MCATs, Affirmative Action, and DEI, Oh My

[Patooka]

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.

Yeah, that's the real obstacle for Americans to get affordable health care.

 

[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.

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.

The ways that 'they' are going to lower the costs of healthcare is by hiring more PAs and more NPs who can assume many of the responsibilities of patient care that physicians do now, only at a lower price. They are doing that now. So if you are worried that 'unqualified' black people are becoming physicians and your healthcare is going to go down the tubes, you are worrying about the wrong thing.

I don't mean this as a knock on PAs or NPs--not at all. I've had wonderful experiences with PAs and to a lesser extent, NPs (highly dependent upon which practice they are attached to). But these medical professionals are actually less qualified than physicians and they are paid less. It's been going on for years and it will only become more like this.

Here's the thing: Your healthcare costs are not going to go down because insurance companies and investors in hospitals and clinics need bigger profits. So, they will cut costs and not pass the savings along to you.

 

[thebeave]

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.

The NBA management, employees and (especially) the fans are diverse. The players? Not so much. This is the team in my area:




Did you ever notice that nobody here complains about or demands DEI changes to the team players, despite the team demographics (73% black) being way, way out of whack compared to the country's demographic makeup (13%)? Why do you think that is?

 

[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.

The ways that 'they' are going to lower the costs of healthcare is by hiring more PAs and more NPs who can assume many of the responsibilities of patient care that physicians do now, only at a lower price. They are doing that now. So if you are worried that 'unqualified' black people are becoming physicians and your healthcare is going to go down the tubes, you are worrying about the wrong thing.

I don't mean this as a knock on PAs or NPs--not at all. I've had wonderful experiences with PAs and to a lesser extent, NPs (highly dependent upon which practice they are attached to). But these medical professionals are actually less qualified than physicians and they are paid less. It's been going on for years and it will only become more like this.

Here's the thing: Your healthcare costs are not going to go down because insurance companies and investors in hospitals and clinics need bigger profits. So, they will cut costs and not pass the savings along to you.

Just to be clear my concern is not so much that unqualified physicians are being admitted. My concern is that there appears quotas in admissions today which should instead be color blind and non discriminatory. There should not even be the appearance of discrimination in admissions that there is today. Because that alone will cause the good doctors of color to earn a bad name with the public. If it were up to me admissions would be fully transparent to the public and completely color blind based fully on metrics alone.

On the subject of simply reducing healthcare costs, I'm all for it! If more PAs and NPs are hired to reduce healthcare costs, thats a step in right direction. But that still leaves the problem we see of too few doctors who (IMO) appear over educated (with too much debt), over worked, and over paid. No I'm not saying we should reduce standards too much and kill more people, but we surely need a lot more doctors so there might need to be a compromise getting there. The main focus being more doctors making less money. One way or the other.

 

[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.

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.

The ways that 'they' are going to lower the costs of healthcare is by hiring more PAs and more NPs who can assume many of the responsibilities of patient care that physicians do now, only at a lower price. They are doing that now. So if you are worried that 'unqualified' black people are becoming physicians and your healthcare is going to go down the tubes, you are worrying about the wrong thing.

I don't mean this as a knock on PAs or NPs--not at all. I've had wonderful experiences with PAs and to a lesser extent, NPs (highly dependent upon which practice they are attached to). But these medical professionals are actually less qualified than physicians and they are paid less. It's been going on for years and it will only become more like this.

Here's the thing: Your healthcare costs are not going to go down because insurance companies and investors in hospitals and clinics need bigger profits. So, they will cut costs and not pass the savings along to you.

Just to be clear my concern is not so much that unqualified physicians are being admitted. My concern is that there appears quotas in admissions today which should instead be color blind and non discriminatory. There should not even be the appearance of discrimination in admissions that there is today. Because that alone will cause the good doctors of color to earn a bad name with the public. If it were up to me admissions would be fully transparent to the public and completely color blind based fully on metrics alone.

On the subject of simply reducing healthcare costs, I'm all for it! If more PAs and NPs are hired to reduce healthcare costs, thats a step in right direction. But that still leaves the problem we see of too few doctors who (IMO) appear over educated (with too much debt), over worked, and over paid. No I'm not saying we should reduce standards too much and kill more people, but we surely need a lot more doctors so there might need to be a compromise getting there. The main focus being more doctors making less money. One way or the other.

I think that ‘quotas’ are seen by those who believe the only way to reject the best candidates are MCAT scores and GPAs and that race/ethnicity very much does matter to them.

I very much agree that too many doctors —and anyone else who goes to college or university or even trade school graduates with too much debt. Public universities used to be funded more fully than they are now and one result is driving up the cost of higher education and student debt.

I agree that we need more doctors.

I disagree that anyone is over-educated

You don’t need to worry much about doctors making too much money. It’s less lucrative than it used to be. The big issue is the amount of money that goes to filing insurance claims—and how much of a discount insurance companies insist on while charging customers enormous premiums .

 

[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.

The NBA management, employees and (especially) the fans are diverse. The players? Not so much. This is the team in my area:


View attachment 55180

Did you ever notice that nobody here complains about or demands DEI changes to the team players, despite the team demographics (73% black) being way, way out of whack compared to the country's demographic makeup (13%)? Why do you think that is?

In no way does that address the point I made and it's just repeating derec's argument.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

The NBA management, employees and (especially) the fans are diverse. The players? Not so much. This is the team in my area:


View attachment 55180

Did you ever notice that nobody here complains about or demands DEI changes to the team players, despite the team demographics (73% black) being way, way out of whack compared to the country's demographic makeup (13%)? Why do you think that is?

Nobody cares?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So you think banks should be required to incur higher risk just to give more people in worse risk neighborhoods "fucking houses"?

Yes. Obviously. People need homes.

And herein lies the problem that a lot of us have with the left. You want things to happen but you don't actually want to incur the costs, instead pushing them off onto some other so you can pretend they disappear.

And when costs are pushed around like this they actually become bigger. It's attitudes like yours that caused the housing collapse.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But it's not the second half.

Now it's a new game, new players. Why should they be punished for the previous game they had no part in? You are punishing completely innocent people for having the wrong parents. The Constitution specifically prohibits this.

Denial of the generational effects of racism.

1) The Constitution still prohibits it.

2) Said generational effects have not been demonstrated. What you are seeing is socioeconomic, not racial.

Racism doesn't cause socioeconomic issues? Historians around the world are laughing at you.

Sure it can. But that's not the right question, you are assuming all socioeconomic issues are racism, but the success of Asians says otherwise.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But it's not the second half.

Now it's a new game, new players. Why should they be punished for the previous game they had no part in? You are punishing completely innocent people for having the wrong parents. The Constitution specifically prohibits this.

Great. Let’s start Team White on the opposing 20 yard line, like we always did prior to this horrible reverse discrimination that has made so being white makes it automatically true that you’re more likely to be poor if you’re white, than if you’re black or brown.

Oh, wait … the opposite is STILL the case. I guess black and brown people are just stupid. Right, Loren?

What part of "new game" do you not understand??

You are punishing people who did nothing wrong but share the skin color with past oppressors.

Shall we punish Henry because he's on team H (Hitler)?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're not citing any evidence here.

My position is you’ve not produced any “high quality evidence”. Still waiting. Instead of avoiding the question, produce some.

Nobody's challenged the numbers presented, all the discussion has been about their meaning.

One would think that means the numbers are not “high quality” evidence if their meaning is unclear.

The numbers say what they say. Nobody's questioning that they do. It's all about some mysterious other factor that makes Asians bad and blacks good that supposedly counters the difference. But nobody can point to it, nobody can present any supposed measurement of it. Just take it on faith that they're doing it right.

What on earth is the babble about mysterious factors making Asians bad and blacks good?

Those numbers are the result of a a complex socioeconomic system and admissions process. Their interpretation requires much more understanding about medical schools and applicants than your simple X>Y.

And finally, to paraphrase someone "just because racism against Asians and whites explains it" doesn't make it so.

You insist there is something other that what we can test that makes the admissions fair. Thus you are the one claiming the mysterious factor--identify it!

 

[Elixir]

you are the one claiming the mysterious factor--identify it!

The ability to dunk.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I’d ask why you are assuming that black and Hispanic candidates are less qualified but we all know the answer .

Assuming racism doesn't make it so.

We are simply looking at the scores and not refusing to believe what they say.

Yeah, that’s not at all racist….

You are advocating a system that produces a disparate outcome: different scores and dropout rates. By your logic you're racist. Want to try something else?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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!

No, there is zero evidence that any threshold has been lowered. I think there’s something in your eye there, Loren.

To assert a zero percent chance means some evidence exists that it hasn't happened. How would you even know?

 

[Politesse]

And herein lies the problem that a lot of us have with the left. You want things to happen but you don't actually want to incur the costs, instead pushing them off onto some other so you can pretend they disappear.

Better than refusing to address problems at all, then whining that no one has solved them already. If there's a problem financing the construction of new homes, there's likely a whole array of solutions to that problem, if you're thinking critically about it rather than double-locking your door and pretending community issues only happen in bad neighborhoods.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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?

We've seen the data. That it is much harder to get admitted as an Asian than as a black. When you convert those MCAT scores into percentiles it stands out. The MCAT scores look deceptively narrow because the zero is very, very far from the true zero. Getting every question wrong gives you an 89%.

No. It’s ‘ not harder to get in if you are Asian.’

Asians are about 7 percent of the US population, and make up about 29% of all medical students and have the highest rate of acceptance of all demographic groups.

You are not proving your point. With a given score you will find it harder to get in as an Asian than as a black.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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?

VP is always a diversity pick. But neither "black" nor "female" have anything to do with qualifications for the job. He got backlash for saying the quiet part out loud.

Black and female had as much to do with job qualifications as white and male has had for the last 250 years or so.

You only heard the black and female part because you’re neither and because it was a distinct —and long overdue change.

I understand how it hurts to know that no one like you will even be considered for a job and I figure it must be a few thousand times worse if you are not white.

We heard it because it's blatant discrimination. I know your intentions are good but they're paving stones on that infamous road.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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!

There is evidence that part of the mission of medical schools changes, so it is reasonable that the admissions process changed. Your unnuanced approach takes that to mean lowering standards or discriminating against certain groups. A nuanced approach (as evidenced by Don's explanations which take into account many factors) takes that to mean that the admission process is much more nuanced and complex that meeting MCAT and GPA thresholds. Given the importance of the admissions task, and the high rate of completion, the evidence does not appear to meet your kneejerk analysis.

No high quality (or even low quality) evidence has been presented to indicate that the current process is educating and turning out less qualified or less effective medical personnel. Which also suggests your position is meritless.

But Don's explanation is basically a whitewash for discrimination.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

SAT’s are far less an objective measure of academic ability than they are a measure of parental socioeconomic status.

It’s been discussed before.

One also must account for the fact that students attending high school during the pandemic frankly are behind what their older peers would be at the same age.

Does it not occur to you that academic ability is associated with parental socioeconomic status??

You keep treating a disparate outcome as proof of discrimination. In just about every case it actually means there's some sort of disparate input.

No, I know for a fact that academic ability is assumed to be associated with parents socioeconomic status. My family was on the lower edge of middle class. My siblings and I all had stellar SAT scores and GPAs. In college and as an adult, I have known/do know plenty of people from extremely modest means who are frankly, brillliant.

Parental socioeconomic status helps students afford to be able to sit for the SATs multiple times, and pays for cram classes designed specifically to boost SAT scores. It pays for more academically rigorous (or by reputation more academically rigorous) schools for students.

It also purchases a presumption of being smarter which matters a lot more than any of us would like it to. And it reduces the economic strain on students who may be less likely to have to work multiple jobs in order to pay for school or who may choose fields that will pay well because their families need their help.

It does not make students smarter. Just look at Donald Trump. First example that popped into my mind that everyone would know. Or RFK Jr. Or any of the Trump kids.

Just because it can be gamed to some degree and isn't a 100% prediction of ability doesn't make it not the best yardstick we have.

 

[ZiprHead]

But it's not the second half.

Now it's a new game, new players. Why should they be punished for the previous game they had no part in? You are punishing completely innocent people for having the wrong parents. The Constitution specifically prohibits this.

Denial of the generational effects of racism.

1) The Constitution still prohibits it.

2) Said generational effects have not been demonstrated. What you are seeing is socioeconomic, not racial.

Racism doesn't cause socioeconomic issues? Historians around the world are laughing at you.

Sure it can. But that's not the right question, you are assuming all socioeconomic issues are racism, but the success of Asians says otherwise.

Please quote me where I said the bolded.