An affirmative action thought experiment

[Arctish]

Black students applying to medical school have a lower mean aptitude for medicine, as demonstrated by the MCAT. Aptitude is not the ability to perform a specific task; that is achievement. All kinds of factors influence aptitude. Take lead poisoning. It will lower aptitude. Note, it won't just lower your aptitude score: it will lower you aptitude, which is the reason you get a lower score.

I think we have to agree on a definition of the word "aptitude" before we can go any further.

Wikipedia has this: "An aptitude is a component of a competency to do a certain kind of work at a certain level, which can also be considered "talent". Aptitudes may be physical or mental. Aptitude is not knowledge, understanding, learned or acquired abilities (skills) or attitude. The innate nature of aptitude is in contrast to achievement, which represents knowledge or ability that is gained."

If I have a poor Algebra teacher I will probably achieve less than I would with a good one. That doesn't mean my innate abilities will be reduced. It means my innate abilities will be underutilized. My aptitude is what I bring to the class, not what I get out of it.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Your aptitude will be affected by poor nutrition. It will be affected by your early childhood experience and it may be affected by your schooling thereafter. That is your raw ability to learn and perform cognitive tasks will be affected by the first two. The third I dont know. Possibly not.

 

[Metaphor]

Black students applying to medical school have a lower mean aptitude for medicine, as demonstrated by the MCAT. Aptitude is not the ability to perform a specific task; that is achievement. All kinds of factors influence aptitude. Take lead poisoning. It will lower aptitude. Note, it won't just lower your aptitude score: it will lower you aptitude, which is the reason you get a lower score.

I think we have to agree on a definition of the word "aptitude" before we can go any further.

Wikipedia has this: "An aptitude is a component of a competency to do a certain kind of work at a certain level, which can also be considered "talent". Aptitudes may be physical or mental. Aptitude is not knowledge, understanding, learned or acquired abilities (skills) or attitude. The innate nature of aptitude is in contrast to achievement, which represents knowledge or ability that is gained."

If I have a poor Algebra teacher I will probably achieve less than I would with a good one. That doesn't mean my innate abilities will be reduced. It means my innate abilities will be underutilized. My aptitude is what I bring to the class, not what I get out of it.

Black students have lower aptitude than White students by the end of Year 12. This is indisputable. The reasons for this difference are probably manifold; indeed people have already named group differences between Blacks and Whites on variables likely to affect aptitude e.g. lead contamination and quality of early education.

In this thread, I have talked about both achievement and aptitude. Both are correlated with academic success, and they each explain variance in academic success that the other does not (that is, although they are not independent of each other, they are still both useful together to predict academic success).

There are many aptitude tests available, ranging from measures of general mental ability to highly specialised aptitude measures, like clerical checking or medical aptitude.

Of the people who take tests of medical aptitude, Asians score the highest, followed by Whites, followed by other groups (in the U.S.). Medical aptitude tests measure medical aptitude, and higher scores represent better aptitude. If they did not, they'd be worthless and medical schools would throw them out.

But they're not worthless. Indeed, they're very, very good measures of aptitude, and that's why 95% of the people who score in the highest range get admitted to medical school.

If someone scored higher than you on an aptitude test then, within the limits of the margin of error, they probably have more aptitude than you on whatever the test was measuring. Aptitude tests are blind to the reasons for the difference: you could be genetically less endowed, you could have had lead poisoning, you could have had a poor early environment, you could have had a traumatic brain injury, you could have lowered your aptitude by substance abuse.

The reason you've got lower aptitude does not make a difference. Lower aptitude is lower aptitude, and anything you do to a person who is over 21 can't change that.

 

[Arctish]

Black students applying to medical school have a lower mean aptitude for medicine, as demonstrated by the MCAT. Aptitude is not the ability to perform a specific task; that is achievement. All kinds of factors influence aptitude. Take lead poisoning. It will lower aptitude. Note, it won't just lower your aptitude score: it will lower you aptitude, which is the reason you get a lower score.

I think we have to agree on a definition of the word "aptitude" before we can go any further.

Wikipedia has this: "An aptitude is a component of a competency to do a certain kind of work at a certain level, which can also be considered "talent". Aptitudes may be physical or mental. Aptitude is not knowledge, understanding, learned or acquired abilities (skills) or attitude. The innate nature of aptitude is in contrast to achievement, which represents knowledge or ability that is gained."

If I have a poor Algebra teacher I will probably achieve less than I would with a good one. That doesn't mean my innate abilities will be reduced. It means my innate abilities will be underutilized. My aptitude is what I bring to the class, not what I get out of it.

Black students have lower aptitude than White students by the end of Year 12. This is indisputable. The reasons for this difference are probably manifold; indeed people have already named group differences between Blacks and Whites on variables likely to affect aptitude e.g. lead contamination and quality of early education.

In this thread, I have talked about both achievement and aptitude. Both are correlated with academic success, and they each explain variance in academic success that the other does not (that is, although they are not independent of each other, they are still both useful together to predict academic success).

There are many aptitude tests available, ranging from measures of general mental ability to highly specialised aptitude measures, like clerical checking or medical aptitude.

Of the people who take tests of medical aptitude, Asians score the highest, followed by Whites, followed by other groups (in the U.S.). Medical aptitude tests measure medical aptitude, and higher scores represent better aptitude. If they did not, they'd be worthless and medical schools would throw them out.

But they're not worthless. Indeed, they're very, very good measures of aptitude, and that's why 95% of the people who score in the highest range get admitted to medical school.

If someone scored higher than you on an aptitude test then, within the limits of the margin of error, they probably have more aptitude than you on whatever the test was measuring. Aptitude tests are blind to the reasons for the difference: you could be genetically less endowed, you could have had lead poisoning, you could have had a poor early environment, you could have had a traumatic brain injury, you could have lowered your aptitude by substance abuse.

The reason you've got lower aptitude does not make a difference. Lower aptitude is lower aptitude, and anything you do to a person who is over 21 can't change that.

Your response doesn't clarify what definition you are using for the word "aptitude", it shows how you want to use aptitude to support your claim.

I'm still not sure what difference you see between aptitude and achievement. I see aptitude as an inherent ability. It might be apparent in a test score, or it might be undeveloped and unrecognized. I won't know if I have an aptitude for algebra until I learn about it. I won't know if I can acquire a high degree of skill if my teacher only shows me the basics. But even if I have a poor algebra teacher, my aptitude for the subject could still allow me to excel in that subject if I took an algebra class later in life.

I understand why attempts to assess a student's aptitude are worthwhile, but I don't think they are the be-all-end-all of student assessments. I don't think you can simply write off a student just because he or she only scored a 29 on some standardized test. You don't know how hard or how easy it was for them to get that grade unless you look at the environment in which they learned the subject. And you can't just write off a student who genuinely has less aptitude than others, either. Hard work can overcome that deficiency, and students willing to cudgel their brains to learn something can do just as well as smarter kids with less rigorous study habits.

Anyway, my main point is that anyone who meets the minimum requirements to attend a particular college is qualified to be there. So anytime someone says a student in medical school isn't qualified to be there, I have to wonder if they think the requirements for admissions were altered or ignored, or if they mean that, in their opinion, there were better candidates for admission.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What definition of aptitude are you using? As I understand the word, it mean the ability to acquire knowledge or perform a task. Having mediocre teachers doesn't mean you are less able to learn than people who had good ones, although it would probably mean you learned less.

Many basic skills must be developed in time or they will be very hard or impossible to develop later.

The classic example is language--kids can easily learn multiple languages. My mother knew someone who grew up with 7 languages (her mother, father and nanny each spoke 3 languages, only one in common) and spoke them all at native fluency. Learn a language as an adult and it's unlikely you're going to speak it without an accent and you're likely to have trouble with concepts that are different from your mother tongue. (For example, when the new language has two words where yours had one. My wife comes from a language virtually devoid of gendered words--and thus she still routinely messes up gender.)

No, being qualified is binary. Colleges have admissions requirements, and either you meet those requirements or you don't. You might exceed the requirements, and therefore be higher ranked on the admissions list than someone who merely met them, but both you and that other student are qualified to attend that college.

That's how it should be. In practice it's very fuzzy based on meeting diversity criteria.

If all schools were pretty much the same, you could compare students like that. But here in the US, the schools vary considerably from district to district, and from state to state. It's crazy-stupid, but that's how we roll. Comparing students from Mississippi, Massachusetts, and Minnesota is like comparing apples, oranges, and grapes. Add in tiny schools with a dozen students like on Alaska's Arctic coast, homeschoolers, Reservation schools, and the private schools of the very wealthy, and you get a variance in curriculum and quality so big you can't just look at a test to evaluate a student's aptitude. You have to consider the context in which a student achieved a score, not just the score itself.

The biggest factor in the variation of schools is the variation in the students. To a large degree the "quality" of a school is a reflection of the average of the students that are enrolled. The main way to get an elite school is to admit only elite students.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Your aptitude will be affected by poor nutrition. It will be affected by your early childhood experience and it may be affected by your schooling thereafter. That is your raw ability to learn and perform cognitive tasks will be affected by the first two. The third I dont know. Possibly not.

Yup. There was an extreme example of this from an experiment in Mexico.

They took a native town--they were eating what they did before the coming of the Spanish.

The experiment was simple: They gave some of the kids (I forget how many now) a multivitamin for the first 10 years of their life. The kids that got the vitamins grew taller and smarter.



Another example that comes to mind: They raised kittens in a world with no vertical lines. If they don't encounter vertical lines by IIRC 12 weeks they will *NEVER* be able to see them--the adult cats will walk right into table legs. Kittens in a world with no horizontal lines likewise will not be able to see them as adults--they'll never jump on a table because they don't know there's something there to jump on.

 

[Metaphor]

Your response doesn't clarify what definition you are using for the word "aptitude", it shows how you want to use aptitude to support your claim.

I'm still not sure what difference you see between aptitude and achievement. I see aptitude as an inherent ability.

Do you believe that because aptitude is 'inherent', that nothing can change aptitude? That's certainly false: one could be born with a certain genetic endownment for mathematics, but have a traumatic brain injury that catastrophically reduces your aptitude for mathematics (indeed, your general mental ability).

It might be apparent in a test score, or it might be undeveloped and unrecognized. I won't know if I have an aptitude for algebra until I learn about it. I won't know if I can acquire a high degree of skill if my teacher only shows me the basics. But even if I have a poor algebra teacher, my aptitude for the subject could still allow me to excel in that subject if I took an algebra class later in life.

Aptitude tests test aptitude. If they tested achievement, they'd be achievement tests. "Undeveloped" and "unrecognised" are not words that apply to aptitude.

I understand why attempts to assess a student's aptitude are worthwhile, but I don't think they are the be-all-end-all of student assessments.

Nobody said they were. Aptitude and achievement are the two best indicators of future academic success. That does not mean that other variables cannot also predict academic success. You just have to prove that the other variables are related to academic success, and have additional explanatory potential above and beyond aptitude and achievement. (In technical terms, this means that their partial or semi-partial correlation with academic success is still significant, when achievement and aptitude are controlled for).

I have not ever claimed that aptitude and achievement measures predicted 100% of the variance in academic outcomes. That would be a ludicrous claim.

I don't think you can simply write off a student just because he or she only scored a 29 on some standardized test. You don't know how hard or how easy it was for them to get that grade unless you look at the environment in which they learned the subject. And you can't just write off a student who genuinely has less aptitude than others, either. Hard work can overcome that deficiency, and students willing to cudgel their brains to learn something can do just as well as smarter kids with less rigorous study habits.

Yes: that's the achievement side. Achievement is already taken into account.

 

[oneofshibumi]

Myths about MCAT: According to the AAMC, the MCAT is designed to "assess mastery of basic concepts in biology, chemistry, and physics; facility with scientific problem solving and critical thinking; and writing skills." According to several independent researchers however, the skills the MCAT tests relate most closely to the first two years of medical school classroom work but have little relevance in predicting success during clinical training or actual practice as a physician. William McGaghie writes in the journal Academic Medicine: "No physician answers pages of multiple-choice questions when he or she practices clinical medicine…Grades predict grades, test scores predict test score, ratings predict ratings, but attempts to demonstrate scientific convergence among such indicators of professional competence have not been successful."1

1) 1 McGaghie, W. "Perspectives on Medical School Admissions." Academic Medicine, Vol. 65 (No. 3), March 1990, pp. 136-139.

 

[Arctish]

Do you believe that because aptitude is 'inherent', that nothing can change aptitude? That's certainly false: one could be born with a certain genetic endownment for mathematics, but have a traumatic brain injury that catastrophically reduces your aptitude for mathematics (indeed, your general mental ability).

It might be apparent in a test score, or it might be undeveloped and unrecognized. I won't know if I have an aptitude for algebra until I learn about it. I won't know if I can acquire a high degree of skill if my teacher only shows me the basics. But even if I have a poor algebra teacher, my aptitude for the subject could still allow me to excel in that subject if I took an algebra class later in life.

Aptitude tests test aptitude. If they tested achievement, they'd be achievement tests. "Undeveloped" and "unrecognised" are not words that apply to aptitude.

I understand why attempts to assess a student's aptitude are worthwhile, but I don't think they are the be-all-end-all of student assessments.

Nobody said they were. Aptitude and achievement are the two best indicators of future academic success. That does not mean that other variables cannot also predict academic success. You just have to prove that the other variables are related to academic success, and have additional explanatory potential above and beyond aptitude and achievement. (In technical terms, this means that their partial or semi-partial correlation with academic success is still significant, when achievement and aptitude are controlled for).

I have not ever claimed that aptitude and achievement measures predicted 100% of the variance in academic outcomes. That would be a ludicrous claim.

I don't think you can simply write off a student just because he or she only scored a 29 on some standardized test. You don't know how hard or how easy it was for them to get that grade unless you look at the environment in which they learned the subject. And you can't just write off a student who genuinely has less aptitude than others, either. Hard work can overcome that deficiency, and students willing to cudgel their brains to learn something can do just as well as smarter kids with less rigorous study habits.

Yes: that's the achievement side. Achievement is already taken into account.

I already provided the definition of aptitude I am using: "An aptitude is a component of a competency to do a certain kind of work at a certain level, which can also be considered "talent". Aptitudes may be physical or mental. Aptitude is not knowledge, understanding, learned or acquired abilities (skills) or attitude. The innate nature of aptitude is in contrast to achievement, which represents knowledge or ability that is gained." I'm still not sure how you are defining it.

Sure, lead poisoning and oxygen deprivation can lower aptitude. So can a lack of nurturing in early childhood, brain tumors, and bovine spongiform encephalothapy. But when a student has met the requirements for admission into a college or university, whatever aptitude he or she may have lost over the years due to illness or misfortune is irrelevant. He or she is qualified to attend that school, so whatever point you are tying to make appears to be moot.

 

[Toni]

Your aptitude will be affected by poor nutrition. It will be affected by your early childhood experience and it may be affected by your schooling thereafter. That is your raw ability to learn and perform cognitive tasks will be affected by the first two. The third I dont know. Possibly not.

So, all blacks have poor nutrition and cannot possibly be good physicians?

Unfortunately for your theory, there are certainly blacks who achieve high GPAs and high MCAT scores and even enter into Ph.D. programs--sometimes becoming quite famous in fields such as physics..

 

[Toni]

Do you believe that because aptitude is 'inherent', that nothing can change aptitude? That's certainly false: one could be born with a certain genetic endownment for mathematics, but have a traumatic brain injury that catastrophically reduces your aptitude for mathematics (indeed, your general mental ability).

And likewise, aptitude can be nurtured and enhanced.

It might be apparent in a test score, or it might be undeveloped and unrecognized. I won't know if I have an aptitude for algebra until I learn about it. I won't know if I can acquire a high degree of skill if my teacher only shows me the basics. But even if I have a poor algebra teacher, my aptitude for the subject could still allow me to excel in that subject if I took an algebra class later in life.

Aptitude tests test aptitude. If they tested achievement, they'd be achievement tests. "Undeveloped" and "unrecognised" are not words that apply to aptitude.

MCAT stands for Medical School Admissions Test, not Medical School Aptitude Test. It only partially measures what anyone could reasonably call aptitude and does that by multiple choice questions only. A significant portion of the test includes knowledge which is not a direct measure of aptitude. In any case, it is highly questionable to what extent the MCAT measures aptitude since like other standardized tests used for admissions, there is a plethora of cram courses devoted to improving MCAT scores. In other words, high test scores are, in part, a measure of privilege, not aptitude.

I understand why attempts to assess a student's aptitude are worthwhile, but I don't think they are the be-all-end-all of student assessments.

Nobody said they were. Aptitude and achievement are the two best indicators of future academic success. That does not mean that other variables cannot also predict academic success. You just have to prove that the other variables are related to academic success, and have additional explanatory potential above and beyond aptitude and achievement. (In technical terms, this means that their partial or semi-partial correlation with academic success is still significant, when achievement and aptitude are controlled for).

I have not ever claimed that aptitude and achievement measures predicted 100% of the variance in academic outcomes. That would be a ludicrous claim.

Here's the thing: becoming a physician is about a great deal more than being academically successful. GPA and MCAT scores do not measure the test taker's adaptability, ability to handle stress, to perform under pressure, only somewhat assess ability to problem solve, do not evaluate the test taker's ability to communicate well with others, to relate to others, to work as part of a team, just for starters. All of those skills and more are essential to becoming a physician.

Your entire premise is that the higher the test score/GPA, the better qualified the candidate. That is not actually the case; MCAT and GPA have never been the sole criteria for admissions. Instead, such test scores are used as minimal qualifications, a threshold which students must achieve before being admitted.


As previously discussed in other threads, medical schools are considering other criteria besides MCAT and GPA and at least one has a program specifically to attract and admit students who have not followed the traditional path of chemistry or biology majors but who have earned degrees in liberal arts and other fields. Yes, after admission, they must take some science course work but so far, they are performing as well as the 4.0 chemistry majors.

Why would medical schools look at non-traditional students? Are you at all aware of the challenges facing the practice of medicine in the U.S.? It is urgent to attract prospective physicians who feel a passion to serve patients rather than to have a high status job and earn a big salary and live in a suburban McMansion.

I don't think you can simply write off a student just because he or she only scored a 29 on some standardized test. You don't know how hard or how easy it was for them to get that grade unless you look at the environment in which they learned the subject. And you can't just write off a student who genuinely has less aptitude than others, either. Hard work can overcome that deficiency, and students willing to cudgel their brains to learn something can do just as well as smarter kids with less rigorous study habits.

Yes: that's the achievement side. Achievement is already taken into account.

In a way, you are correct. A candidate who was born on third base and made it across home plate scored a run just as a candidate who got to first base after 3 foul balls and two strikes and then stole 2nd base, 3rd base and home. But the achievement is not really the same. The run counts equally, but no one would say that the achievement is equal.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Your aptitude will be affected by poor nutrition. It will be affected by your early childhood experience and it may be affected by your schooling thereafter. That is your raw ability to learn and perform cognitive tasks will be affected by the first two. The third I dont know. Possibly not.

So, all blacks have poor nutrition and cannot possibly be good physicians?

Unfortunately for your theory, there are certainly blacks who achieve high GPAs and high MCAT scores and even enter into Ph.D. programs--sometimes becoming quite famous in fields such as physics..

Except you're the one trying to pretend all blacks live under the same handicaps. Since we are specifically asserting that this is not the case you can't use an assumption based on it against us.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Your aptitude will be affected by poor nutrition. It will be affected by your early childhood experience and it may be affected by your schooling thereafter. That is your raw ability to learn and perform cognitive tasks will be affected by the first two. The third I dont know. Possibly not.

So, all blacks have poor nutrition and cannot possibly be good physicians?

This right here is the best straw man of the thread so far. Not only did I not say anything remotely like that, but what you are asking directly counters affirmative action. No, not all blacks have poor nutrition. Some are quite privileged in fact. To treat them all as if they are the same, as if they have all suffered the same difficulties and barriers, and give them all a leg up because of it, to the detriment of everybody else, some who have suffered far worse barriers, is exactly what is wrong with AA.

 

[Metaphor]

Do you believe that because aptitude is 'inherent', that nothing can change aptitude? That's certainly false: one could be born with a certain genetic endownment for mathematics, but have a traumatic brain injury that catastrophically reduces your aptitude for mathematics (indeed, your general mental ability).

It might be apparent in a test score, or it might be undeveloped and unrecognized. I won't know if I have an aptitude for algebra until I learn about it. I won't know if I can acquire a high degree of skill if my teacher only shows me the basics. But even if I have a poor algebra teacher, my aptitude for the subject could still allow me to excel in that subject if I took an algebra class later in life.

Aptitude tests test aptitude. If they tested achievement, they'd be achievement tests. "Undeveloped" and "unrecognised" are not words that apply to aptitude.

I understand why attempts to assess a student's aptitude are worthwhile, but I don't think they are the be-all-end-all of student assessments.

Nobody said they were. Aptitude and achievement are the two best indicators of future academic success. That does not mean that other variables cannot also predict academic success. You just have to prove that the other variables are related to academic success, and have additional explanatory potential above and beyond aptitude and achievement. (In technical terms, this means that their partial or semi-partial correlation with academic success is still significant, when achievement and aptitude are controlled for).

I have not ever claimed that aptitude and achievement measures predicted 100% of the variance in academic outcomes. That would be a ludicrous claim.

I don't think you can simply write off a student just because he or she only scored a 29 on some standardized test. You don't know how hard or how easy it was for them to get that grade unless you look at the environment in which they learned the subject. And you can't just write off a student who genuinely has less aptitude than others, either. Hard work can overcome that deficiency, and students willing to cudgel their brains to learn something can do just as well as smarter kids with less rigorous study habits.

Yes: that's the achievement side. Achievement is already taken into account.

I already provided the definition of aptitude I am using: "An aptitude is a component of a competency to do a certain kind of work at a certain level, which can also be considered "talent". Aptitudes may be physical or mental. Aptitude is not knowledge, understanding, learned or acquired abilities (skills) or attitude. The innate nature of aptitude is in contrast to achievement, which represents knowledge or ability that is gained." I'm still not sure how you are defining it.

Sure, lead poisoning and oxygen deprivation can lower aptitude. So can a lack of nurturing in early childhood, brain tumors, and bovine spongiform encephalothapy. But when a student has met the requirements for admission into a college or university, whatever aptitude he or she may have lost over the years due to illness or misfortune is irrelevant. He or she is qualified to attend that school, so whatever point you are tying to make appears to be moot.

The point I am making is that medical schools are discriminating based on race by picking the lesser candidates over superior candidates, and discriminating based on race is generally thought to be a bad thing.

 

[Metaphor]

MCAT stands for Medical School Admissions Test, not Medical School Aptitude Test. It only partially measures what anyone could reasonably call aptitude and does that by multiple choice questions only. A significant portion of the test includes knowledge which is not a direct measure of aptitude. In any case, it is highly questionable to what extent the MCAT measures aptitude since like other standardized tests used for admissions, there is a plethora of cram courses devoted to improving MCAT scores. In other words, high test scores are, in part, a measure of privilege, not aptitude.

You know, back when I was in high school, studying your ass off so you could do well in a test was something kids who wanted to do well did. It was not a tool of the 'privileged'.

How did 'studying your ass off' come to mean 'privileged'?

Now, to the extent that the MCAT measures things other than aptitude and achievement is the extent that it will reduce its correlation with academic success. It does not eliminate the correlation.

Here's the thing: becoming a physician is about a great deal more than being academically successful. GPA and MCAT scores do not measure the test taker's adaptability, ability to handle stress, to perform under pressure

You don't think tests measure ability to perform under pressure?

, only somewhat assess ability to problem solve, do not evaluate the test taker's ability to communicate well with others, to relate to others, to work as part of a team, just for starters. All of those skills and more are essential to becoming a physician.

Your entire premise is that the higher the test score/GPA, the better qualified the candidate. That is not actually the case;

Of course it is the case. Every medical school in the country knows it's the case; that's why 95% of people in the top tier of MCAT/GPA get admitted and almost nobody with the poorest MCAT/GPA gets admitted. That's why they have the MCAT at all. If medical schools did not believe MCAT reflected something useful they wouldn't use it.

MCAT and GPA have never been the sole criteria for admissions. Instead, such test scores are used as minimal qualifications, a threshold which students must achieve before being admitted.

I never claimed or believe they were or should be the sole criteria.

What I said was that, when holding constant MCAT and GPA, Blacks are more likely to be admitted than Whites or Asians. Since nobody has indicated what it is Blacks could have so much more achievement in that would justify the differential admission rate, I have assumed it is discrimination by race by medical schools admissions boards.

As previously discussed in other threads, medical schools are considering other criteria besides MCAT and GPA and at least one has a program specifically to attract and admit students who have not followed the traditional path of chemistry or biology majors but who have earned degrees in liberal arts and other fields. Yes, after admission, they must take some science course work but so far, they are performing as well as the 4.0 chemistry majors.

What makes you think that I think MCAT and GPA should be the sole criteria for admission? I have not said it and I don't believe it.

Why would medical schools look at non-traditional students? Are you at all aware of the challenges facing the practice of medicine in the U.S.? It is urgent to attract prospective physicians who feel a passion to serve patients rather than to have a high status job and earn a big salary and live in a suburban McMansion.

Are Blacks more passionate to want to serve patients than Whites and Asians?

 

[Arctish]

What does it mean to be a "lesser candidate"?

If you go strictly be test scores, candidates who don't have access to test prep classes are lesser than those who do, and kids who work their asses off in marginal schools are lesser than slackers who get private tutoring courtesy of their parents. But if you go by efforts expended or obstacles overcome, the kids coming out of poor school districts and bad neighborhoods are actually the superior candidates - they know what it means to work hard to achieve a goal. So why should a test result be the only thing considered when candidates are being considered? Why not consider what it took for a candidate to meet the requirements for admission, and value it?

 

[Metaphor]

What does it mean to be a "lesser candidate"?

If you go strictly be test scores, candidates who don't have access to test prep classes are lesser than those who do,

No. There's a practice effect with test preparation, but not all people who have test prep classes will do better than all people who do not.

Honestly, if the responses here were anything to go by, you'd imagine test prep classes were nothing but masses of students memorising leaked answer keys, cost $100,000 each, and guaranteed a perfect MCAT score.

and kids who work their asses off in marginal schools are lesser than slackers who get private tutoring courtesy of their parents.

Uh, no. Students who have poorer scores are lesser students, to the extent that scores measure aptitude.

But if you go by efforts expended or obstacles overcome,

You'd measure effort expended and obstacle overcome, not just use race and pretend it's the same thing.

the kids coming out of poor school districts and bad neighborhoods are actually the superior candidates - they know what it means to work hard to achieve a goal.

If you want to measure resilience, measure it. But don't use race and pretend it's the same thing.

So why should a test result be the only thing considered

I did not say it, I don't believe it, and I'm tired of the broken record.

when candidates are being considered? Why not consider what it took for a candidate to meet the requirements for admission, and value it?

If 'what it took' explains additional variability in academic success above and beyond aptitude and achievement, then by all means, measure it and use it.

But don't use race and pretend it's the same thing.

 

[Arctish]

No. There's a practice effect with test preparation, but not all people who have test prep classes will do better than all people who do not.

Honestly, if the responses here were anything to go by, you'd imagine test prep classes were nothing but masses of students memorising leaked answer keys, cost $100,000 each, and guaranteed a perfect MCAT score.

and kids who work their asses off in marginal schools are lesser than slackers who get private tutoring courtesy of their parents.

Uh, no. Students who have poorer scores are lesser students, to the extent that scores measure aptitude.

But if you go by efforts expended or obstacles overcome,

You'd measure effort expended and obstacle overcome, not just use race and pretend it's the same thing.

the kids coming out of poor school districts and bad neighborhoods are actually the superior candidates - they know what it means to work hard to achieve a goal.

If you want to measure resilience, measure it. But don't use race and pretend it's the same thing.

So why should a test result be the only thing considered

I did not say it, I don't believe it, and I'm tired of the broken record.

when candidates are being considered? Why not consider what it took for a candidate to meet the requirements for admission, and value it?

If 'what it took' explains additional variability in academic success above and beyond aptitude and achievement, then by all means, measure it and use it.

But don't use race and pretend it's the same thing.

I don't use race and pretend it's the same thing, and neither do Affirmative Action programs that have withstood the test of time.

Back when AA first went into effect, anti-AA folks said it was "reverse-racism", and it would "dumb down" out colleges. The reverse-racism claims have been dealt with in multiple court cases over the years. Programs that relied on quotas were struck down. Programs that unfairly weight race, gender, or ethnicity have been sharply limited even in private colleges. But the claims that AA is dumbing-down our schools are still out there.

Instead of focusing on the quality of students being admitted to medical school, why not focus on the quality of graduates being produced by them? Has there been a drop in the quality of medical doctors since AA went into effect? If so, and AA is the reason for it, you should be able to demonstrate that. If not, then whatever you think about the quality of the students being admitted doesn't appear to have any effect on the quality of students graduating.

 

[Metaphor]

No. There's a practice effect with test preparation, but not all people who have test prep classes will do better than all people who do not.

Honestly, if the responses here were anything to go by, you'd imagine test prep classes were nothing but masses of students memorising leaked answer keys, cost $100,000 each, and guaranteed a perfect MCAT score.

and kids who work their asses off in marginal schools are lesser than slackers who get private tutoring courtesy of their parents.

Uh, no. Students who have poorer scores are lesser students, to the extent that scores measure aptitude.

But if you go by efforts expended or obstacles overcome,

You'd measure effort expended and obstacle overcome, not just use race and pretend it's the same thing.

the kids coming out of poor school districts and bad neighborhoods are actually the superior candidates - they know what it means to work hard to achieve a goal.

If you want to measure resilience, measure it. But don't use race and pretend it's the same thing.

So why should a test result be the only thing considered

I did not say it, I don't believe it, and I'm tired of the broken record.

when candidates are being considered? Why not consider what it took for a candidate to meet the requirements for admission, and value it?

If 'what it took' explains additional variability in academic success above and beyond aptitude and achievement, then by all means, measure it and use it.

But don't use race and pretend it's the same thing.

I don't use race and pretend it's the same thing, and neither do Affirmative Action programs that have withstood the test of time.

Back when AA first went into effect, anti-AA folks said it was "reverse-racism", and it would "dumb down" out colleges. The reverse-racism claims have been dealt with in multiple court cases over the years. Programs that relied on quotas were struck down. Programs that unfairly weight race, gender, or ethnicity have been sharply limited even in private colleges. But the claims that AA is dumbing-down our schools are still out there.

Instead of focusing on the quality of students being admitted to medical school, why not focus on the quality of graduates being produced by them? Has there been a drop in the quality of medical doctors since AA went into effect? If so, and AA is the reason for it, you should be able to demonstrate that. If not, then whatever you think about the quality of the students being admitted doesn't appear to have any effect on the quality of students graduating.

It probably has a diminished effect on the quality of graduates, because not everyone graduates.

These data show that Blacks are seven times more likely to drop out of medical school for 'academic reasons' compared to Whites. This should not be a surprise, because the mean aptitude and achievement of admitted Blacks was lower than that for Whites. The reasons for leaving also differed: Blacks were most likely to cite 'academic reasons' whilst Whites and Asians were more likely to cite non-academic reasons.

Dropout rates for those with an MCAT score 27 or under within the first two years of medical school were double those of the people with an MCAT score 28 or higher.

You can't be a quality physician if you don't graduate.

But no doubt you'll ignore the blindingly obvious and shift the goalposts again.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

The reverse-racism claims have been dealt with in multiple court cases over the years. Programs that relied on quotas were struck down. Programs that unfairly weight race, gender, or ethnicity have been sharply limited even in private colleges.

Any program that discriminates based on race is engaging in racial discrimination. You seem to think that is a good thing and don't see it as racism, as others do.

Instead of focusing on the quality of students being admitted to medical school, why not focus on the quality of graduates being produced by them?
Has there been a drop in the quality of medical doctors since AA went into effect?

Interesting question, but a bit of a derail for the thread. I don't see what that has to do with racism or fairness in admissions.

These data show that Blacks are seven times more likely to drop out of medical school for 'academic reasons' compared to Whites. This should not be a surprise, because the mean aptitude and achievement of admitted Blacks was lower than that for Whites.

It is a surprise to me. I may expect a difference, but seven times is higher that I would have expected. Can uneven admissions really be the only cause for that? This data may also be an indicator of race issues within the school itself, that black students face once admitted.