MCATs, Affirmative Action, and DEI, Oh My

[laughing dog]

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

There being non-academic reasons for dropping out does not weaken our claim. If anything, it strengthens it. If academic reasons cause dropping out (or flunking Step 1 for that matter) in only a subset of cases, then the association between mediocre GPA/MCAT and dropping out for academic reasons is stronger, not weaker.

I assume you mean “non-academic reasons” in the start of your syllogism. Otherwise, it is a tautology.

It seems to me, you and your ilk think causes have distinct and separate influences on human decision making like admissions or dropping out.
I don’t think that assumption is valid. If influences intermingle or reinforce each other, your analysis falls apart. Don’s post gives an example of such an effect.

Since the data shows failure to complete medical school within 6 years and since there are many obstacles to reaching that goal, your analysis is dependent on the assumption that academic reasons are the primary factor in failure to complete in 6 years.

Finally, even if your corrected syllogism is an accurate description of the actual failure to complete process, if the non- academic reasons subset of non- completes comprise a significant portion of the entire set, then it seems you’ve not shown very much. First example, if non-academic reason non-completes comprise 90% of the entire set, then the MCAT/GPA is doesn’t explain much.

 

[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!

 

[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!

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

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yes, that is the right way to look at things. That's how we deal with other risk factors. If chance of an Airbus crashing was 250% higher than a Boeing, you wouldn't say - it's only 5.7% risk, so what?

This is only relevant when you're actually dealing with marginal risk, and the value at risk is very large.

Having migraines with aura increases your risk of stroke by 2 to 3 times. If you also take oral contraceptives, it increases the risk of stroke by 5 times.

The risk of stroke in females under 50 is 6 in 100,000.
The risk of stroke in females under 50 who get migraines and take oral contraceptives is 30 in 100,000.

Yes, it's 5 times higher, that's accurate. It's also extraordinarily misleading, as the risk of stroke is still extremely low and the 5X factor is not material to the overall likelihood of a stroke.

Me and my doctor went round and round about this when she decided I shouldn't take oral contraceptives in my 30s. I found a different doctor because the actual risk is low enough to be negligible no matter what.

Real world, oral contraceptives have a lower failure rate than other non-permanent methods, the risk of contraceptive failure needs to be balanced against the risk of harm from pregnancy. You end up with the risk of oral contraceptives for most women being negative.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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?

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.

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.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

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?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I find it difficult to believe that white and Asian students are being discriminated against when they represent the greatest proportion of students admitted.

That's just an argument from personal incredulity.

It is not about who is the greatest proportion, but how high that proportion would be under a color-blind system.

Currently, ~70% of the NBA is black, far more than their 14% of the population. If NBA started discriminating against black prospects in the name of "diversity" and blacks dropped to 50% of the league, they'd still represent the "greatest proportion" and be well overrepresented in the league, but that does not mean that discrimination did not take place.

Actually, about 7% not 14%. The NBA is strictly males and black males are 6-7% of the population. You need to compare males to males.

But white women aren't in the NBA in the first place. 14% is the right number.

 

[Toni]

I find it difficult to believe that white and Asian students are being discriminated against when they represent the greatest proportion of students admitted.

That's just an argument from personal incredulity.

It is not about who is the greatest proportion, but how high that proportion would be under a color-blind system.

Currently, ~70% of the NBA is black, far more than their 14% of the population. If NBA started discriminating against black prospects in the name of "diversity" and blacks dropped to 50% of the league, they'd still represent the "greatest proportion" and be well overrepresented in the league, but that does not mean that discrimination did not take place.

Actually, about 7% not 14%. The NBA is strictly males and black males are 6-7% of the population. You need to compare males to males.

But white women aren't in the NBA in the first place. 14% is the right number.

No.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

, that is the right way to look at things. That's how we deal with other risk factors. If chance of an Airbus crashing was 250% higher than a Boeing, you wouldn't say - it's only 5.7% risk, so what?

Well, you sould say that, if you understood the statistics.

View attachment 55132
OMFG!! Boeings are sooooo dangerous! If it's a Boeing, I ain't going!!

In 2023, Boeings had 342% more incidents than Airbuses.

It's not the number of incidents that worry people. It's the corners they have been cutting with safety. Flight control systems that can respond to a sensor failure by trying to crash the plane.

And the "If it's Boeing, I ain't going" is a play on the old advertisements. The risk isn't enough to not fly.

 

[Toni]

I’m almost certain I posted this upthread but:

Few medical students drop out—but when they do, here’s why

Medical school graduation rates exceed 95%. When attrition happens, it’s usually tied to life outside the classroom, not academics.

www.ama-assn.org

The AAMC data shows that the few students who leave medical school do so primarily for nonacademic reasons. In traditional MD tracks, for instance, 1.8% of students left for nonacademic reasons, compared with 1.1% of students citing academic reasons as the cause of their attrition.

Mental health issues can lead to a decline in academic performance and, ultimately, to attrition, Dr. Boyd noted. The heavy workload that medical students take on can contribute to burnout and affect personal well-being.

Dr. Boyd cited several other factors that contribute to medical student attrition. These include:

• Career path changes, with students opting to leave medicine altogether.
• Financial concerns, including tuition and living expenses, a stressor that may be particularly prevalent for students from low-income backgrounds.

Meanwhile, some students discover once in medical school “that a medical career does not align with their interests or goals, resulting in their decision to leave the program,” Dr. Boyd said.

While some posters here want to believe that if students of (some) color(s) drop out of med school for academic reasons, financial stressors are much more likely to play a strong role because as a demographic, black and Latino students are more likely to come from modest financial backgrounds and to lack financial support from family.

 

[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%.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

I can't speak for him, but this is certainly how I feel.

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

Yup. They took a laudable goal, discovered it wasn't happening as they dreamed and responded by putting a thumb on the scale rather than look for the true problem.

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

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

Oh, come on now. You think we shouldn't keep records of those who commit sexual offenses against children?

And keeping them away from children isn't discrimination, it's a reasonable safety precaution.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

I haven't worked with people with advanced degrees but I can see the issue anyway--to be good at something you need to have learned deeper than what you're working with. The next level of knowledge gives you a why for the current level of knowledge. And without that you're basically working by rote.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

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

Note that in practice the discrimination you are favoring ends up helping that rich kid, not the people you imagine it helps.

 

[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.

 

[Toni]

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

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

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

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.

 

[Toni]

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.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

Generational effects exist. Doesn't make them racism.

Perfect case study: Poland. The war destroyed the existing educational system, they had a basically greenfield situation to build a non-discriminatory educational system. And there was still a big correlation between parental occupational skill level and child occupational skill level.

The big generational effect is the family and to a lesser degree genetics.

You're trying to paint over the rust.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Derec, again, you cannot know that they accepted lower scoring black and hispanic applicants. We only know the average score by demographic. As far as we know, the highest score for any incoming med student was scored by a black student and the lowest by an Asian student.

And so what if there's an outlier. Doesn't make it possible to have the mean that we see without accepting some lower scoring black and hispanic applicants.