MCATs, Affirmative Action, and DEI, Oh My

[Derec]

of course there are other logical options.

No, there aren't.

One is that your groupings are irrelevant .

Those are not my groupings, but AAMCs. And why would they be irrelevant?

Another is that admission process is now a more holistic process that cannot be quantified. Another is that there us sorting by schools eith different missions and applicants. There are probably others.

Even holistic admissions should be based on criteria and identifiable, relevant reasons to prefer one applicant over another. Of course, holistic mumbo jumbo is often used to hide discrimination, which is exactly my point. So, my list of logical options still applies.

 

[Derec]

There isn't some one-trick-pony "metric" that can magically tell you whether someone is a good candidate for medical school or not.

Of course there isn't. But if you want to get rid of or deemphasize MCAT and GPA you have to replace their part in the admissions framework with something else.

That’s already occurring. It’s the reason for your whining.

What would this "something else" be, specifically? You can't just claim there is something else and leave it at that.
So identify it, and explain why you think this "something else" is a better criterion than GPA and MCAT. Other than the fact that the groups you dislike perform better academically than the groups you like, and so you want to ignore academic performance.

 

[scombrid]

Pretty sure the descendants of enslaved people’s, native Americans, Chinese Americans and Hispanic people and Catholics and Jews and more recently Muslims are t terribly fond of being held back, pushed down, lynched, murdered and discriminated because of the sins of others.

Do you have any actual real evidence of this happening in any material numbers? Or is it just plain old narratives?

You don’t know American history?

Do you think the Klan quit being active before we were born? Or that black people were the only targets? What do you know about restricted clubs and neighborhoods? About the history of Chinese who helped build railroad lines? Japanese interment camps? Are you unaware of the animus directed towards anyone that certain Americans might perceive as being from the Middje East after 9/11?

Have you read about recent kynchings in the Deep South?

Restricted clubs you say? Country club where I grew up was forced to integrate in the late 1980s. But that was almost 40 years ago so never mind and it instantly made those people not racist anymore. The casual racism was okay because they didn’t really mean it or practice it when hiring people or making loan decisions.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Written to laughing dog:

Other than the fact that the groups you dislike perform better academically than the groups you like, and so you want to ignore academic performance.

That is a highly personal and ideological assumption. Do you really believe that medical schools that have taken race into account did so out of a dislike for White people and Asians, or some progressive stack preference? Ironically, the progressive stack doesn't actually exclude Asians. But the narrative works brilliantly for conservatives because it sows division in the ranks of liberals. Asian liberals ask, "Why are you guys doing this to us?" Other liberals say, "Wait, why are we doing this to Asians? We're supposed to like Asians!" And while everyone is busy infighting, conservatives go and cut funding to healthcare and education. I am oversimplifying the rhetoric, but based on past observations, it's a fair extrapolation of what the Trump administration will do.

But stepping away from the partisan politics, have you considered a broader, far less ideological framework? Namely: school charters, state mandates, and the public good aspect of the medical profession. For example, earlier you wrote that a coal miner's daughter would have no shot at competing with these groups. Yet, I showed you that a medical school in West Virginia gives massive preference to in-state residents--the vast, vast majority of whom are White. There is literally a separate MCAT threshold for in-state versus out-of-state applicants. The mean MCAT for WV residents applying to medical school is only 502.5. The mean for WV matriculants is 507.4, and they enjoy a relatively large acceptance rate of 58.7%. It is larger than any of the groups under discussion.

The point isn't to say, "Hey look! Here's a counterexample!" Instead, the point is that there is one broad explanation for all of these observations, and it comes down to meeting the medical needs of the public. Going back to the study I shared earlier about who actually works in underserved areas (which includes rural areas): Asians and Whites were at the bottom. Native Americans were the highest in all underserved locations, followed by Blacks and Hispanics. So theoretically, if a demographic's acceptance rate is tied to fulfilling a public good, the formula isn't just about scores. It looks more like: Acceptance rate = f(MCAT, GPA, Mission Fitness)

Of course, admissions committees look at far more than just this, but I am bringing it up because it is a significant explanatory variable that behaves roughly in an opposing direction to the MCAT mean differences across your division of groups. If you ignore mission fitness (including geographic and other mandates), you are trying to solve a multivariate equation using only some of the variables. But there are other issues here, too, discussed in other posts, such as the racial distributions across the US.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

So, Don2 is partially right that different schools differ in who applies to them. He is wrong in that this would explain away the discrepancy in MCATs.

You seem to be misconstruing what I have wriiten. I never wrote that a single variable completely explains away anything. From the beginning you posted MCAT mean differences with a narrative, "aha! That means discrimination!" I have maintained (1) there can be instances of discrimination and (2) the differences in means are explained by multiple variables. Yes, one particular variable is that races do not apply to the same schools at the same rates and further that the different schools have different MCAT thresholds. That alone does mean it isn't a fair comparison, but it doesn't exclude other variables.

As to Duke, Duke could be engaging in something nefarious or perhaps lazy using race as a proxy for mission fitness. What you did not include is that Duke has a minimum threshold MCAT of 500.

So did they eliminate all applicants below 500 and then apply admission criteria that includes a small weight on MCATs and a large one on mission fitness as well as other variables? Or did they use race directly in their calculations against the Supreme Court ruling?

Maybe it was the latter. One article cites a DoJ official with a quote mine stating they were using terms to try to "discern race." Is it out of context? Maybe not.

Related question: this kind of focus is on underrepresented minorities who at least in theory meet a public need at a greater rate (mission fitness). Where is the uproar regarding predominantly non-Asian regions (like WV or White rural areas) from blocking qualified out-of-state (Asian) applicants from applying? It seems like there is a goal here, not by you, by Trump... have you thought about it?

 

[laughing dog]

No, it is not the whole idea of AA/DEI. The idea of the two is to promote fair treatment and representation for all people, especially historically underrepresented minorities. Nothing in its precept is about anyone getting position that they didn't earn fully on merit.

D - diversity even at the expense of merit or being just to the individual applicant. But only for so-called PWIs, these same people don't demand Morehouse or Meharry or Howard become more diverse.

Are there issues with those schools deterring or discouraging a diverse pool of applicants or discriminating against any group?

E - equity. The word specifically invented (in this context) as a counterpoint to equality. They don't want people - e.g. an Asian and black applicant, to be treated equally, but "equitably" which means that the black applicant can be given a preference because it's all about achieving more even outcomes rather than giving individuals equal opportunity.

Your bigoted interpretation is duly noted.

 

[laughing dog]

There isn't some one-trick-pony "metric" that can magically tell you whether someone is a good candidate for medical school or not.

Of course there isn't. But if you want to get rid of or deemphasize MCAT and GPA you have to replace their part in the admissions framework with something else.

That’s already occurring. It’s the reason for your whining.

What would this "something else" be, specifically? You can't just claim there is something else and leave it at that.
So identify it, and explain why you think this "something else" is a better criterion than GPA and MCAT. Other than the fact that the groups you dislike perform better academically than the groups you like, and so you want to ignore academic performance.

No one has claimed to discard MCAT scores or GPAs. That has been made clear numerous times by numerous posters. Your insistence in repeating that straw man does not advance your argument.

Also, your apparent ignorance of the other factors such as interviews, and differing missions among schools which have been mentioned many times by numerous posters drives these straw men.

In summary, it appears these repetitive straw men of yours arise out of a desperate need to support your tenuous position.

 

[Derec]

That’s you assumption. Since there is no public database that lists individual scires by race, it’s only an assumption.

It's based on the widely different MCAT and GPA means. Sure, we don't have raw data with every single score but what we have is enough to make it not just an assumption.

AFAIK or anyone of us knows, the highest score was by a black or Hispanic person and the lowest was w white or Asian applicant.

There are only 56 distinct score points for MCAT. So there are many people who got 528 and 472, there is no one scorer with highest or lowest score. That said, of course there are blacks who get 528 and Asians who get 472. Nobody is arguing otherwise.
The issue is that, on average, admitted blacks perform worse than admitted Asians. Nobody has offered a logical explanation that does not involve discrimination.

Besides which, test scores/MCAT are only part of the admissions requirements.

True, but as I explained, other criteria would have to swing the opposite way in order to have this kind of discrepancy of average scores and no race-based discrimination.

The only applicants who meet the threshold first scores are admitted but not all of those students who meet that threshold are admitted.

The minimum scores/GPA are much lower than average scores. Your chance of admission rises with scores and grades, but it rises differently depending on your race/ethnicity. I think this is wrong. Do you?

As has been pointed out repeatedly.

As has been pointed out repeatedly, none of this explains away the marked differences in mean MCAT and GPA for admitted students.

 

[Toni]

There isn't some one-trick-pony "metric" that can magically tell you whether someone is a good candidate for medical school or not.

Of course there isn't. But if you want to get rid of or deemphasize MCAT and GPA you have to replace their part in the admissions framework with something else.

That’s already occurring. It’s the reason for your whining.

What would this "something else" be, specifically? You can't just claim there is something else and leave it at that.
So identify it, and explain why you think this "something else" is a better criterion than GPA and MCAT. Other than the fact that the groups you dislike perform better academically than the groups you like, and so you want to ignore academic performance.

Here’s the thing, Derec. It’s not about ‘liking’ certain groups more than others. Or at least not for me or for people arguing that medical schools seem to know what they are doing.

But I can see why you believe it is.

That’s you assumption. Since there is no public database that lists individual scires by race, it’s only an assumption.

It's based on the widely different MCAT and GPA means. Sure, we don't have raw data with every single score but what we have is enough to make it not just an assumption.

AFAIK or anyone of us knows, the highest score was by a black or Hispanic person and the lowest was w white or Asian applicant.

There are only 56 distinct score points for MCAT. So there are many people who got 528 and 472, there is no one scorer with highest or lowest score. That said, of course there are blacks who get 528 and Asians who get 472. Nobody is arguing otherwise.
The issue is that, on average, admitted blacks perform worse than admitted Asians. Nobody has offered a logical explanation that does not involve discrimination.

Besides which, test scores/MCAT are only part of the admissions requirements.

True, but as I explained, other criteria would have to swing the opposite way in order to have this kind of discrepancy of average scores and no race-based discrimination.

The only applicants who meet the threshold first scores are admitted but not all of those students who meet that threshold are admitted.

The minimum scores/GPA are much lower than average scores. Your chance of admission rises with scores and grades, but it rises differently depending on your race/ethnicity. I think this is wrong. Do you?

As has been pointed out repeatedly.

As has been pointed out repeatedly, none of this explains away the marked differences in mean MCAT and GPA for admitted students.

So in your opinion, black students no longer face discrimination in education?

 

[Derec]

It IS a big part of it which is why the standards are very high.

They may be high for whites and Asians, but they are far lower for blacks and Hispanics.

Unfortunately it is not a case of those who score the highest in the MCAT making the best doctors. That would be great if it were true—easy peasy to select those who would be the best.

Those who score high on MCAT and have good grades from a good school show academic aptitude which is necessary, but not sufficient for being a good doctor.

But it simply is not the case. There are other qualities and abilities which are as valuable as being able to score the highest on standardized tests.

Of course. But you have not shown any evidence why these "other qualities and abilities" should be distributed opposite to academic performance. Because that would be needed to undo the academic advantage of whites and Asians in absence of discrimination.

Why is this so hard for you (and the rest of the Ilk) to understand?

 

[Derec]

Here’s the thing, Derec. It’s not about ‘liking’ certain groups more than others. Or at least not for me or for people arguing that medical schools seem to know what they are doing.

I do not think what they are doing, i.e. "race-conscious admissions" is helpful in today's day and age.

So in your opinion, black students no longer face discrimination in education?

It is pretty clear that these days, and for the last few decades, they are discriminated in favor of, rather than against.

 

[Toni]

Here’s the thing, Derec. It’s not about ‘liking’ certain groups more than others. Or at least not for me or for people arguing that medical schools seem to know what they are doing.

I do not think what they are doing, i.e. "race-conscious admissions" is helpful in today's day and age.

So in your opinion, black students no longer face discrimination in education?

It is pretty clear that these days, and for the last few decades, they are discriminated in favor of, rather than against.

It's pretty clear that you are not black.

 

[Toni]

It IS a big part of it which is why the standards are very high.

They may be high for whites and Asians, but they are far lower for blacks and Hispanics.

Unfortunately it is not a case of those who score the highest in the MCAT making the best doctors. That would be great if it were true—easy peasy to select those who would be the best.

Those who score high on MCAT and have good grades from a good school show academic aptitude which is necessary, but not sufficient for being a good doctor.

But it simply is not the case. There are other qualities and abilities which are as valuable as being able to score the highest on standardized tests.

Of course. But you have not shown any evidence why these "other qualities and abilities" should be distributed opposite to academic performance. Because that would be needed to undo the academic advantage of whites and Asians in absence of discrimination.

Why is this so hard for you (and the rest of the Ilk) to understand?

The scores are not 'far lower.' Only applicants who meet the threshold for test scores, and GPAs are considered. Other supporting materials are part of the application packet, as well as personal statements and pretty often, interviews.

The fact is that the ability and drive to excel in taking certain kinds of tests and earning high GPAs is not paired with 100% congruence with the ability to hold up in stressful situations, work well as a team, interact well with others on a personal level or enjoy working with people and having the capacity to do so while remaining professional and establishing a good working relationship with the patients.

I've known people like this, who would excel at mastering any course material required but who would in fact, do a poor job of relating to patients. Or who simply could not handle the messier (blood and guts) aspects of the job. Or who are more authoritarian in nature or who are not particularly flexible or empathetic. Not all careers require those skills but practicing medicine as a physician, as a nurse, as a PA or other medical professional with patient contact at many levels absolutely does require those so called 'soft skills.' Both for working with patients and also for working with others who are on your team in a highly stressful environment.

A high degree of intelligence and interest in medical science is necessary but not sufficient to make a good doctor. Some smaller number of applicants would be better suited to MD-PhD programs where the work is more research oriented.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

BTW, they're still doing it:

https://dukechronicle.com/article/duke-university-trump-administration-finds-school-of-medicine-racially-discriminated-in-admissions-practices-hhs-affirmative-action-20260910

Yeah, I don't believe this administration one bit. But note who published this--you think if the numbers were false they wouldn't say something?!

In the 2024-25 admissions cycle — the most recent included in the letter — Black and Hispanic applicants’ mean MCAT scores were in the 87th and 89th percentile, respectively, while white and Asian applicants were in the 97th and 98th percentile.

LOL - you believe Trump’s DOJ!

Note what I said afterwards--look who posted it.

 

[laughing dog]

BTW, they're still doing it:

https://dukechronicle.com/article/duke-university-trump-administration-finds-school-of-medicine-racially-discriminated-in-admissions-practices-hhs-affirmative-action-20260910

Yeah, I don't believe this administration one bit. But note who published this--you think if the numbers were false they wouldn't say something?!

In the 2024-25 admissions cycle — the most recent included in the letter — Black and Hispanic applicants’ mean MCAT scores were in the 87th and 89th percentile, respectively, while white and Asian applicants were in the 97th and 98th percentile.

LOL - you believe Trump’s DOJ!

Note what I said afterwards--look who posted it.

I saw. I think the student run newspaper ran a news story that reported the HHS’s findings. That says nothing about the validity of the findings.

 

[Gospel]

Me thinks you’re reading “nobody” much more broadly than I meant it. I’m talking about this discussion and the people making the AA/DEI argument here, not claiming that nobody anywhere complains about nepotism, favoritism or White people benefiting from connections. My point is that here, when people talk about somebody receiving an opportunity they supposedly didn’t earn, the example keeps becoming a Black or Hispanic applicant taking a spot from a White or Asian applicant. Of course people complain about nepotism and favoritism involving White people. That actually reinforces my point. We recognize all kinds of reasons someone might get an advantage over a supposedly “better” candidate without immediately turning it into a demographic grievance. What I’m questioning is why, here, the outrage over AA/DEI preferential treatment has been so specifically attached to Black and Hispanic people as the “spot takers.” Your hypothetical explains why an explicit racial preference could create suspicion. Fine. I’m against that kind of preference too. But it doesn’t really answer the selective framing I was talking about.

This is exactly why I tend to avoid debating you. You seem to have a real problem paying attention to the details of what I actually wrote. Bomb does the same thing, he took my specific point about White women, where race was part of the point, and quietly turned it into an argument about women in general. It’s a silly way to argue. If you don’t want to address the point I actually made, fine. Just don’t address it. I’d much rather that than have you rewrite my argument into something easier for you to respond to and then argue against that instead. It's not like I'm not willing to concede when my argument is flawed or when I’m wrong. But I can’t do that when the argument being criticized isn’t actually the one I made.

Your post was unclear, and did not seem to be limited solely to giving specific posters here a hard time.

Be more clear.

Oh? What part of “this discussion” and “where Derec loses me” suggested I was talking about the entire world? You were so eager to climb onto your high horse that you mistook your mouth for the stirrup.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Related question: this kind of focus is on underrepresented minorities who at least in theory meet a public need at a greater rate (mission fitness). Where is the uproar regarding predominantly non-Asian regions (like WV or White rural areas) from blocking qualified out-of-state (Asian) applicants from applying? It seems like there is a goal here, not by you, by Trump... have you thought about it?

Institutions exist to serve their population. Preference for in-state applicants is often legally required as part of receiving state money.

Thus I have no objection here. It's an entirely relevant basis to decide, openly listed.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It IS a big part of it which is why the standards are very high.

They may be high for whites and Asians, but they are far lower for blacks and Hispanics.

Unfortunately it is not a case of those who score the highest in the MCAT making the best doctors. That would be great if it were true—easy peasy to select those who would be the best.

Those who score high on MCAT and have good grades from a good school show academic aptitude which is necessary, but not sufficient for being a good doctor.

But it simply is not the case. There are other qualities and abilities which are as valuable as being able to score the highest on standardized tests.

Of course. But you have not shown any evidence why these "other qualities and abilities" should be distributed opposite to academic performance. Because that would be needed to undo the academic advantage of whites and Asians in absence of discrimination.

Why is this so hard for you (and the rest of the Ilk) to understand?

The scores are not 'far lower.' Only applicants who meet the threshold for test scores, and GPAs are considered. Other supporting materials are part of the application packet, as well as personal statements and pretty often, interviews.

Two of us found the same issue with Duke admissions. Test scores are numbers, they only become meaningful when converted into percentiles. And the percentile gap is large.

The fact is that the ability and drive to excel in taking certain kinds of tests and earning high GPAs is not paired with 100% congruence with the ability to hold up in stressful situations, work well as a team, interact well with others on a personal level or enjoy working with people and having the capacity to do so while remaining professional and establishing a good working relationship with the patients.

You keep repeating things along these lines without ever indicating why one should expect a racial disparity in such matters.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Related question: this kind of focus is on underrepresented minorities who at least in theory meet a public need at a greater rate (mission fitness). Where is the uproar regarding predominantly non-Asian regions (like WV or White rural areas) from blocking qualified out-of-state (Asian) applicants from applying? It seems like there is a goal here, not by you, by Trump... have you thought about it?

Institutions exist to serve their population. Preference for in-state applicants is often legally required as part of receiving state money.

Thus I have no objection here. It's an entirely relevant basis to decide, openly listed.

Are you also okay with this?

University of North Dakota School of Medicine Secondary Essay Prompts | Med School Insiders

These are the secondary application prompts for University of North Dakota School of Medicine & Health Sciences for the currently application cycle. To view the previous year’s secondary essay prompts, scroll down.

medschoolinsiders.com

 

[Toni]

It IS a big part of it which is why the standards are very high.

They may be high for whites and Asians, but they are far lower for blacks and Hispanics.

Unfortunately it is not a case of those who score the highest in the MCAT making the best doctors. That would be great if it were true—easy peasy to select those who would be the best.

Those who score high on MCAT and have good grades from a good school show academic aptitude which is necessary, but not sufficient for being a good doctor.

But it simply is not the case. There are other qualities and abilities which are as valuable as being able to score the highest on standardized tests.

Of course. But you have not shown any evidence why these "other qualities and abilities" should be distributed opposite to academic performance. Because that would be needed to undo the academic advantage of whites and Asians in absence of discrimination.

Why is this so hard for you (and the rest of the Ilk) to understand?

The scores are not 'far lower.' Only applicants who meet the threshold for test scores, and GPAs are considered. Other supporting materials are part of the application packet, as well as personal statements and pretty often, interviews.

Two of us found the same issue with Duke admissions. Test scores are numbers, they only become meaningful when converted into percentiles. And the percentile gap is large.

The fact is that the ability and drive to excel in taking certain kinds of tests and earning high GPAs is not paired with 100% congruence with the ability to hold up in stressful situations, work well as a team, interact well with others on a personal level or enjoy working with people and having the capacity to do so while remaining professional and establishing a good working relationship with the patients.

You keep repeating things along these lines without ever indicating why one should expect a racial disparity in such matters.

Who suggested there was a disparity that fell along racial lines?

You are among those who seem convinced that talent falls along racial lines. And that certain types of academic talent are perfectly aligned with other types of talent.

What the hell does Duke have to do with this?