MCATs, Affirmative Action, and DEI, Oh My

[Emily Lake]

Unless of course you believe all of those things are merely two tentacles of one massive, intercontinental conspiracy to displace the White race. Then it makes perfect sense to see them all as "somehow" connected.

There needn't be a conspiracy for something to have an effect.

We've had a quarter of a century of "white privilege" and "privilege walks" and "symptoms of whiteness" and "white women's tears" and "colonizer" and "white supremacy culture" and "white people don't have culture" and fifty zillion other ways of communicating the fundamental message: white people are bad.

When universities steep students in a framework where everything associated with white people is definitionally stolen or discriminatory or evil, and this is what's taught to our educators, then it makes its way into every aspect of life.

 

[Emily Lake]

This is true, but it's easy to read more into it than is warranted. Geography plays a big role -- the states where people served by the IHS are concentrated, like Arizona, New Mexico and Utah, have low Asian American populations. There are ten times as many white doctors as Asian doctors working on reservations but that doesn't mean Asians are less willing than whites; it just means those states are chock full of white people. Doctors like anyone else mostly want to work close to home.

Also, don't forget that serving in IHS will forgive a portion of medical debt. A fair number of the doctors working in IHS come from low income backgrounds, and a "tour of duty" in IHS is how they work through the financial aspect while getting good experience and doing good works.

 

[Emily Lake]

What do you or anyone else think are the root cause(s) for the differences in acceptance rates for the top three rows and what is the evidence for that thinking?

Additional explanation to consider: sample size.

Assume you've got 100 white applicants, 100 asian applicants, and 3 middle eastern (I'm abbreviating, consider north african to be included). They could all have the same mean score, but due to the much smaller pool of applicants, the acceptance or rejection of just one person can create the appearance of a very different rate for that cohort. You could end up with white and asian people being accepted at 50%... but you can't get 50% from 3 applicants. You can get 100%, 66.7%, 33.3%, and 0%. So if only one of three makes the cut, it ends up looking like there's massive discrimination against middle eastern applicants (or massive privileging of them) relative to the other two cohorts.

Obviously, I'm inventing convenient counts in order to illustrate the mechanism. The point stands, however, that differences in the relative size of the applicant population can create the appearance if different acceptance rate, simply as a result of mathematical artifacts.

 

[Toni]

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?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Perhaps Asians apply less frequently to schools with no or lower requirements. In fact, HBCUs on average have lower thresholds and very little Asian enrollment. I think it's like 1%. HBCUs are only a subset of such schools.

Crazy idea... but the fact that a college or university promotes itself as historically black in a way that very clearly communicates that they prefer their attendees to be black... maybe that would discourage people who aren't black from applying in the first place?

Historically Black means that they were black in the past, i.e. Historically. Historically is an adverb. As such it can describe a verb, adjective, or another adverb, but in this case an adjective Black. It is a fact that these schools are Historically Black because they cropped up during legalized segregation. So at one point in history they were all Black. Later on, after segregation, other races began to apply more and more on a voluntary basis. They do not discourage diversity. Right now, > 11% of the people attending are White. 8% are Hispanic. 1% Asian. (at least according to Google).

Moreover, I wasn't really focusing on HBCUs. I was identifying a category of schools with lower MCAT thresholds of which HBCUs are a part. You could also consider medical schools in Puerto Rico. Please do not say, "yabut, they discourage non-Puerto Ricans from attending." Because that isn't the overall point. [Interesting point: the subpopulation of Hispanics attending medical school in Puerto Rico could contribute to the MCAT differences observed by as much as 2.3 MCAT points all by itself...making the non-PR Hispanic subpopulation avg MCAT into 509.1 and acceptance rate plummet of this subgroup to 36%.] But neither of these are meant to be narrow observations or an exhaustive list of how race is spread across the country and elsewhere.

The point is that for historical (and whatever else) reasons we have geographically and academically non-random spread of races across academia. Native Americans in Oklahoma, Alaska Natives in Alaska, Pacific Islanders in Hawaii and US Samoa, not to mention that Asian students do say they are under immense pressure and at least some of that is about attending a prestigious school.

To demonstrate that spread is different, I have undergraduate data, but not where they matriculated.

Top 9 institutions that Asians are coming from when they applied to medical school (where they did premed):


Top 9 institutions that Native Americans/Alaska Natives are coming from when they applied to medical school (where they did premed):


Top 9 institutions that Hispanics are coming from when they applied to medical school (where they did premed):


Top 9 institutions that Blacks are coming from when they applied to medical school (where they did premed):


Top 9 institutions that Whites are coming from when they applied to medical school (where they did premed):

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

What do you or anyone else think are the root cause(s) for the differences in acceptance rates for the top three rows and what is the evidence for that thinking?

Additional explanation to consider: sample size.

Assume you've got 100 white applicants, 100 asian applicants, and 3 middle eastern (I'm abbreviating, consider north african to be included). They could all have the same mean score, but due to the much smaller pool of applicants, the acceptance or rejection of just one person can create the appearance of a very different rate for that cohort. You could end up with white and asian people being accepted at 50%... but you can't get 50% from 3 applicants. You can get 100%, 66.7%, 33.3%, and 0%. So if only one of three makes the cut, it ends up looking like there's massive discrimination against middle eastern applicants (or massive privileging of them) relative to the other two cohorts.

Obviously, I'm inventing convenient counts in order to illustrate the mechanism. The point stands, however, that differences in the relative size of the applicant population can create the appearance if different acceptance rate, simply as a result of mathematical artifacts.

I think this illustrates the point that there can be things unseen that play a role that may not be discrimination. In the specific case of Middle Eastern/North African, I recollect the numbers being quite a bit more than single digit and so I do not think this would be an issue here for this case.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Make the case.

Make the case that MCAT plus GPA should be the only things that count.

As I’ve said, I know people who are quite intelligent t n the science way, with stellar GOAs and MCAT scores who dud not get into Ned school because they were not particularly good at the people portion of the job. I like them, abd respect them but no one who knew them thought they’d be good doctors despite everyone being blown away by their brilliance.

I don't see anyone saying it should only be MCAT and GPA.

Actually, this thread is obsessed with it. Bomb#20 doesn't think they are important, but then hinges on them. You are doing likewise.

I see no obsession with them being the only measure.

We are saying it should be things that can be measured with a consistent yardstick. None of us are rejecting other yardsticks, we are just asking that they be fair. And we are noting that no such fair yardstick has been suggested.

Medical school admissions policies are vindicated when they have high graduation rates. You want them to use a fair "yardstick", but don't have a damn clue what their actual admissions policies are, so how in the heck can you raise objections when admission policies are letting students with better scores in at higher rates than those with lower scores, but the ones with lower scores are still graduating?

We see a big difference in flunk out rates. That shows they are not doing the job right. Pretending it's non-academic doesn't make it so.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why are you repeating verbatim your post 526? Two other clones have been removed already.

I get you don’t really pay attention to the posts you respond to, but it seems you don’t pay attention to your own posts.

You realize the board hasn't exactly been perfectly stable? I presume I forgot to check for dupes after giving up on a message not posting and trying again later when the board was responding.

 

[ZiprHead]

Perhaps Asians apply less frequently to schools with no or lower requirements. In fact, HBCUs on average have lower thresholds and very little Asian enrollment. I think it's like 1%. HBCUs are only a subset of such schools.

Crazy idea... but the fact that a college or university promotes itself as historically black in a way that very clearly communicates that they prefer their attendees to be black... maybe that would discourage people who aren't black from applying in the first place?

Or maybe they are historically black because when they were created black people were barred from attending white colleges and universities.

Yes, I agree. Your idea is crazy.

 

[Toni]

Make the case.

Make the case that MCAT plus GPA should be the only things that count.

As I’ve said, I know people who are quite intelligent t n the science way, with stellar GOAs and MCAT scores who dud not get into Ned school because they were not particularly good at the people portion of the job. I like them, abd respect them but no one who knew them thought they’d be good doctors despite everyone being blown away by their brilliance.

I don't see anyone saying it should only be MCAT and GPA.

Actually, this thread is obsessed with it. Bomb#20 doesn't think they are important, but then hinges on them. You are doing likewise.

I see no obsession with them being the only measure.

We are saying it should be things that can be measured with a consistent yardstick. None of us are rejecting other yardsticks, we are just asking that they be fair. And we are noting that no such fair yardstick has been suggested.

Medical school admissions policies are vindicated when they have high graduation rates. You want them to use a fair "yardstick", but don't have a damn clue what their actual admissions policies are, so how in the heck can you raise objections when admission policies are letting students with better scores in at higher rates than those with lower scores, but the ones with lower scores are still graduating?

We see a big difference in flunk out rates. That shows they are not doing the job right. Pretending it's non-academic doesn't make it so.

I’m certain that you have a much more objective and clear POV with regards to why a very small number of medical students leave medical school compared with the professionals who work in the field abd actually talk with the. Students, professors who actually know them, compile data, etc.

 

[Derec]

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

All premeds or just those who had high GPAs and MCATs?

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

That was an example not from med school process specifically, but from Harvard undergrad admissions.
Harvard Rated Asian-American Applicants Lower on Personality Traits, Suit Says
It is still part of the same ugly ideology of "race-conscious admissions".

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

Acceptance rate is not the correct metric here, because it is a function of not only selection criteria but also of the applicant pool.
And yet you keep bringing it up no matter how often you are corrected.

 

[Derec]

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.

Yes, I am making the analogy to what medical schools, and wider academia, are doing.

If NBA wanted to increase diversity substantially, and blacks on average play basketball better than Asians, then the only way to bring up the Asian percentage is to give them a preference. That would be "race-conscious signing" as a counterpoint to "race-conscious admissions".

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 te quality of medical care or an increase in patient harm by placing significant numbers of unqualified physicians into practice?

All analogies have limitations.

In this case, the medical school admission does not make you a physician automatically. You still have to get through it, and pass the requisite licensing exams. But we know from way upthread that blacks drop out of medical school after the first year at a 2.5x higher rate. That's a measurable difference.

Also, it's not like medical school affirmative action has just started in the recent past, and so we can compare before with after. Med schools have been seeking to admit more blacks since before Bakke. Back then using crude quotas too.

 

[Derec]

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

The set of all NBA players is not very diverse, and it is far from being equitable. So they are obviously not practicing what they put on their website. That's because DEI is understood to be a one way street. Nobody is trying to make Morehouse or Meharry more diverse either, just MCG or Vanderbilt.

 

[Derec]

Sigh. You are assuming that the students all apply to the same medical schools. You’re assuming that they all make the same number of applications, that all medical schools have the same criteria for selecting students.

This has all been discussed most eloquently by Don2 who is actually better informed than any of us.

I am assuming none of these things, nor has it been shown that this would result in the difference in accepted student distributions we see. And no, despite his alleged eloquence, not even by Don2.

 

[laughing dog]

Sigh. You are assuming that the students all apply to the same medical schools. You’re assuming that they all make the same number of applications, that all medical schools have the same criteria for selecting students.

This has all been discussed most eloquently by Don2 who is actually better informed than any of us.

I am assuming none of these things, nor has it been shown that this would result in the difference in accepted student distributions we see. And no, despite his alleged eloquence, not even by Don2.

Actually, a number of posters have pointed out the hidden assumptions in your analysis along with outright errors. Your denial of reality is not based on disinterested analysis but to trolley track reasoning.

 

[laughing dog]

Make the case.

Make the case that MCAT plus GPA should be the only things that count.

As I’ve said, I know people who are quite intelligent t n the science way, with stellar GOAs and MCAT scores who dud not get into Ned school because they were not particularly good at the people portion of the job. I like them, abd respect them but no one who knew them thought they’d be good doctors despite everyone being blown away by their brilliance.

I don't see anyone saying it should only be MCAT and GPA.

Actually, this thread is obsessed with it. Bomb#20 doesn't think they are important, but then hinges on them. You are doing likewise.

I see no obsession with them being the only measure.

We are saying it should be things that can be measured with a consistent yardstick. None of us are rejecting other yardsticks, we are just asking that they be fair. And we are noting that no such fair yardstick has been suggested.

Medical school admissions policies are vindicated when they have high graduation rates. You want them to use a fair "yardstick", but don't have a damn clue what their actual admissions policies are, so how in the heck can you raise objections when admission policies are letting students with better scores in at higher rates than those with lower scores, but the ones with lower scores are still graduating?

We see a big difference in flunk out rates. That shows they are not doing the job right.

Where is the data on “flunking out”? People leave programs for all sorts of reasons.

Pretending it's non-academic doesn't make it so.

Pretending it’s all academic doesn’t make it so.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't think it is entirely unreasonable to extrapolate this, but again I have not read the study in full. What I immediately observe is there are only 8% Asian doctors but Asian doctors in the general population are much larger than that. Also, there are 14% NA/AN doctors but NA/AN doctors in the general population of doctors are like less than 1%.

Maybe Asian doctors are applying to work in underserved communities but keep receiving suspiciously low “personality scores” from the hiring committees.

Joking aside, I suspect much of this reflects people wanting to serve their own communities. That could also help explain some admissions differences without reducing everything to “who stole whose spot.” If medical schools know that applicants from certain communities are more likely to return and practice in areas with serious physician shortages, then selecting them may serve a legitimate workforce need, not merely satisfy a racial preference.

But how could they make a reasonable estimate of this?

That doesn’t prove discrimination never occurs. It just means MCAT averages and racial disparities alone cannot tell us why individual admissions decisions were made.

Yes, averages can't prove discrimination. But if they are using some other yardstick why do they not say so? All we have is Harvard's very suspicious personality scores.

 

[Toni]

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.

Yes, I am making the analogy to what medical schools, and wider academia, are doing.

If NBA wanted to increase diversity substantially, and blacks on average play basketball better than Asians, then the only way to bring up the Asian percentage is to give them a preference. That would be "race-conscious signing" as a counterpoint to "race-conscious admissions".

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 te quality of medical care or an increase in patient harm by placing significant numbers of unqualified physicians into practice?

All analogies have limitations.

In this case, the medical school admission does not make you a physician automatically. You still have to get through it, and pass the requisite licensing exams. But we know from way upthread that blacks drop out of medical school after the first year at a 2.5x higher rate. That's a measurable difference.

Also, it's not like medical school affirmative action has just started in the recent past, and so we can compare before with after. Med schools have been seeking to admit more blacks since before Bakke. Back then using crude quotas too.

2,5 X small number = small number.

Financial issues were among the most common reasons for people to drop out of med school or to take a break from
Med school and continue later.

It is known that as a group, black students are more likely to come from families with lower incomes and to have less chance for family financial support.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Here's a third cent's worth: I think framing this as about scrutinizing beneficiaries is not what's going on. The people being scrutinized are the medical school admissions committees. Nobody is attacking Black and Hispanic people; they're attacking leftists. Nobody here seems interested in figuring out which White or Asian person had his position “taken” by a Black or Hispanic person either, or in which Black or Hispanic person "took" one -- whom they're interested in is who is putting a thumb on the scale. I haven't seen anyone suggest the beneficiaries of AA policies did anything wrong by accepting positions offered to them, even if somebody thinks the policy that led to the offer was misguided. The beneficiaries can thank their lucky stars that what they had turned out to be what the admissions officers were looking for, same as the rest of us do who got accepted anywhere.

Exactly. You can't fix the past, all you can do is make the future better. And that means getting all the thumbs off the scale, both left and right. We are going after left thumbs because those are the predominant ones on the scales. We have just as much hate for right thumbs, but it's been a long time since right thumbs have been able to get near this particular scale.

 

[ZiprHead]

Here's a third cent's worth: I think framing this as about scrutinizing beneficiaries is not what's going on. The people being scrutinized are the medical school admissions committees. Nobody is attacking Black and Hispanic people; they're attacking leftists. Nobody here seems interested in figuring out which White or Asian person had his position “taken” by a Black or Hispanic person either, or in which Black or Hispanic person "took" one -- whom they're interested in is who is putting a thumb on the scale. I haven't seen anyone suggest the beneficiaries of AA policies did anything wrong by accepting positions offered to them, even if somebody thinks the policy that led to the offer was misguided. The beneficiaries can thank their lucky stars that what they had turned out to be what the admissions officers were looking for, same as the rest of us do who got accepted anywhere.

Exactly. You can't fix the past, all you can do is make the future better. And that means getting all the thumbs off the scale, both left and right. We are going after left thumbs because those are the predominant ones on the scales. We have just as much hate for right thumbs, but it's been a long time since right thumbs have been able to get near this particular scale.

mumble Pete Hegseth mumble mumble