not just test scores.

Where Derec loses me is going from “these groups have different average MCAT/GPA scores” to “therefore this proves racial discrimination.”

It might give you a reason to ask questions, sure. But I don't see how the averages alone prove what caused them. Don2 has pointed out, and I agree, that lumping together schools with different applicant pools, missions, state preferences, standards, etc. hardly explains anything. Emily argued, and I agree, that different group averages can produce different results even if everyone is being run through the same threshold.

I don't buy the argument that MCAT doesn't matter much because almost everyone who gets into med school graduates. That's swinging too far the other way. It clearly matters. I just don't think a few extra MCAT points automatically means “better future doctor.”

That's really where I land on this whole thing.

Use MCAT/GPA as a serious measure of whether somebody can handle the academic work. Once people have cleared that bar, look at the rest of the applicant too. That's basically how medical schools say they evaluate people anyway.

And if you're going to use subjective stuff like interviews, experience, leadership, “fit,” etc., then IMO that stuff needs to be as structured and transparent as possible. Otherwise it can very easily produce town criers. Right Derec?

Anyway, we're only dissecting these MCAT/GPA averages because they're being used as evidence against affirmative action and DEI. Fine. But the averages themselves don't tell us what caused them. Maybe AA/DEI played a role. I'm not saying they didn't. I just don't think pointing at different racial averages gets you from “here's a disparity” to “AA/DEI exists" to "AA/DEI caused it.”

 

[RVonse]

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.

The problem is the evidence suggests they lowered the threshold so as to permit the admissions. Fox/henhouse!

Unless you can reasonably demonstrate that a lowered threshold has resulting in 1) poorer quality doctors in the real world and/or 2) no increase in the number of medical students entering school... then I don't think it matters one bit.

A lower threshold is not necessarily a bad thing. As long as the threshold is sufficient to serve as a reasonable assurance of likelihood to be a good doctor, I don't see a problem. And I rather strongly suspect that we have more total admissions to medical school now than we did 40 years ago.

If a car dealer only gives loans to people with a credit score of 800 or higher, that's really going to limit how many cars they can sell. If they lower that threshold to 750 without materially impacting the likelihood of repayment, that's not a bad thing to do. If they can do that while also selling more cars, then it's good for the dealership as well as for the people with scores of 775.

I agree a lower threshold will help to reduce the cost of health care in the US today. Because recruiting more people into medical school will increase the number of doctors and decrease their wages making healthcare affordable again. Doctors will make far less money, won't work as many hours but hopefully work enough to remain current in their profession. Far more medical personal means they will all get more sleep and have happier marriages too. Just the fact that they get more sleep and have better lives might actually compensate for letting less talented people into the program.

But going for a lower test threshold still needs to be color blind and non discriminating. That is where I part company with the liberal people on this board.

 

[Gospel]

This is another reason I have trouble with the whole AA/DEI sprinkled all over this discussion. If we're talking specifically about Black and Hispanic applicants supposedly receiving all this preferential treatment, it seems relevant that they're still significantly underrepresented among actual physicians. That doesn't prove a preference has never occurred. Obviously it could. But if the argument is that affirmative action or DEI has created some meaningful system where minorities are taking opportunities away from better-qualified applicants, then at some point shouldn't we be able to see the scale of that in the actual profession?

Black Americans are around 13.5% of the population but only about 5% of active physicians. Hispanics are around 20% of the population but only about 7% of physicians.

So I'm having a hard time getting worked up over this supposed flood of preferentially admitted minorities when, looking at the profession we're talking about, they're still nowhere close to their proportion of the population. That doesn't answer every fairness question about a particular admissions decision. But it sure seems relevant when we're talking about whether AA/DEI has actually distorted the profession in some meaningful way.

 

[Toni]

This is another reason I have trouble with the whole AA/DEI sprinkled all over this discussion. If we're talking specifically about Black and Hispanic applicants supposedly receiving all this preferential treatment, it seems relevant that they're still significantly underrepresented among actual physicians. That doesn't prove a preference has never occurred. Obviously it could. But if the argument is that affirmative action or DEI has created some meaningful system where minorities are taking opportunities away from better-qualified applicants, then at some point shouldn't we be able to see the scale of that in the actual profession?

Black Americans are around 13.5% of the population but only about 5% of active physicians. Hispanics are around 20% of the population but only about 7% of physicians.

So I'm having a hard time getting worked up over this supposed flood of preferentially admitted minorities when, looking at the profession we're talking about, they're still nowhere close to their proportion of the population. That doesn't answer every fairness question about a particular admissions decision. But it sure seems relevant when we're talking about whether AA/DEI has actually distorted the profession in some meaningful way.

It is particularly difficult to make a case that Asians are being discriminated against when they comprise around 7% of the US population but about 32% of medtcal students.

Look at acceptance rates:

Medical School Acceptance Rates by Race (2026): Does Ethnicity Play a Role? — Shemmassian Academic Consulting

Learn how much race matters when applying to medical schools and how diversity is achieved through admissions

www.shemmassianconsulting.com

Key Insight: Asian (50.5%), White (50.6%), and American Indian/Alaska Native (50.0%) applicants have the highest acceptance rates. Black/African American applicants have the lowest acceptance rate at 35.9%, followed by Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander at 38.4%.

 

[Gospel]

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

Some might exist, sure. But I also think that just falling back and crying "generational racism!!!!" is a cheap out that gets used to shortcut actual discussions about how to best address issues. It gets used as an excuse to avoid accountability and agency.

The worst part is that it gets used by white people as a way to negate the agency of black people.

I think closing your eyes and sticking your fingers in your ears whenever generational racism is a good way to avoid having to actually think about how much racism has worked for or against you and your family.

PS: Racism still exists. In spades. I see it frequently.

Yeah, well I think providing preferential treatment to people today because their great grandparents were discriminated against is a stupid and counterproductive approach that doesn't actually address the underlying cause and just tries to shift blame while treating black people like they're not capable of succeeding without the noble and superior white folks to give them a fucking hand out.

This actually makes me wonder something. If the problem is preferential treatment, then why does the discussion seem so overwhelmingly concerned with preferential treatment when the beneficiary is Black or Hispanic? White applicants lose positions to other White applicants all the damn time, and some of those people absolutely got an advantage that had nothing to do with being the most qualified person in the room. Legacy status, family connections, referrals, who you know, institutional connections, etc.

Someone else loses that seat or job when that happens too. Yet nobody sees a rejected White applicant and immediately starts wondering which other White guy stole his spot through connections or preferential treatment. But let the person who got the opportunity be Black, Hispanic, or Asian, groups that together make up roughly 38% of the population, and suddenly everybody wants to know whose spot the ‘handout’ supposedly cost.

I agree that things like AA/DEI are a pretty ridiculous and clumsy way of dealing with racism. America has historically been much better at trying to manage the effects of discrimination than actually bringing the hammer down on the people doing the discriminating. Hell, look at Reconstruction. We fought an entire Civil War, then turned around, pardoned a bunch of Confederate thugs and watched many of them walk right back into positions of political power.

So instead of consistently slapping discriminatory behavior with the book, we eventually ended up with policies that basically say, “Okay, since we're not interested in stopping those people from discriminating, let's put something discriminating on paper to give black people a fair shot.”

IMO, AA/DEI is treating the symptom instead of the disease. But I’m actually less bothered by AA/DEI itself than I am by the argument always being about minorities getting positions they didn’t fully earn on merit. Especially considering all the white women enjoying its benefits.

 

[Derec]

Beyond the pale is your accusation that I am advocating for minority applicants to gain admittance to medical school who are not well qualified, pushing aside ‘better’ white and Asian candidates.

What is your definition of "well qualified"? I reject this notion that qualification is a binary variable rather than a continuum.
And accepting less qualified applicants of preferred races at the expense of others is at the core of "affirmative action".

I have never, ever advocated for anyone being admitted to med school who is not well qualified and well suited to the work of being a physician.

Do you think somebody who scores 510 is better prepared for the rigors of med school than somebody who scores say 504?

Where you and a I differ is that I fully understand that a slightly higher ( or lower) MCAT score or GPA does not do a very good job of predicting which applicant will be more successful in medical school —and residencies and the practice of medicine upon successful completion of their medical education and training.

We are not talking about slight differences here though. We are talking about significant differences. And I have shown that MCAT and GPA both predict likelihood of not completing medical school within five years, as well as passing USMLE Step 1.

There is zero data that suggests that non-white and non-Asian students fail to fully meet the requirements first admission to the medical schools they are admitted to.

Data that show higher likelihood of dropping out for black students have been presented here, as was data that links lower MCAT scores with higher rates of not completing med school on time and not passing USMLE Step 1.

You have no idea whether in any medical school class, the student who was admitted with the highest GPA and/or MCAT scores are black, white, Hispanic, NA, Asian or any combination. Neither do I.

That is certainly possible. But that has nothing to do with the argument I and others have been making, which is about blacks and Hispanics being, on average, accepted with significantly lower MCATs and GPAs. This says nothing about outliers.

But one of us acknowledges that and the other is certain they know. And that somehow means that unqualified or lesser qualified applicants are chosen over white and Asian candidates.

Data show that, on aggregate, this is true.

Pl are read Don’s excellent post to understand exactly how admissions are determined.

I have read many of Don's posts on this thread. Which one do you consider "excellent"?

 

[Derec]

I think that any person who has devoted their entire life to perfect scores and perfect resumes is less likely to have developed good listening skills, empathy, good oral communication skills and it is not obvious that such applicants have good team work or good leadership qualities.

That is just prejudice, right up there with automatically assigning Asians poor "personality scores" like what Harvard College did.

 

[Derec]

It is particularly difficult to make a case that Asians are being discriminated against when they comprise around 7% of the US population but about 32% of medtcal students.

That is not how discrimination works, and that has been explained to you already.
Blacks are 14% of the population, but vast majority of NBA players are black. If NBA wanted to make the league more diverse instituted a DEI policy to sign on more white and Asian players to make the league more diverse, and the black percentage dropped to 50%, that does not mean that black players seeking to play in the NBA weren't discriminated against.

Look at acceptance rates:

That's an even worse metric, since the denominator, i.e. all the people who decide to apply in a particular cycle, is a not very predictable population. It could be for example that white and Asian premeds are more realistic about their chances and rather take another gap year than submit a hopeless application. The average MCAT of black applicants is 497.5 with a σ of 10. That means that more than half of black applicants have a sub-500 MCAT. A significant portion have an MCAT <490 even, judging form the standard deviation.

What needs to be looked at re discrimination is how accepted black students compare to accepted e.g. Asian students. We now that they have markedly lower GPAs and MCAT scores on average. We also know of no metric where blacks best Asians to the extent that it would compensate for the discrepancy in academic qualifications. Therefore, discrimination is the logical conclusion. And since such discrimination underlies the whole idea of racial preferences/affirmative action/DEI, I do not understand why you and most of your Ilk are so vociferously trying to deny it. ZiprHead is the only honest lefty on this thread.

 

[Toni]

Beyond the pale is your accusation that I am advocating for minority applicants to gain admittance to medical school who are not well qualified, pushing aside ‘better’ white and Asian candidates.

What is your definition of "well qualified"? I reject this notion that qualification is a binary variable rather than a continuum.
And accepting less qualified applicants of preferred races at the expense of others is at the core of "affirmative action".

I have never, ever advocated for anyone being admitted to med school who is not well qualified and well suited to the work of being a physician.

Do you think somebody who scores 510 is better prepared for the rigors of med school than somebody who scores say 504?

Where you and a I differ is that I fully understand that a slightly higher ( or lower) MCAT score or GPA does not do a very good job of predicting which applicant will be more successful in medical school —and residencies and the practice of medicine upon successful completion of their medical education and training.

We are not talking about slight differences here though. We are talking about significant differences. And I have shown that MCAT and GPA both predict likelihood of not completing medical school within five years, as well as passing USMLE Step 1.

There is zero data that suggests that non-white and non-Asian students fail to fully meet the requirements first admission to the medical schools they are admitted to.

Data that show higher likelihood of dropping out for black students have been presented here, as was data that links lower MCAT scores with higher rates of not completing med school on time and not passing USMLE Step 1.

You have no idea whether in any medical school class, the student who was admitted with the highest GPA and/or MCAT scores are black, white, Hispanic, NA, Asian or any combination. Neither do I.

That is certainly possible. But that has nothing to do with the argument I and others have been making, which is about blacks and Hispanics being, on average, accepted with significantly lower MCATs and GPAs. This says nothing about outliers.

But one of us acknowledges that and the other is certain they know. And that somehow means that unqualified or lesser qualified applicants are chosen over white and Asian candidates.

Data show that, on aggregate, this is true.

Pl are read Don’s excellent post to understand exactly how admissions are determined.

I have read many of Don's posts on this thread. Which one do you consider "excellent"?

What do YOU mean by ‘less qualified if preferred races? I mean, historically that has always happened. FFS, women long wrote and published under male pseudonyms or disguised themselves as male to gain entry into educational establishments. FFS, Sandra Day O’Conner could not find work as a lawyer after graduation and finally found a job—without pay! and shared an office with a secretary, writing memos. Surely she was as well qualified and far more talented than the majority of her male classmates.

So whenever I read/hear people complaining that ‘less qualified’ candidates get hired over better candidates, I understand the ‘ better candidate ’ is white and male—because he is male and white. Or perhaps Asian. Thetedos less animus against ambitious and accomplished women than there used to be but those of us who have been in the ‘wrong’ demographic pool are suspicious of the words ‘better candidate’ and know that we are often thought to be seen as ‘tokens’ who’ve replaced some white guy who really deserved and needed that job’

The only real difference is that enough white giys figured out they’d be better off if their wives could earn decent money and now the boogey man/woman has a different t, darker skin color. Same game , just uglier.

 

[Toni]

I think that any person who has devoted their entire life to perfect scores and perfect resumes is less likely to have developed good listening skills, empathy, good oral communication skills and it is not obvious that such applicants have good team work or good leadership qualities.

That is just prejudice, right up there with automatically assigning Asians poor "personality scores" like what Harvard College did.

No—it’s a lot of observation and experience with premed students in class alongside me.

AFAIK, Asian students have never ‘ automatically been assigned’ poor personality scores because they are Asian.

Indeed, they are accepted into med school at almost the same rate as white applicants, higher than any other demographic.

 

[Gospel]

That is not how discrimination works, and that has been explained to you already.
Blacks are 14% of the population, but vast majority of NBA players are black. If NBA wanted to make the league more diverse instituted a DEI policy to sign on more white and Asian players to make the league more diverse, and the black percentage dropped to 50%, that does not mean that black players seeking to play in the NBA weren't discriminated against.

Your example assumes the NBA would select less-qualified white or Asian players over better-qualified Black players, you know, the exact presumption your example is supposed to defend.

If that actually happened on a meaningful scale, we should see measurable declines in scoring, rebounding, defense, and overall performance. So where is the medical equivalent? Can you provide credible evidence that affirmative-action or DEI policies have caused a measurable, profession-wide decline in the quality of medical care or an increase in patient harm by placing significant numbers of unqualified physicians into practice?

 

[ZiprHead]

That is not how discrimination works, and that has been explained to you already.
Blacks are 14% of the population, but vast majority of NBA players are black. If NBA wanted to make the league more diverse instituted a DEI policy to sign on more white and Asian players to make the league more diverse, and the black percentage dropped to 50%, that does not mean that black players seeking to play in the NBA weren't discriminated against.

NBA Diversity And Inclusion

OUR PHILOSOPHY​

At the NBA, we celebrate our common love of the game, building connections that enable us to leverage our differences. Basketball transcends all dimensions of diversity – those you can see, and those you can’t. It’s a game that anyone, anywhere, can participate in and follow. While our players, employees, and fans hail from every corner of the world, they come together through the common languages of sports and are united by their love of basketball.

Diversity and inclusion are central to our game, and we believe that they are catalysts for innovation. We know that our business is stronger when we leverage our differences to generate more and better ideas, sparking innovation that further connects us to our fans and our communities.

It's almost as if your idea of DEI programs is not what is actually happening.