• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

MCATs, Affirmative Action, and DEI, Oh My

Same goes for NBA selecting by ability to throw a ball through a hoop. The point of the analogy that just like nobody expects NBA to apply their selection criteria differently by race in order to increase "diversity" and make their rosters more "representative" of the population at large, med schools (and the rest of academia) should not do it either.
Disagree. The big bias in the NBA is the ability to put a ball in a hoop over the reach of those trying to block it.
is based on dubious assumptions and poor statistical analysis.
Wrong. Trying to explain away the huge discrepancy in mean scores and grades rests on "dubious assumptions and poor statistical analysis". And it is even more untenable given that, again, med schools have not been coy in admitting they support "race conscious admissions".
Exactly. This is so obviously dodgy statistics.
This partly due to the lack of access to the relevant data. This has been frequently pointed out by numerous posters.
While it would be nice to have more granular data, especially on school level, what we have is quite enough to falsify the null hypothesis of there not being racial preferences in admissions.
Which could exist if they made the data available. As with so much in society the absence says a lot. If they weren't discriminating they would be looking to prove it.
 
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.
Why do you think this? Do you think that black people shouldn't commit suicide in the same ways that white people do for some reason?
Not very many people hang thenselves from trees. That’s No. 1

Number 2 is that for most black people whose grandparents were born in the US, there is a deep and horrific association of hanging black people from trees: lynching.

Not many black people in the US whose grandparents were born here would fail to make that connection.
Of course they make that connection. Perfect if you don't want people to believe it's a suicide.
 
Just so we're clear, you're claiming that you see absolutely no difference whatsoever between:

A) The government should tell students what they can and cannot study (your framing)
and
B) The government should use tax-payer funding to incentivize fields that society needs, rather than those that we don't (my position)
That is a bit over-simplified because clearly giving incentives for fields you feel society needs, you are making disincentives for fields you feel society does not need. While it is not a direct diktat, it is fairly close to A.

"We have too many apples in today's delivery, let's put apples on sale so people buy them"
"Oh you're so awful, denying people the right to buy oranges!"
Are you posting drunk?
Nope. I just understand that not giving an incentive for something is quite different from telling people they can't have it.
I didn’t say it was. But when the gov’t is giving signals, people pay attention.
And you think that signal somehow gets heard as “nobody is allowed to study x”?

That seems a bit argument ad absurdum to me.
Since I didn’t say it was, I wonder why you keep repeating it.

Making it much less affordable to study X means prospective students are less likely to study X. The reduction in enrollment to study X depends on the sensitivity of those students to the effective cost. It is possible it shuts down demand significantly, allowing only the more wealthy to pursue such studies.
 
Are your insurance costs for doctors eye-watering stupid like in Australia?
To set up a surgery you need insurance, paying off the HECS (uni debt) debt, equipment, at least a nurse/receptionist, nice place to set up, rent etc. The amount a doctor must charge per hour is already high before they open their doors. Add to that ther livings costs viz. house, car, food etc. then it is no wonder medical costs are so high.
Yup. Letter to the editor of the local paper many years back. The doctor was defending his actions in refusing to accept Medicaid for a particular surgery, thus forcing such patients to go to another state. He was being attacked for considering a bit over $1,000 for an hour's work insufficient--but he pointed out the reality: running his office cost him $250/hr. That one hour of surgery entailed a total of about 10 hours of work to produce that $1,000 payment. And that's before counting malpractice premiums.
Though in Australia now the surgery location has changed relative to other costs. In the 60s-90s the surgery had to be in a nice, large house somewhere in a nice suburb. People just would not go to a place deemed "unsuitable" for a surgery. Nowadays they will go to a converted factory in an industrial site on the edge of the suburbs. One change for the better.
Actually, that makes sense. In the absence of a good regulatory environment people rely on other indications of quality. Whether the place looks permanent or fly by night mattered. Now we trust that the place in the converted warehouse is properly quality controlled, it's no longer unacceptable.

You see the same thing in many less developed societies with buying live food. It's not just the matter of how to store it, but was the animal healthy and was the cold chain handled properly?? Buying the lively animal is a lot safer than regulators that don't exist or are easily bribed.
 
Making it much less affordable to study X means prospective students are less likely to study X. The reduction in enrollment to study X depends on the sensitivity of those students to the effective cost. It is possible it shuts down demand significantly, allowing only the more wealthy to pursue such studies.
Would it be so horrible if student loan rules discouraged students from not wealthy backgrounds to take large amounts of student loans for degrees with limited marketability? If you want to study X and don't have rich parents or get scholarships at some posh college, what's wrong with going to a state school? Many public universities still give you a sold education (often better than many private ones) but the in-state tuition is much cheaper. Depending on the state, there may even be scholarships like Georgia's HOPE.
Nobody is saying do away with student loans altogether, just that they should be limited based on projected marketability of a degree.
 
tribal - whether it is perjorative depends on context
tribal thinking - perjorative

It seems like the pattern is when the term or phrase describes a concrete functional, often necessary, it is not perjorative. When it stems from an idea, perhaps a stereotype, about priorities or thinking, it is perjorative.
Doesn't make the problem go away. What word would you prefer? Ingroup/outgroup is much more clumsy.

I was being descriptive, not prescriptive.
 
Making it much less affordable to study X means prospective students are less likely to study X. The reduction in enrollment to study X depends on the sensitivity of those students to the effective cost. It is possible it shuts down demand significantly, allowing only the more wealthy to pursue such studies.
Would it be so horrible if student loan rules discouraged students from not wealthy backgrounds to take large amounts of student loans for degrees with limited marketability? If you want to study X and don't have rich parents or get scholarships at some posh college, what's wrong with going to a state school? Many public universities still give you a sold education (often better than many private ones) but the in-state tuition is much cheaper. Depending on the state, there may even be scholarships like Georgia's HOPE.
Nobody is saying do away with student loans altogether, just that they should be limited based on projected marketability of a degree.
Um, students take out loans for state schools as well.
 
Um, students take out loans for state schools as well.
Thank you Captain Obvious (or should that be Corporal Oblivious?) I am talking about loan balances. Even if after scholarships and Pell Grants you need loans for your state school, less will be required to cover the costs. So if we cap student loans by degree, the degrees with lower caps can still get student loans, just smaller ones. Duh!
Again:
Lower tuition over four years --> have to take out a smaller amount of loans --> better ability to repay those loans even with a less marketable degree.
 
Last edited:
Um, students take out loans for state schools as well.
Thank you Captain Obvious (or should that be Corporal Oblivious?) I am talking about loan balances. Even if after scholarships and Pell Grants you need loans for your state school, less will be required to cover the costs. So if we cap student loans by degree, the degrees with lower caps can still get student loans, just smaller ones. Duh!
Again:
Lower tuition over four years --> have to take out a smaller amount of loans --> better ability to repay those loans even with a less marketable degree.
Nope. The boldfaced part is true now. Capping loans by degree means a greater gap between tuition and student ability to pay for those students who want those degrees.
 
It's pretty clear that you are not black.
Because the white chick is the expert on what makes an acceptable black person?

I mean, I agree that Derec probably isn't black... but I would think that a white person placing themselves in a position of authority over what constitutes blackness is kind of a bit sketchy, don't you think?
I mean, I voted for Biden in 2020, so by that definition, I might be.
images
 
Nope. The boldfaced part is true now. Capping loans by degree means a greater gap between tuition and student ability to pay for those students who want those degrees.
No. As usual, you get it ass-backwards.
If loans are not capped based on projected earnings for a degree, then a student can accumulate loans that they have little hope of ever repaying. $250k in loans is one thing if you get an MD (or DO) degree, quite another if it's a humanities degree from a private college with far less marketability.

Capping loans by degree does a greater gap between tuition and student ability to pay for the degree though. In that case, instead of taking an unholy amount of loans, the student can
- choose a different major
- choose a school with cheaper tuition like an in-state public college, and/or one that offers him or her a scholarship
- work during college/not go to grad school unless he or she is also offered a GTA/GRA position that pays for tuition and a cash stipend
 
Nope. The boldfaced part is true now. Capping loans by degree means a greater gap between tuition and student ability to pay for those students who want those degrees.
No. As usual, you get it ass-backwards.
If loans are not capped based on projected earnings for a degree, then a student can accumulate loans that they have little hope of ever repaying. $250k in loans is one thing if you get an MD (or DO) degree, quite another if it's a humanities degree from a private college with far less marketability.

Capping loans by degree does a greater gap between tuition and student ability to pay for the degree though. In that case, instead of taking an unholy amount of loans, the student can
- choose a different major
- choose a school with cheaper tuition like an in-state public college, and/or one that offers him or her a scholarship
- work during college/not go to grad school unless he or she is also offered a GTA/GRA position that pays for tuition and a cash stipend
Wait. You're trying to tell me that getting a degree in some area of the humanities is as expensive as getting an MD? No.

I just looked at the tuition being charged at the private university one of my kids attended and, as with many other expensive private universities, they charge a high tuition but the amount actually paid for tuition is tied to parent's income. Up to an income of >$400K, the student's family contributes anywhere from 0% to 15%, in a tiered way. Likely families with a gross income of $400K can afford to shell out $10K/year. We did it on far, far less than $400K. While paying another kid's tuition.

As I said, more and more privates are doing this, including I think Harvard.

Significant academic scholarships are not much larger than when I was in college decades ago and very very hard to come by. I personally am a strong proponent of public education, including universities but two of my kids did attend private colleges. This was possible because a) we were used to living rather poor: no fancy vacations and I swear to god I thought the Camry I bought was a fancy car. and b) private schools tend to be very flexible about prices charged. This is a PSA: It's like going to a lot of jewelry stores and saying that the price for that is pretty high and suddenly you get a 40% discount (true story). My daughter was furious when I told her I would refuse to allow her to pay full tuition and graduate with an enormous debt load because our budget was our budget: I could pay a certain amount/year, period. But we went back to the financial aid office again and lo and behold, magically, they 'found' enough money to make tuition just a few hundred dollars more than the tuition at the public school which was her second choice. So: within budget. I'm only relating that bit of info as a PSA in case anyone has a kid applying to colleges. Public universities usually cannot do that: they can offer work study (but that's not much money) but they don't have the authority to knock down prices. Privates do. And my daughter had excellent grades and stellar SATs. If this describes your family situation, don't be afraid to be tough re: money.

I think that it is best that students be allowed--encouraged even to study what ignites their interests. Usually, they figure out that they need some coursework that will be marketable and even real science nerd types need to take a break with some light readings in Greek Drama and Shakespeare. An art class, too, if they can get into one.

College/universities are NOT job training programs. They are places of learning where students need to learn to think for themselves, learn what interests them and what they are good at---not just what will earn them a buck or two. Quite unexpectedly, it was humanities classes I took that earned me two of my long ago jobs which were vital in supporting my family. One was nearly the whole support of my family and that was because I could read/write passable French. And type. Kind of. You've all seen my typing skills......

One of my kids pursued a degree in physics and is working in a completely, not at all science-y field of work. I am still genuinely shocked that is the path he chose.

I don't think we should put people in boxes or erect unnecessary walls in front of them. We want and need them to dream and pursue those dreams. No body wants a dentist who hates his work and would rather be playing the violin or guiding white water rafting tours.
 
Nope. The boldfaced part is true now. Capping loans by degree means a greater gap between tuition and student ability to pay for those students who want those degrees.
No. As usual, you get it ass-backwards.
If loans are not capped based on projected earnings for a degree, then a student can accumulate loans that they have little hope of ever repaying. $250k in loans is one thing if you get an MD (or DO) degree, quite another if it's a humanities degree from a private college with far less marketability.

Capping loans by degree does a greater gap between tuition and student ability to pay for the degree though. In that case, instead of taking an unholy amount of loans, the student can
- choose a different major
- choose a school with cheaper tuition like an in-state public college, and/or one that offers him or her a scholarship
- work during college/not go to grad school unless he or she is also offered a GTA/GRA position that pays for tuition and a cash stipend
Your sentence in bold face agrees with my point to which you responded, yet you persist in saying I have it wrong.
 
Capping loans by degree means a greater gap between tuition and student ability to pay for those students who want those degrees.
And?

Secured loans generally have lower interest rates, because the asset used as collateral has value that can be claimed in the event of a default. The more you can provide as down payment, the lower the interest rate you are charged. Most home loans require a downpayment, or mortgage insurance to provide security for the lender's investment.

Unsecured loans (including credit cards) have very high interest rates to protect the lender.

What secures student loans? What protections does the lender have to hedge against default?
 
Capping loans by degree means a greater gap between tuition and student ability to pay for those students who want those degrees.
And?

Secured loans generally have lower interest rates, because the asset used as collateral has value that can be claimed in the event of a default. The more you can provide as down payment, the lower the interest rate you are charged. Most home loans require a downpayment, or mortgage insurance to provide security for the lender's investment.

Unsecured loans (including credit cards) have very high interest rates to protect the lender.

What secures student loans? What protections does the lender have to hedge against default?
Nothing secures them. And that doesn’t alter the arithmetic that capping loans by degree makes it harder for students to get those degrees.
 
Capping loans by degree means a greater gap between tuition and student ability to pay for those students who want those degrees.
And?

Secured loans generally have lower interest rates, because the asset used as collateral has value that can be claimed in the event of a default. The more you can provide as down payment, the lower the interest rate you are charged. Most home loans require a downpayment, or mortgage insurance to provide security for the lender's investment.

Unsecured loans (including credit cards) have very high interest rates to protect the lender.

What secures student loans? What protections does the lender have to hedge against default?
Nothing secures them. And that doesn’t alter the arithmetic that capping loans by degree makes it harder for students to get those degrees.
No it doesn't. So what?

There's no security, and the federally guaranteed loans have low interest rates. They're lower interest rates than a mortgage with 20% down and an excellent credit score.

So who bears the credit risk on those loans? You might cavalierly say "the government", but in reality it's taxpayers that are being forced to take on the credit risk.

It seems reasonable that if we the people have to take on the risk, then we the people should be able to expect that either a) the investment will produce people with skills that we the people need on a regular basis or b) we the people have a decent likelihood of those loans being paid back.

Incentivize fields that we have a well understood need for - with the understanding that we might not guess right, and that it's not something set in stone forever but rather something that may change as our society changes and technology evolves.

Disincentivize or cap loans for fields that we don't reasonably have a need for a ton of and which aren't likely to result in incomes high enough to cover the loan payments.

Stuff in the middle get financed in the middle. Like we probably don't need more lawyers (I dunno, maybe we do but there seem to be a whole lot of them out there), but they generally make a good enough living that they'll pay back their loans. So maybe they get the full amount of their tuition etc. covered by their loan, but maybe not a preferential interest rate.
 
Capping loans by degree means a greater gap between tuition and student ability to pay for those students who want those degrees.
And?

Secured loans generally have lower interest rates, because the asset used as collateral has value that can be claimed in the event of a default. The more you can provide as down payment, the lower the interest rate you are charged. Most home loans require a downpayment, or mortgage insurance to provide security for the lender's investment.

Unsecured loans (including credit cards) have very high interest rates to protect the lender.

What secures student loans? What protections does the lender have to hedge against default?
Nothing secures them. And that doesn’t alter the arithmetic that capping loans by degree makes it harder for students to get those degrees.
No it doesn't. So what?
You butted into a dispute with Derec. He disputes the bold-faced, even though it is the fucking point of capping those loans.
There's no security, and the federally guaranteed loans have low interest rates. They're lower interest rates than a mortgage with 20% down and an excellent credit score.

So who bears the credit risk on those loans? You might cavalierly say "the government", but in reality it's taxpayers that are being forced to take on the credit risk.
Are you sure about that? Those loans are not discharged under bankruptcy. The federal gov't has programs for students in default. The federal gov't can garnish wages (up to 15%) or social security payments (up to 155) or tax refunds (up to 15%).
 
Back
Top Bottom