MCATs, Affirmative Action, and DEI, Oh My

[Emily Lake]

I get that you're trying to excuse my unwillingness to continue being the whipping post for posters who don't know the basics of civilized behavior, but I'm not "acting out" here.

And there we go again. What exactly are those basics of "civilized" behavior? I assume not being "tribalistic" is one of your rules? Us "tribal" people to be more "civilized", even if occasionally a sturdier hand must be applied to "whip us into shape" a bit?

O! Lonely must be your long burdens! How little thanks received! How little love for your tutelage, though you offer it openly, and in simple language make it plain!

How about you just try not to be an asshole? How about you make at least some reasonable attempt to treat me with the respect you would like in return?

Or you can continue to behave like a spoiled nepo baby who thinks it's appropriate and acceptable to treat other people with contempt while demanding that they be considerate toward you?

In case that was too long or too complex a thought for you to process:

Stop behaving like an asshole.

We have very different notions of what constitutes "asshole" behavior. But I also have not, on fact, asked you not to be one if that is what God has laid it on your heart to be. And I'm not much interested in what you think of my character. I certainly haven't requested a scathing analysis of my personality, but I also don't much mind. I'm more interested in the *checks notes* actual content of the thread.

To me at least, habitually using colonial era slang to describe human beings in a disparaging fashion is very much connected to the overall question of why students drop out of programs before attaining a degree. You're not wrong that your use of language is common, even everyday. And if you tell me that "you don't think of things that way", that you think it is fine to call people you hate and fear "tribal" and those you admire and seek the approval of "civil" or "civilized" (because everyone you know talks that way) I do believe you. I think you genuinely do not think it is racist to bring out these ugly, loaded phrases and sling them around as though they had no weight or history before they popped into your head. We all talk how we were taught to speak, at least by default. But they do. And I think you ought to spend at least five minutes of your life thinking about the forces that shaped the world you live in, and placed you in a social class to whom horrifically racist language is part of the everyday patois. We don't learn language from dictionaries, we learn it from people. Who taught you that it is wicked to to be "tribal" and honorable to be "civilized"? Was there anything that tied all those people and their expectations about "normal language" together? A race, class, or political distinction they all shared, for instance? Do you really trust that they had society's best interests in mind, or whether they still do?

If you truly desire to make universities a place where all Americans feel comfortable enrolling, you cannot just ignore the fact you're struggling to discuss the matter at all without using that kind of language. Most university administrators are much the same. So are most faculty. Counselors, likewise. These are, in fact incredibly popular terms and concepts to use. Entirely acceptable to use in, say, a college board meeting. A program review. A faculty evaluation. A recommendation for transfer. And that's one of the problems we face.

Like you, those who use such language habitually don't think they are being racist when they do. Even when presented with hard data showing that our university system discriminates against Black, Chicano, and Native students at every stage, from admissions to counseling, to evaluation, to transfer, to thesis defense, to internship, to employment, their first response is always "how dare that person accuse me of racism when I don't feel racist?", not "Did my choice of words close a door that could have remained open?". But one of those is the more mature, adult response to criticism. And whether or not it is "nice", some reforms to our common practice and our common language are going to be needed, if we expect the gaps and rifts in our system to ever be healed.

The fact that you have provided us such a heartfelt rant about the term "tribal thinking", and somehow feel that such is causing some students to drop out of school because it's such a loaded racist phrase is pretty on-point for you.

The phrase tribal thinking isn't racist, and it never has been. It's a succinct term that captures the combination of in-group favoritism, out-group hostility, and motivated reasoning. It's just a fuck ton easier to type two words that are well-understood by normally functioning humans than typing out an entire half a paragraph every time you want to touch on the behavior. Especially given that it's a fairly well established phrase that is still in use:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1047840X.2020.1721233

https://philarchive.org/archive/CYCTEP

The Tribal Mind: Moral Reasoning and Public Discourse

Editor’s note: Books discussed in this essay include Jonathan Haidt’s The Righteous Mind; Daniel Kahneman’s Thinking, Fast and Slow; Bruce Schneier’s Liars and Outliers; and Jim Manzi’s Uncontrolled. Moral reasoning is often used to intensify...

www.aei.org

But the fact that you - a dyed in the wool social justice warrior - cannot hear it without thinking of black, hispanic, and first nations people... that says a whole lot about your mindset and what implicit assumptions you make about black, hispanic, and first nations people.

 

[Politesse]

I get that you're trying to excuse my unwillingness to continue being the whipping post for posters who don't know the basics of civilized behavior, but I'm not "acting out" here.

And there we go again. What exactly are those basics of "civilized" behavior? I assume not being "tribalistic" is one of your rules? Us "tribal" people to be more "civilized", even if occasionally a sturdier hand must be applied to "whip us into shape" a bit?

O! Lonely must be your long burdens! How little thanks received! How little love for your tutelage, though you offer it openly, and in simple language make it plain!

How about you just try not to be an asshole? How about you make at least some reasonable attempt to treat me with the respect you would like in return?

Or you can continue to behave like a spoiled nepo baby who thinks it's appropriate and acceptable to treat other people with contempt while demanding that they be considerate toward you?

In case that was too long or too complex a thought for you to process:

Stop behaving like an asshole.

We have very different notions of what constitutes "asshole" behavior. But I also have not, on fact, asked you not to be one if that is what God has laid it on your heart to be. And I'm not much interested in what you think of my character. I certainly haven't requested a scathing analysis of my personality, but I also don't much mind. I'm more interested in the *checks notes* actual content of the thread.

To me at least, habitually using colonial era slang to describe human beings in a disparaging fashion is very much connected to the overall question of why students drop out of programs before attaining a degree. You're not wrong that your use of language is common, even everyday. And if you tell me that "you don't think of things that way", that you think it is fine to call people you hate and fear "tribal" and those you admire and seek the approval of "civil" or "civilized" (because everyone you know talks that way) I do believe you. I think you genuinely do not think it is racist to bring out these ugly, loaded phrases and sling them around as though they had no weight or history before they popped into your head. We all talk how we were taught to speak, at least by default. But they do. And I think you ought to spend at least five minutes of your life thinking about the forces that shaped the world you live in, and placed you in a social class to whom horrifically racist language is part of the everyday patois. We don't learn language from dictionaries, we learn it from people. Who taught you that it is wicked to to be "tribal" and honorable to be "civilized"? Was there anything that tied all those people and their expectations about "normal language" together? A race, class, or political distinction they all shared, for instance? Do you really trust that they had society's best interests in mind, or whether they still do?

If you truly desire to make universities a place where all Americans feel comfortable enrolling, you cannot just ignore the fact you're struggling to discuss the matter at all without using that kind of language. Most university administrators are much the same. So are most faculty. Counselors, likewise. These are, in fact incredibly popular terms and concepts to use. Entirely acceptable to use in, say, a college board meeting. A program review. A faculty evaluation. A recommendation for transfer. And that's one of the problems we face.

Like you, those who use such language habitually don't think they are being racist when they do. Even when presented with hard data showing that our university system discriminates against Black, Chicano, and Native students at every stage, from admissions to counseling, to evaluation, to transfer, to thesis defense, to internship, to employment, their first response is always "how dare that person accuse me of racism when I don't feel racist?", not "Did my choice of words close a door that could have remained open?". But one of those is the more mature, adult response to criticism. And whether or not it is "nice", some reforms to our common practice and our common language are going to be needed, if we expect the gaps and rifts in our system to ever be healed.

The fact that you have provided us such a heartfelt rant about the term "tribal thinking", and somehow feel that such is causing some students to drop out of school because it's such a loaded racist phrase is pretty on-point for you.

The phrase tribal thinking isn't racist, and it never has been. It's a succinct term that captures the combination of in-group favoritism, out-group hostility, and motivated reasoning. It's just a fuck ton easier to type two words that are well-understood by normally functioning humans than typing out an entire half a paragraph every time you want to touch on the behavior. Especially given that it's a fairly well established phrase that is still in use:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1047840X.2020.1721233

https://philarchive.org/archive/CYCTEP

The Tribal Mind: Moral Reasoning and Public Discourse

Editor’s note: Books discussed in this essay include Jonathan Haidt’s The Righteous Mind; Daniel Kahneman’s Thinking, Fast and Slow; Bruce Schneier’s Liars and Outliers; and Jim Manzi’s Uncontrolled. Moral reasoning is often used to intensify...

www.aei.org

But the fact that you - a dyed in the wool social justice warrior - cannot hear it without thinking of black, hispanic, and first nations people... that says a whole lot about your mindset and what implicit assumptions you make about black, hispanic, and first nations people.

Read my post again. Did I argue that those phrases were uncommon, or that there aren't a lot of people, many of them in places of considerable power, who use them regularly? I know that perfectly well. It is, in fact, the problem. Your sense of what constitutes "neutral" language did not emerge in a vacuum.

Did you notice that neither of the sources you make are, or are attempting to be, neutral or objective observations of society? All three authors clearly state their theses, and all three are making an argument for sonething they think is wrong and ought to change. These are persuasive essays, in short, not research articles, and neither article claims otherwise. Indeed, your second link is... a blog post. Citing popular books, all of them polemical, as evidence.

What do you suppose that says about your argument? That it is supported by sound science and wise social policy, or that it is exactly the kind of politically motivated but epistwmologically questionable speech that you claim to be taking a noble stand against? If you like, I could cite quite a LOT of literature on the history of the terms "tribal" and "civilized" and the impact they have had on American health and society. But I should warn you, it's not a happy story. It ends badly (for now) and starts in straight up Hell.

 

[Emily Lake]

I'm sorry if I've offended you. Truly. I think all of us or at least most of us are on edge re: political situation and it is reflected in some of our posts. I periodically take breaks from reading anything political so that I can sleep at night. And not scream at people.

You haven't offended me, I recognize that you're trying to be helpful.

I do think that you are reacting out of scale. But of course, you are the one who feels attacked and you do not see your responses as out of scale. This is, to me, a case of not my circus, not my clowns kind of issue. It's your business what you write, how you react, etc. as well as any obvious immediate motivation or any underlying background going on.

I don't think I'm reacting out of scale. I'm reacting in a way that differs from the amount of bullshit I've been willing to tolerate in the past. But it's not out of scale. Mostly, I consider it polite to give people advance notice that I'm going to change my style of interaction.

Historically I've been something like 10 tits for tat - I tolerate a lot of repeated meanness before I stop being nice. I don't think it's reasonable, it's not working well for me, and it mostly ends up with some select posters here feeling that they can be mean with impunity.

It's not always the same posters - but they do it to you too. My observations, which are directional but not concrete, is that it happens a bit more often when the target is female. This happens to you, I've observed it in action even if you're somewhat inured to it. You get treated like crap when you stray from the fold. Just look at almost any thread where we've discussed the experiences of women in society - a lot of people who are otherwise your ally start treating you like shit and being unnecessarily contemptuous and mean when you take a stance on how women are treated. Shockingly, those are almost always men... and some of them are men who consider themselves very virtuous defenders of social justice. But you know, you stepped out of line and opposed their views, and they then feel justified in treating you poorly until you either drop out or back down.

But it also happens across the board to people who are simply nice and courteous by nature, especially if they lean somewhat more conservative than the noisy bunch. Some of them just leave instead of tolerating it. Some post less often (Jason Harvestdancer comes to mind). Some tolerate it and never lose their temper. Some have become less tolerant the longer it goes on - Bomb#20 for example, still technically courteous, but a lot more biting than a couple of years ago.

I'm at the intersection of those two. And I just done with it. I'm done being nice when I get nothing out of it. These people aren't my family, they're not my friends. A few of you I view as fond acquaintances... but I don't actually know any of you. So I've simply decided that I'm not going to continue soaking up the poor behavior of other people so that their feelings don't get hurt. Some posters have demonstrated repeatedly that they don't care if they offend me... but they expect me to go out of my way to avoid offending them.

It's arrogant and it demonstrates that they fundamentally believe they are superior to me. I'm done putting up with it.

You mentioned the whole menopause (or perimenopause?) contribution or I would not have delved into any such mention. It's your business. And yes, they (the guys) do absolutely expect us (women) to be much nicer and more polite and conciliatory than they are, although they likely to not see it that way. Sometimes I almost regret correcting those posters who assumed I am male, mostly out of curiosity about whether they'd respond differently to me.

Menopause. Last panel had my estrogen almost non-existent. So estradiol supplements are in my daily routine now. I was already in the midst of peri when I needed a hysterectomy, it went downhill rapidly after that even though we kept my ovaries.

I don't think menopause has changed my outlook much. This has been growing for probably about 5 years. The stupid RvW thread really pushed my tolerance to the limit, and that's when I started really thinking that being the "nice girl" as expected has no return on investment for me. There's no equilibrium, no give and take, no balance in these interactions.

Whenever someone responds to me with just basic courtesy and respect, I'll continue to do so. I might even let one or two bits of snottiness slide if I'm in a particularly generous mood. But I'm done being their doormat. My tolerance has not resulted in improved interactions with them. So I'm not doing it anymore. They get to set the tone of our interactions. It's entirely up to them now.

 

[Emily Lake]

Read my post again. Did I argue that those phrases were uncommon, or that there aren't a lot of people, many of them in places of considerable power, who use them regularly? I know that perfectly well. It is, in fact, the problem. Your sense of what constitutes "neutral" language did not emerge in a vacuum.

It *is* neutral language. It identifies a behavioral pattern that has it's roots in small social groups, and it remains in place with social groups today. Why do you seem to think that "tribe" is a bad thing? Why do you rub extra meanings of savagery, or barbarity, or lack of civilization onto it? None is implied in any fashion.

You know, the same kind of language flattening has been going on for a while. We're no longer supposed to use the term "master bedroom" because someone somewhere grew faint at the thought that the same word in a different context made them think about slavery. Same with master/slave circuits. Hell, same with blacklists and black sheep and black market. Some people are just looking for anything they can find so they can shove their own panties so far up their cracks that they're impeding their diaphragm - and I'm not talking about birth control here.

At this point, so many things have been cast as dog whistles, or subtly racist, or whatever newly constructed taboo, that we're making it difficult to communicate.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I get that you're trying to excuse my unwillingness to continue being the whipping post for posters who don't know the basics of civilized behavior, but I'm not "acting out" here.

And there we go again. What exactly are those basics of "civilized" behavior? I assume not being "tribalistic" is one of your rules? Us "tribal" people to be more "civilized", even if occasionally a sturdier hand must be applied to "whip us into shape" a bit?

O! Lonely must be your long burdens! How little thanks received! How little love for your tutelage, though you offer it openly, and in simple language make it plain!

How about you just try not to be an asshole? How about you make at least some reasonable attempt to treat me with the respect you would like in return?

Or you can continue to behave like a spoiled nepo baby who thinks it's appropriate and acceptable to treat other people with contempt while demanding that they be considerate toward you?

In case that was too long or too complex a thought for you to process:

Stop behaving like an asshole.

We have very different notions of what constitutes "asshole" behavior. But I also have not, on fact, asked you not to be one if that is what God has laid it on your heart to be. And I'm not much interested in what you think of my character. I certainly haven't requested a scathing analysis of my personality, but I also don't much mind. I'm more interested in the *checks notes* actual content of the thread.

To me at least, habitually using colonial era slang to describe human beings in a disparaging fashion is very much connected to the overall question of why students drop out of programs before attaining a degree. You're not wrong that your use of language is common, even everyday. And if you tell me that "you don't think of things that way", that you think it is fine to call people you hate and fear "tribal" and those you admire and seek the approval of "civil" or "civilized" (because everyone you know talks that way) I do believe you. I think you genuinely do not think it is racist to bring out these ugly, loaded phrases and sling them around as though they had no weight or history before they popped into your head. We all talk how we were taught to speak, at least by default. But they do. And I think you ought to spend at least five minutes of your life thinking about the forces that shaped the world you live in, and placed you in a social class to whom horrifically racist language is part of the everyday patois. We don't learn language from dictionaries, we learn it from people. Who taught you that it is wicked to to be "tribal" and honorable to be "civilized"? Was there anything that tied all those people and their expectations about "normal language" together? A race, class, or political distinction they all shared, for instance? Do you really trust that they had society's best interests in mind, or whether they still do?

If you truly desire to make universities a place where all Americans feel comfortable enrolling, you cannot just ignore the fact you're struggling to discuss the matter at all without using that kind of language. Most university administrators are much the same. So are most faculty. Counselors, likewise. These are, in fact incredibly popular terms and concepts to use. Entirely acceptable to use in, say, a college board meeting. A program review. A faculty evaluation. A recommendation for transfer. And that's one of the problems we face.

Like you, those who use such language habitually don't think they are being racist when they do. Even when presented with hard data showing that our university system discriminates against Black, Chicano, and Native students at every stage, from admissions to counseling, to evaluation, to transfer, to thesis defense, to internship, to employment, their first response is always "how dare that person accuse me of racism when I don't feel racist?", not "Did my choice of words close a door that could have remained open?". But one of those is the more mature, adult response to criticism. And whether or not it is "nice", some reforms to our common practice and our common language are going to be needed, if we expect the gaps and rifts in our system to ever be healed.

The fact that you have provided us such a heartfelt rant about the term "tribal thinking", and somehow feel that such is causing some students to drop out of school because it's such a loaded racist phrase is pretty on-point for you. The phrase tribal thinking isn't racist, and it never has been. It's a succinct term that captures the combination of in-group favoritism, out-group hostility, and motivated reasoning.

Politesse did not claim that the isolated phrase "tribal thinking" directly causes students to drop out, but rather that language and word choices can actively block opportunities. Do you disagree with that? For someone who insists words have no impact, you certainly use a lot of them attempting to impact others.

As for the term itself: "tribalism" and "tribal thinking" have a long history of selective application. Historically, critics used the term to accuse Jewish people of adhering to a "tribal god" or practicing "tribalism"--a framing many on your side of this debate would label anti-Semitic if presented in isolation. Defenders countered by highlighting the strong tradition of universalism within Jewish thought.

While that doesn't begin examine how far back these terms were used nor their etymology, it does bring us to the core contradiction.

If "tribe" is simply a neutral synonym for "group," then adding the -al suffix should yield a simple, neutral adjective--roughly equivalent to "group-based." But in common usage, "tribal" immediately shifts meaning to connote "in-group bias," "favoritism," and "out-group hostility."

If "tribal" carries those negative traits by default, then the base word "tribe" is not being treated as neutral at all. It is inherently pre-defined by those negative behaviors. Yet in practice, actual tribes--much like any non-cosmopolitan group--are diverse. Their traditions range from open, tolerant, and charitable to closed and insular.

So we end up with two parallel usages for tribe:
1. Literal: A neutral identifier for a distinct group of people.
2. Pejorative: A shorthand for reflexive bias and hostility.

The irony here is that a certain cohort likes to hide behind the literal definition while actively deploying the pejorative one--all while assuming that "tribes" are incapable of universalist thought, i.e. they think the latter version is the literal or "natural" one.

That is a textbook display of a learned, hidden bias. It is also interesting because I learned that usage of tribal here myself from the people here. I even used the word tribal in this fashion once or twice, but had never encountered this usage before coming here to post.

 

[Politesse]

Some people are just looking for anything they can find so they can shove their own panties so far up their cracks that they're impeding their diaphragm - and I'm not talking about birth control here.

Thank goodness we have you to defend polite speech against the many threats it faces.

 

[Politesse]

At this point, so many things have been cast as dog whistles, or subtly racist, or whatever newly constructed taboo, that we're making it difficult to communicate.

I posted one sentence observing something I thought was true about language, and that gave you material, apparently, for fifteen pages of unhinged ranting and incoherent personal attacks. Clearly I am not inhibiting communication. You're communicating us all to death quite ably. The quality of that communication leaves much to be desired, but not the quantity, and certainly not the legality. You chose to say all that shit, I didn't make you. But I have no capacity to prevent you from saying anything, nor would I have any desire to do so. You are arguing against an imaginary foe.

 

[Toni]

I'm sorry if I've offended you. Truly. I think all of us or at least most of us are on edge re: political situation and it is reflected in some of our posts. I periodically take breaks from reading anything political so that I can sleep at night. And not scream at people.

You haven't offended me, I recognize that you're trying to be helpful.

I do think that you are reacting out of scale. But of course, you are the one who feels attacked and you do not see your responses as out of scale. This is, to me, a case of not my circus, not my clowns kind of issue. It's your business what you write, how you react, etc. as well as any obvious immediate motivation or any underlying background going on.

I don't think I'm reacting out of scale. I'm reacting in a way that differs from the amount of bullshit I've been willing to tolerate in the past. But it's not out of scale. Mostly, I consider it polite to give people advance notice that I'm going to change my style of interaction.

Historically I've been something like 10 tits for tat - I tolerate a lot of repeated meanness before I stop being nice. I don't think it's reasonable, it's not working well for me, and it mostly ends up with some select posters here feeling that they can be mean with impunity.

It's not always the same posters - but they do it to you too. My observations, which are directional but not concrete, is that it happens a bit more often when the target is female. This happens to you, I've observed it in action even if you're somewhat inured to it. You get treated like crap when you stray from the fold. Just look at almost any thread where we've discussed the experiences of women in society - a lot of people who are otherwise your ally start treating you like shit and being unnecessarily contemptuous and mean when you take a stance on how women are treated. Shockingly, those are almost always men... and some of them are men who consider themselves very virtuous defenders of social justice. But you know, you stepped out of line and opposed their views, and they then feel justified in treating you poorly until you either drop out or back down.

But it also happens across the board to people who are simply nice and courteous by nature, especially if they lean somewhat more conservative than the noisy bunch. Some of them just leave instead of tolerating it. Some post less often (Jason Harvestdancer comes to mind). Some tolerate it and never lose their temper. Some have become less tolerant the longer it goes on - Bomb#20 for example, still technically courteous, but a lot more biting than a couple of years ago.

I'm at the intersection of those two. And I just done with it. I'm done being nice when I get nothing out of it. These people aren't my family, they're not my friends. A few of you I view as fond acquaintances... but I don't actually know any of you. So I've simply decided that I'm not going to continue soaking up the poor behavior of other people so that their feelings don't get hurt. Some posters have demonstrated repeatedly that they don't care if they offend me... but they expect me to go out of my way to avoid offending them.

It's arrogant and it demonstrates that they fundamentally believe they are superior to me. I'm done putting up with it.

You mentioned the whole menopause (or perimenopause?) contribution or I would not have delved into any such mention. It's your business. And yes, they (the guys) do absolutely expect us (women) to be much nicer and more polite and conciliatory than they are, although they likely to not see it that way. Sometimes I almost regret correcting those posters who assumed I am male, mostly out of curiosity about whether they'd respond differently to me.

Menopause. Last panel had my estrogen almost non-existent. So estradiol supplements are in my daily routine now. I was already in the midst of peri when I needed a hysterectomy, it went downhill rapidly after that even though we kept my ovaries.

I don't think menopause has changed my outlook much. This has been growing for probably about 5 years. The stupid RvW thread really pushed my tolerance to the limit, and that's when I started really thinking that being the "nice girl" as expected has no return on investment for me. There's no equilibrium, no give and take, no balance in these interactions.

Whenever someone responds to me with just basic courtesy and respect, I'll continue to do so. I might even let one or two bits of snottiness slide if I'm in a particularly generous mood. But I'm done being their doormat. My tolerance has not resulted in improved interactions with them. So I'm not doing it anymore. They get to set the tone of our interactions. It's entirely up to them now.

What I’ve found is that I give fewer fucks about a lot of things, like offending people who are being dicks. I think that’s true of a lot of women who are of a certain age. We grow up, being socialized to be nice, accommodating, smoothing things over. Not provoking male anger. Being damn careful about provoking any strong emotional or biological responses.

Yeah I’m well aware of the general atmosphere of misogyny around here. A bunch of years ago, another poster started a thread specifically for women talking about misogyny, existing as female in this world and well, one (former) member lost his damn mind.

I grew up with sisters and these guys don’t hold a candle when it comes to being mean. But then, I love my sisters and they know where most of the bodies are buried so….

 

[Emily Lake]

Hey, I have extra shovels

 

[Emily Lake]

What I’ve found is that I give fewer fucks about a lot of things, like offending people who are being dicks. I think that’s true of a lot of women who are of a certain age. We grow up, being socialized to be nice, accommodating, smoothing things over. Not provoking male anger. Being damn careful about provoking any strong emotional or biological responses.

That’s pretty much where I’m at. I don’t really care enough to try to avoid offending people who are dicks. I mostly just thought a PSA was reasonable. At least they can’t pretend they didn’t know.

 

[Derec]

I don't post here for a few days, and already the thread gets derailed into petty squabbling and pileups on Emily.
Let's try to get back on topic.

People who ‘sorta look like that’ still get a lot of breaks that those of different complexions do not get.

I firmly think that you are living in the past. You imagine a reality that no longer exists and that hasn't existed for decades. That's why you also confidently post things like how there are many lynchings of black people happening in the present day, when in reality most of the hangings of black people are just like hangings of other people - suicides. One recent hanging case turned out to be a murder - but that black woman was killed by a black man, apparently because of drugs. But I bet you still feel that lynchings of blacks are common, no matter what the facts are.

Asians are not being penalized re University/med school admissions for being Asian except to the extent that there still exist a lot of anti-non-Caucasian sentiment still survives.

No. Asians, even more than whites, need higher grades and scores to get into medical school. Other non-white groups need lower stats to get in.
Not acknowledging reality just because facts do not fit your ideological presupposition about oppressor whites and oppressed everybody else is not a good look.

 

[Derec]

Yes, it is more lucrative to be many kinds of doctors in the US.

It's very lucrative to be any kind of physician in the US, even peds. But of course, some specialties are much better compensated than others - think derm or surgical subspecialties.

However, in other countries, physicians do not graduate with several hundred thousand dollars of student debt.

Given physician salaries, these student loans are easily paid off.

Some specialties make a great deal more money than others. Some areas pay more than others (and have the commiserate higher costs of living).

Actually many LCOL rural areas pay doctors more because it's so hard to lure them to live in these areas otherwise.

 

[Derec]

Then add in the recognition that the NBA diversity statement which clearly addresses the diversity of the fan base and all employees of the NBA and it becomes apparent that the analogy is absurd.

It;s not 1:1, but it is not absurd. It would be silly for NBA to have different standards by race in order to have a player population that is more similar to US population. I think the same is true for physician population.

 

[Derec]

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?

I think it is different for different people that are in charge of these medical schools as well as institutions such as AAMC. Left-wingers have been dominating academia for decades, and the more extreme, more ideological of them definitely do hold anti-white views even when they are white themselves.

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!"

I am not a conservative myself, but I am with them on this issue. People should be treated as individuals.
The left has a fundamental problem here. That causes tensions between ideology of "whites bad, POC good" and the fact that they have to use "diversity" as justification for racial preferences, which means that they have to discriminate against Asians and not just whites.

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.

And I firmly blame the Left for this. Even supposedly moderates like Biden. Biden administration had completely embraced "affirmative action" even as it had become so unpopular that an initiative to restore in in California failed decisively (57-43%). That turned people off and helped Trump get reelcted.

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.

I think admitting best candidates for med school regardless of race is in the interest of public good. Admitting blacks and Hispanics with worse grades and scores means that there is no incentives for these groups to work harder in undergrad, nor is there an incentive for undergrad nor K-12 institutions to close the racial achievement gap.

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.

Every state gives preferences to in-state students, but WV is a small and unusual state in its demographics. States like Pennsylvania also produce a lot of coal and that is a bigger, more diverse state.
In any case, let's not take that example too restrictively - my point was that there are poor or lower middle class whites and Asians, and there are upper middle class and rich blacks and Hispanics. Using race as some kind of proxy for how privileged your family of origin is is highly inaccurate.

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.

Why are you so hung up on that one single school? Especially since we do not have average MCAT/GPA by race for it, unlike for Duke.

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.

Do you really think that e.g. Duke is serving the medical needs of the public by having their black acceptance rate so much higher than that of other groups, while having black students have lower academic stats than other groups?

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.

That was not "underserved areas" in general, but Indian reservations in particular.

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)

The problem is that "mission fitness" can be gamed just like Harvard's infamous "personality scores".

 

[Derec]

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!"

It is certainly a piece of evidence for the discrimination hypothesis. This is corroborated by the fact that med schools, AAMC, and academia in general is generally in favor of "race conscious admissions". Data from Duke med school also supports that conclusion.

I would say that it would require a lot of evidence in the other direction to credibly dispute the fact that medical schools are engaged in discrimination by race and ethnicity. Evidence that is just not there.

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.

I do not think this would account for the nationwide difference. Neither will pointing to schools from states with highly unusual demographics like WVU.

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.

Having minimum MCAT << average MCAT is another way to be able to let in certain groups with far lower standards than others. Same goes for Medical College of Georgia. Minimum MCAT: 496. Average? 512-513. Utterly ridiculous!
That fits MCG dean saying "“We would love to have 25% to 30% African American students at MCG to mirror the demographics of the state.” I.e. he wants equality of outcomes, no matter the merits of individual applicants. The whole nonsense about "holistic admissions" is just to hide a de facto quota system, because overt quotas were banned by Bakke.

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?

I think the MCAT weight within each group is strong, or otherwise the average would not be so much bigger than the ridiculously low minimum. But between groups, the difference is huge. I do not think it can be explained by anything but racial preferences, even if it is cloaked as "mission fitness". Note that Duke admits using race pre-2023, and if there is no significant difference in their admissions profile, then there is no other explanation except that they are still doing it, albeit covertly.

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?

Out-of state people are not barred from applying to WVU. More than half of the incoming med school class is from out of state.
And you still keep harping on a very non-representative, tiny state. That is not going to explain the nationwide discrepancies.

 

[Toni]

Yes, it is more lucrative to be many kinds of doctors in the US.

It's very lucrative to be any kind of physician in the US, even peds. But of course, some specialties are much better compensated than others - think derm or surgical subspecialties.

However, in other countries, physicians do not graduate with several hundred thousand dollars of student debt.

Given physician salaries, these student loans are easily paid off.

Some specialties make a great deal more money than others. Some areas pay more than others (and have the commiserate higher costs of living).

Actually many LCOL rural areas pay doctors more because it's so hard to lure them to live in these areas otherwise.

Sigh. They are NOT ‘easily paid off.’ Young adults graduate with well over $100K in student loans and are of the age where if they intend to have children, they need to start that. And they are likely looking to buy a home. Rents are sky high even in my small hometown—not where I live now, where they are also pretty high. Cost of living for basic middle class is not cheap: vehicle ( or two), housing, groceries, utilities plus large student loan bills= little for savings.

I live in a mostly rural area. Most of the physicians who come to my town don’t stay long. Housing shortage, mediocre schools. Not great pay. Great for this town if you are t carrying huge debt but we’re still a low wage town.

 

[Toni]

I don't post here for a few days, and already the thread gets derailed into petty squabbling and pileups on Emily.
Let's try to get back on topic.

People who ‘sorta look like that’ still get a lot of breaks that those of different complexions do not get.

I firmly think that you are living in the past. You imagine a reality that no longer exists and that hasn't existed for decades. That's why you also confidently post things like how there are many lynchings of black people happening in the present day, when in reality most of the hangings of black people are just like hangings of other people - suicides. One recent hanging case turned out to be a murder - but that black woman was killed by a black man, apparently because of drugs. But I bet you still feel that lynchings of blacks are common, no matter what the facts are.

Asians are not being penalized re University/med school admissions for being Asian except to the extent that there still exist a lot of anti-non-Caucasian sentiment still survives.

No. Asians, even more than whites, need higher grades and scores to get into medical school. Other non-white groups need lower stats to get in.
Not acknowledging reality just because facts do not fit your ideological presupposition about oppressor whites and oppressed everybody else is not a good look.

1.i did not state that there are many lynchings currently. I stated that there have been a number of recent hangings that appears to be to possibly be lynching rather than suicide, as is often claimed. Most of the black community is skeptical of the suicide claims.

2. You live in or near a major city with a relatively large population of persons of color. I live in a small town in a state which has a very small minority population, much smaller than in the couple of larger cities on my state. It is only very recently-within the last 2-3 years that I could go weeks to months without seeing anyone who is not white. And I live near a college campus. Off campus? Rarely did

Yes, in the last 2-3 years there is an improvement—black people are not assumed to be drug dealers from Chicago anymore. Or at least not in my hearing. Most of my town grew up in a world where persons of color existed only on the margins except for a few faculty and fewer students at universities. And yeah, I’ve seen and heard a lot of very ugly stuff from people who should really know better.

I’m glad you live in a more integrated area and am happy that my small town is beginning to be a bit more open.

 

[laughing dog]

Then add in the recognition that the NBA diversity statement which clearly addresses the diversity of the fan base and all employees of the NBA and it becomes apparent that the analogy is absurd.

It;s not 1:1, but it is not absurd. …

Okay, moronic, since potential NBAers can be assessed while playing basketball in college or abroad or even high school. No pre med student can be assessed playing physician (maybe at playing “doctor”, but that’s different).

 

[Derec]

Okay, moronic,

Moronic is either your inability to comprehend, or else you feigning ignorance.

since potential NBAers can be assessed while playing basketball in college or abroad or even high school. No pre med student can be assessed playing physician (maybe at playing “doctor”, but that’s different).

The point of the analogy is not about which selection criteria are used, but that selection criteria are used and that these criteria should not be applied differently to different races just in order to increase "diversity" and "representation".
It's not that difficult, so try to keep up.

 

[laughing dog]

Okay, moronic,

Moronic is either your inability to comprehend, or else you feigning ignorance.

since potential NBAers can be assessed while playing basketball in college or abroad or even high school. No pre med student can be assessed playing physician (maybe at playing “doctor”, but that’s different).

The point of the analogy is not about which selection criteria are used, but that selection criteria are used and that these criteria should not be applied differently to different races just in order to increase "diversity" and "representation".
It's not that difficult, so try to keep up.

Your responses indicate it is difficult for you to keep up. Any choice has selection criteria, so the NBA analogy has no point. So your NBA analogy is truly pointless by your own admission.


Your conclusion that criteria is applied differently in medical school admissions is based on dubious assumptions and poor statistical analysis. This partly due to the lack of access to the relevant data. This has been frequently pointed out by numerous posters.