(split) Affirmative Action discussion

[Metaphor]

I am clearly not a statistician. So you believe that no low scoring Asian or white students are admitted to universities and grad programs?

No, some are, but they have a much lower chance of admission than a similarly-scoring Black or Latino student. The more 'marginal' (ie low scoring), the worse the size of the discrimination -e.g. at a given MCAT/GPA range, an Asian student might have a 5% chance of admission but a Black student might have a 40% chance.

Do you know whether Asian and white prospective students apply to more or fewer different programs compared with black students or Hispanic students? If students from a particular group, say: left handed red heads--applied to, on average, say 12 schools but right handed red heads applied to 4 schools, would you expect he right handed and left handed red heads have similar rates of acceptance? Assume normal distribution of grades, scores for the stated acceptance criteria of the caliber of schools.

I don't know how many schools on average are applied for by each kind of student. Whether and how that would affect acceptance rates depends on what kind of students tend to apply to more or fewer schools.

It is mathematically possible that there is no discrimination by any individual institution, and Asians have simply applied at more prestigious institutions, in which case a higher rejection rate could be expected. This could, at an outside stretch, explain some of the apparent discrimination in the medical schools admissions data. But it's very improbable, and the data are more parsimoniously explained by a de-facto 'quota' for low-achieving groups which means discrimination against people from the high-achieving groups. It is no mistake that the worst chances of admission at a given grade/aptitude score is for the highest achieving group -- Asians.

In California, when race was banned as a selection criterion, the Asian cohort increased.

Do you believe that test scores/grades within one standard deviation actually are predictive of different levels of academic achievement?

Within one standard deviation? Absolutely. The single best prediction of future academic performance is past academic performance.

Imagine an experiment where an institution took in everyone who was exactly half a standard deviation above the mean, and everyone who was half a standard deviation below the mean, and no-one else. I would eat my hat if the average performance a year later of the half-standard-above group was not greater than the performance of the half-standard below group.

(Individuals would deviate from their group averages, obviously, but overall it would show the pattern).

But I've never claimed that non-grade/non-aptitude selection criteria should not be used. I've only ever claimed that whatever criterion you use should be empirically defensible and be related to performance. I've also said I find it staggeringly unlikely that Black and Latino students are so far ahead of Whites and Asians on these non-grade/non-aptitude criteria that it was differences in these criteria, and not racial discrimination, that could explain the differential admission rates.

 

[laughing dog]

The AA operating in American law and medicine graduate schools does not get any benefit of the doubt, because I've seen how those programs operate and I have evidence of the discrimination by race.

But there are many forms of AA, just like geographic diversity. Yet you condemn AA.

When is arbitrary discrimination by race morally right?

It isn't. But then again, AA need not mean arbitrary discrimination.

Society suffers whenever selection decisions are based or influenced by arbitrary criteria.

I suppose that depends on what you mean by arbitrary.

 

[Toni]

No, some are, but they have a much lower chance of admission than a similarly-scoring Black or Latino student. The more 'marginal' (ie low scoring), the worse the size of the discrimination -e.g. at a given MCAT/GPA range, an Asian student might have a 5% chance of admission but a Black student might have a 40% chance.

Do you know whether Asian and white prospective students apply to more or fewer different programs compared with black students or Hispanic students? If students from a particular group, say: left handed red heads--applied to, on average, say 12 schools but right handed red heads applied to 4 schools, would you expect he right handed and left handed red heads have similar rates of acceptance? Assume normal distribution of grades, scores for the stated acceptance criteria of the caliber of schools.

I don't know how many schools on average are applied for by each kind of student. Whether and how that would affect acceptance rates depends on what kind of students tend to apply to more or fewer schools.

It is mathematically possible that there is no discrimination by any individual institution, and Asians have simply applied at more prestigious institutions, in which case a higher rejection rate could be expected. This could, at an outside stretch, explain some of the apparent discrimination in the medical schools admissions data. But it's very improbable, and the data are more parsimoniously explained by a de-facto 'quota' for low-achieving groups which means discrimination against people from the high-achieving groups. It is no mistake that the worst chances of admission at a given grade/aptitude score is for the highest achieving group -- Asians.

In California, when race was banned as a selection criterion, the Asian cohort increased.

Do you believe that test scores/grades within one standard deviation actually are predictive of different levels of academic achievement?

Within one standard deviation? Absolutely. The single best prediction of future academic performance is past academic performance.

Imagine an experiment where an institution took in everyone who was exactly half a standard deviation above the mean, and everyone who was half a standard deviation below the mean, and no-one else. I would eat my hat if the average performance a year later of the half-standard-above group was not greater than the performance of the half-standard below group.

(Individuals would deviate from their group averages, obviously, but overall it would show the pattern).

But I've never claimed that non-grade/non-aptitude selection criteria should not be used. I've only ever claimed that whatever criterion you use should be empirically defensible and be related to performance. I've also said I find it staggeringly unlikely that Black and Latino students are so far ahead of Whites and Asians on these non-grade/non-aptitude criteria that it was differences in these criteria, and not racial discrimination, that could explain the differential admission rates.

Do you actually believe that highly qualified Asian and white students are being denied admission to universities?

Highly elective schools admit only a very, very small number of applicants. Among those who are rejected are some with perfect GPAs and perfect test scores. Because not all of those applicants are a good fit for any particular school.

 

[Metaphor]

Do you actually believe that highly qualified Asian and white students are being denied admission to universities?

Toni, I've never said it and I don't believe it. In fact, I've only ever said the exact opposite repeatedly. At the highest levels of aptitude and GPA, there is very little /no discrimination by race, because when you have elite grades and aptitude scores you're almost certain to be accepted no matter what your race.

It's the more marginal students that are being discriminated against, and the more marginal (on grades/aptitude) they are, the worse the racial discrimination.

 

[Axulus]

But there are many forms of AA, just like geographic diversity. Yet you condemn AA.

When is arbitrary discrimination by race morally right?

It isn't. But then again, AA need not mean arbitrary discrimination.

Society suffers whenever selection decisions are based or influenced by arbitrary criteria.

I suppose that depends on what you mean by arbitrary.

When AA operates like this, do you agree that it is wrong?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

When AA operates like this, do you agree that it is wrong?

These stats are legit? I had no idea it was that bad.

 

[Metaphor]

These stats are legit? I had no idea it was that bad.

It's gotten worse, and it's gotten worse all across the board:



In 2013-15, Asian students with the highest MCAT/grade combo in the table (30-32/3.6-3.8) had a 59% chance of admission whereas in 2010-12 they had a 69.9% chance

In the same period, Black students with the same MCAT/grade combo had a 95.1% chance of admission in 2013-15, up from 89.9% in 2010-12.

At the low end, an Asian with an MCAT 24-26 and a 3.2-3.39 GPA had only a 6.5% chance of admission whereas Black students in the same range had a staggering 58.7% acceptance rate.

In other words, in order to have the same chance of admission (around 59%) as a Black student who scored the lowest in the table, an Asian student would need the highest MCAT/grade combo.

The discrimination by race is staggering but you'll get the defenders to neither admit it is happening, nor to admit that even if it were happening that it would be morally wrong.

 

[laughing dog]

But there are many forms of AA, just like geographic diversity. Yet you condemn AA.

It isn't. But then again, AA need not mean arbitrary discrimination.

Society suffers whenever selection decisions are based or influenced by arbitrary criteria.

I suppose that depends on what you mean by arbitrary.

When AA operates like this, do you agree that it is wrong?

Operates like what?

 

[Toni]

These stats are legit? I had no idea it was that bad.

It's gotten worse, and it's gotten worse all across the board:

View attachment 1948

In 2013-15, Asian students with the highest MCAT/grade combo in the table (30-32/3.6-3.8) had a 59% chance of admission whereas in 2010-12 they had a 69.9% chance

In the same period, Black students with the same MCAT/grade combo had a 95.1% chance of admission in 2013-15, up from 89.9% in 2010-12.

At the low end, an Asian with an MCAT 24-26 and a 3.2-3.39 GPA had only a 6.5% chance of admission whereas Black students in the same range had a staggering 58.7% acceptance rate.

In other words, in order to have the same chance of admission (around 59%) as a Black student who scored the lowest in the table, an Asian student would need the highest MCAT/grade combo.

The discrimination by race is staggering but you'll get the defenders to neither admit it is happening, nor to admit that even if it were happening that it would be morally wrong.

This would be more illuminating if you attached raw numbers of students who apply and are accepted to a)their first choice of medical school b)any medical school c)how many medical schools the average white, black, Asian, Hispanic student applied to.


I am certainly no statistician but I am aware that when one group is sufficiently small in number, it is harder to draw valid conclusions about that small number relative to the group as a whole. If you have 3 applicants from the Ho Chunk nation, any variation in metrics among those 3 applicants will be magnified compared with the metrics of say, any 3 white applicants.

I haven't found any data about the numbers of schools applicants apply (c from above) to but I would find it interesting to know if data supports what I know to be true based upon the people I know who have applied to medical school. Mostly, I am curious to see how much this affects the stats...

I've linked multiple times to articles about medical school admissions and why there is a move by medical schools to change their admissions criteria to include students who are specifically not the perfect GPA/perfect MCAT scoring students. Pity that some people are unable to accept that in fact, medical schools do a stellar job of admitting students who are well qualified and who go on to complete medical school and to enter into medicine as a profession.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Legacy admissions, while wrong, aren't that big a part of the picture.

Even legacy admissions can sometimes help everyone else more than they harm: the parents usually made donations to the school and will continue to do so, the legacy admission pays full tuition, and therefore the school has more resources to improve education for everyone else at the school and maybe even have enough to open up some additional slots. As long as it is being done by a private institution I can live with it. If all these same things can be achieved without legacy admissions, that is a definite improvement. But we do live in the real world after all, where there are tradeoffs.

Which is a big part of why I don't consider them that big a deal.

 

[Metaphor]

This would be more illuminating if you attached raw numbers of students who apply and are accepted to a)their first choice of medical school b)any medical school c)how many medical schools the average white, black, Asian, Hispanic student applied to.

Raw numbers are available here.

I am certainly no statistician but I am aware that when one group is sufficiently small in number, it is harder to draw valid conclusions about that small number relative to the group as a whole. If you have 3 applicants from the Ho Chunk nation, any variation in metrics among those 3 applicants will be magnified compared with the metrics of say, any 3 white applicants.

The pattern across scores and the pattern across years is unmistakeable.

I haven't found any data about the numbers of schools applicants apply (c from above) to but I would find it interesting to know if data supports what I know to be true based upon the people I know who have applied to medical school. Mostly, I am curious to see how much this affects the stats...

And if it showed that there were no difference in the number or quality of schools applied for, would that be enough to convince you?

The patterns are unmistakeable -- acceptance rate at any grade/aptitude combo is inversely correlated with how well your race does overall. Asians have the highest grade/aptitude scores, and they have the lowest acceptance rates. Then it is Whites, then Latinos, then Blacks.

I've linked multiple times to articles about medical school admissions and why there is a move by medical schools to change their admissions criteria to include students who are specifically not the perfect GPA/perfect MCAT scoring students. Pity that some people are unable to accept that in fact, medical schools do a stellar job of admitting students who are well qualified and who go on to complete medical school and to enter into medicine as a profession.

And I've written multiple times that I have never stated, and do not believe, that grades and aptitude scores are nor should be the only criterion. What I have stated, multiple times, is that selection criteria should be transparent and defensible (that is, related to medical performance). There is no doubt that grades and aptitude score performance fit the bill.

Whether racist admissions policies are 'stellar' is a matter of perception. If the medical schools were not racist with their policies, the quality of the average admitted candidate would be higher.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I am clearly not a statistician. So you believe that no low scoring Asian or white students are admitted to universities and grad programs?

Do you know whether Asian and white prospective students apply to more or fewer different programs compared with black students or Hispanic students? If students from a particular group, say: left handed red heads--applied to, on average, say 12 schools but right handed red heads applied to 4 schools, would you expect he right handed and left handed red heads have similar rates of acceptance? Assume normal distribution of grades, scores for the stated acceptance criteria of the caliber of schools.

He didn't say none. He said that they have a much lower chance. A midrange score for a black is a very slim chance for an Asian.

And why would the right handed ones only apply to 4 schools?

Do you believe that test scores/grades within one standard deviation actually are predictive of different levels of academic achievement?

One standard deviation represents quite a difference in ability. There's one standard deviation between the average college graduate and the average person who never went to college. There's also one standard deviation between that average person and a grade school dropout. And there's less than three standard deviations between that average person and someone so retarded that they're automatically approved for disability income.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Do you actually believe that highly qualified Asian and white students are being denied admission to universities?

Highly elective schools admit only a very, very small number of applicants. Among those who are rejected are some with perfect GPAs and perfect test scores. Because not all of those applicants are a good fit for any particular school.

Do you actually think it's not happening???

While the universities try to hide it sometimes they don't have a choice--observe California where they weren't allowed to discriminate anymore. If they weren't discriminating then that would have had no effect.

- - - Updated - - -

When AA operates like this, do you agree that it is wrong?

These stats are legit? I had no idea it was that bad.

They've been posted on here before. It's that bad.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This would be more illuminating if you attached raw numbers of students who apply and are accepted to a)their first choice of medical school b)any medical school c)how many medical schools the average white, black, Asian, Hispanic student applied to.

I sure hope you're wearing scuba gear as you're really deep in that Egyptian river.

None of the questions you are asking have any bearing on this. They're counting acceptances, not where the student actually went.

I am certainly no statistician but I am aware that when one group is sufficiently small in number, it is harder to draw valid conclusions about that small number relative to the group as a whole. If you have 3 applicants from the Ho Chunk nation, any variation in metrics among those 3 applicants will be magnified compared with the metrics of say, any 3 white applicants.

The groups are big enough. There are about 16,000 students a year.

I've linked multiple times to articles about medical school admissions and why there is a move by medical schools to change their admissions criteria to include students who are specifically not the perfect GPA/perfect MCAT scoring students. Pity that some people are unable to accept that in fact, medical schools do a stellar job of admitting students who are well qualified and who go on to complete medical school and to enter into medicine as a profession.

So discrimination is acceptable if they deliberately choose to discriminate?? They're changing the admissions criteria to rig the game.

 

[Metaphor]

The overall pass rate for the US medical licensing exam (step 1) is 85%. However, 50% of Blacks fail step 1.

So no. Medical schools are not doing a 'stellar' job by using racist admission criteria to admit Blacks that are less qualified than White and Asian colleagues.

In fact, given the differences in scores, the racist admissions criteria is doing long-term damage to Black physicians in the U.S., because their credibility is undermined by the very real lower performance of Black medical students in USMLE exams. The average Black doctor has lower scores on their licensing exams than the average White or Asian doctor.

 

[laughing dog]

The overall pass rate for the US medical licensing exam (step 1) is 85%. However, 50% of Blacks fail step 1.

So no. Medical schools are not doing a 'stellar' job by using racist admission criteria to admit Blacks that are less qualified than White and Asian colleagues.

In fact, given the differences in scores, the racist admissions criteria is doing long-term damage to Black physicians in the U.S., because their credibility is undermined by the very real lower performance of Black medical students in USMLE exams. The average Black doctor has lower scores on their licensing exams than the average White or Asian doctor.

People who become certified as doctors (i.e. pass all the hurdles) should be credible on that basis alone. So, I find that conclusion about their credibility being undermined to be rather puzzling because it is literally irrational.

And the real issue is not what score someone got on an exam, but their qualities and effectiveness as a physician.

 

[Metaphor]

The overall pass rate for the US medical licensing exam (step 1) is 85%. However, 50% of Blacks fail step 1.

So no. Medical schools are not doing a 'stellar' job by using racist admission criteria to admit Blacks that are less qualified than White and Asian colleagues.

In fact, given the differences in scores, the racist admissions criteria is doing long-term damage to Black physicians in the U.S., because their credibility is undermined by the very real lower performance of Black medical students in USMLE exams. The average Black doctor has lower scores on their licensing exams than the average White or Asian doctor.

People who become certified as doctors (i.e. pass all the hurdles) should be credible on that basis alone. So, I find that conclusion about their credibility being undermined to be rather puzzling because it is literally irrational.

And the real issue is not what score someone got on an exam, but their qualities and effectiveness as a physician.

It is not at all irrational. All qualified doctors are not equally qualified.

Do you have grades in your courses, laughing dog? Do you think someone who got 60% in one of your exams is equally knowledgeable as someone who got 95%?

Are you suggesting that someone's qualities as a physician are unrelated to how well they do on USMLE? Do you think that allowing lesser-qualified Blacks into medical school, which has a direct consequence on qualification and graduation rates, isn't a problem? The racist discrimination alone is already a problem, let alone the entirely predictable consequences.

The amount of straw-clutching on this thread has been seen, but it can hardly be believed.

 

[George S]

The overall pass rate for the US medical licensing exam (step 1) is 85%. However, 50% of Blacks fail step 1.

So no. Medical schools are not doing a 'stellar' job by using racist admission criteria to admit Blacks that are less qualified than White and Asian colleagues.

In fact, given the differences in scores, the racist admissions criteria is doing long-term damage to Black physicians in the U.S., because their credibility is undermined by the very real lower performance of Black medical students in USMLE exams. The average Black doctor has lower scores on their licensing exams than the average White or Asian doctor.

People who become certified as doctors (i.e. pass all the hurdles) should be credible on that basis alone. So, I find that conclusion about their credibility being undermined to be rather puzzling because it is literally irrational.

And the real issue is not what score someone got on an exam, but their qualities and effectiveness as a physician.

As if there is no difference in professionals? Really?

As if all physicians are interchangeable? Really?

 

[Toni]

Raw numbers are available here.

I am certainly no statistician but I am aware that when one group is sufficiently small in number, it is harder to draw valid conclusions about that small number relative to the group as a whole. If you have 3 applicants from the Ho Chunk nation, any variation in metrics among those 3 applicants will be magnified compared with the metrics of say, any 3 white applicants.

The pattern across scores and the pattern across years is unmistakeable.

It's pretty easy to fail to see the forest when you are looking for one kind of tree.

These raw numbers do not say to how many or which schools black, Asian, white and Hispanic candidates submitted applications. To show discrimination one would have to look at numbers for each of the 171 medical schools in the U.S. and to compare acceptance rates and credentials of their pool of applicants.

Your link showed that OVERALL:

White applicants have an acceptance rate of 45.9%
Asian applicants have an acceptance rate of 42.7%
Black applicants have an acceptance rate of 37.0%
Hispanic or Latino applicants have an acceptance rate of 45.4%

None of the data linked show anything about any particular medical schools' admissions with regards to demographics.

It is not the case where there is a single pool of applicants and medical schools select from the same pool. Different candidates apply to different schools, based upon many criteria, including geography, chances of being accepted, expense, types of programs available, etc. Some students, particularly those who come from less wealthy families, specifically pick medical schools which have programs which reduce costs to students if they agree to practice in under served locations. Others attend medical school at the expense of the military and must make selections based upon that. Just for starters.

I haven't found any data about the numbers of schools applicants apply (c from above) to but I would find it interesting to know if data supports what I know to be true based upon the people I know who have applied to medical school. Mostly, I am curious to see how much this affects the stats...

And if it showed that there were no difference in the number or quality of schools applied for, would that be enough to convince you?

Do you believe that top scoring Asian students are applying to the same medical schools that lower scoring black and hispanic students are applying to? Do you really believe that?

Do you know that most medical schools and certainly most publicly funded medical schools preferentially offer admissions to applicants who are residents of that state or who have ties to that state? Do you know WHY they would do this?

Do you suppose that a medical school who focussed on medical research and had top ranked programs in gastroenterology would have fewer or more slots available for applicants whose stated goal was to practice obstetrics or pediatrics?

The patterns are unmistakeable -- acceptance rate at any grade/aptitude combo is inversely correlated with how well your race does overall. Asians have the highest grade/aptitude scores, and they have the lowest acceptance rates. Then it is Whites, then Latinos, then Blacks.

Blacks have the lowest acceptance rates, followed by Asian applicants and then it is neck and neck between white and hispanic applicants. The acceptance rate for Asian applicants is significantly closer to that of white or hispanic applicants than to the acceptance rate of black applicants.

I've linked multiple times to articles about medical school admissions and why there is a move by medical schools to change their admissions criteria to include students who are specifically not the perfect GPA/perfect MCAT scoring students. Pity that some people are unable to accept that in fact, medical schools do a stellar job of admitting students who are well qualified and who go on to complete medical school and to enter into medicine as a profession.

And I've written multiple times that I have never stated, and do not believe, that grades and aptitude scores are nor should be the only criterion. What I have stated, multiple times, is that selection criteria should be transparent and defensible (that is, related to medical performance). There is no doubt that grades and aptitude score performance fit the bill.

Whether racist admissions policies are 'stellar' is a matter of perception. If the medical schools were not racist with their policies, the quality of the average admitted candidate would be higher.

I know of not a single medical school applicants--those who got in and those who did not-who was unaware of the selection criteria, including things other than GPA and MCAT scores. Not one. These are not dumb people. Nor are they uninformed. Many spend years and years building what they hope will be an ideal resume to get them into medical school. They select their course work, their volunteer work, their projects with that goal in mind.

Do you have any evidence that the quality of candidates admitted to medical schools is not sufficiently high?

 

[Toni]

People who become certified as doctors (i.e. pass all the hurdles) should be credible on that basis alone. So, I find that conclusion about their credibility being undermined to be rather puzzling because it is literally irrational.

And the real issue is not what score someone got on an exam, but their qualities and effectiveness as a physician.

As if there is no difference in professionals? Really?

As if all physicians are interchangeable? Really?

Do you believe that how good a physician is depends upon his or her race?


Frankly, the worst doctors I've ever encountered were the ones who went to medical school when almost all medical students were white and male. And no, it is not because they are now nearing retirement and 'out of touch.' Some of them were pretty lousy doctors 40 years ago and more.