A sad casualty of DEI/Woke at Cambridge University

[Derec]

Unlike those black parents who don’t care enough not to raise their kids in the projects.

Parents, plural? lol. Few and far between these days.

[ducks]

 

[Derec]

How does it imply that?

You need much higher grades and MCAT to get in you are white or Asian, and much lower if you are black of Hispanic.

 

[Derec]

FFS, professors have been complaining about their students' lack of ability since Socrates. None of this has anything to do with the actual OP but one of your boring hobby horses.

When calculus students at Berkeley struggle with fractions, then it is pretty clear that there is a problem with admissions.
At the very least, UC needs to reverse the idiotic decision not to require the SATs.
Handwaving Socrates or calling everything a "hobby horse" does not change that.

 

[Derec]

FWIW, I agree with Politesse: Students with everything going for them: educated parents , upper middle class neighborhood, enviably good schools tend to get great grades and great test scores.

Educated parents instill appreciation for education in their offspring from an early age. More educated parents are more likely to also be inherently of above average intelligence, and they can pass that on genetically. Both of those are real, meaningful advantages when pursuing higher education and beyond that are not limited to specific test scores and I do not see why young people should be discriminated against because of them. Note that these advantages exist even for families that are for whatever reason not that economically well off. It doesn't take money to read to your young child and instill a love of learning in them.

Now of course, more affluent parents (which is correlated, but obviously not congruent with education and intelligence) have advantages beyond the natural and developmental ones I mentioned above. But it is easier for the rich to game subjective admission standards like essays and such than objective ones. So if we are concerned with the rich having too much advantage, we need to give more weight to SAT and MCAT, not place even more weight on things like admissions essays or even worse, Harvard's infamous "personality scores".

I know that I am biased here but imo, people who grew up in more modest circumstances, as I did and as it appears that you did, can still make it, can still achieve stellar GPAs and SAT and ACT scores and be high achievers academically and in our careers and in our lives. I know it’s ego talking but I think the accomplishments of those who came from modest backgrounds don’t get nearly enough recognition. We’re rock stars! We’re resilient, don’t need our hands held. Or all of the attention in the room.

And having an objective measure where everyone is measured on the same yardstick, like SAT and MCAT, is a great way for those from more modest circumstances to shine.

 

[Derec]

Who framed a suicide committed over an academic dishonesty charge as a problem with "DEI", because he looked at a photo of a human being and could only see their skin. Repulsive, these white nationalist stooges.

I interpreted the OP differently - that DEI (or EDI) ends up harming a lot of those whom it purports to help.

 

[Derec]

Based on what I've read, Cambridge was overwhelmed by white men, so they felt it was past time to include some well qualified women and minorities. Sadly, they chose one who wasn't well qualified for the position.

The former can be accomplished by looking at every applicant without regard to sex or race. But that is not enough for the EDI ideologues, which is why they often end up with the latter. They'd rather hire an Arday than a well-qualified cishet white man.

There is nothing wrong with wanting a society based on diversity and there are plenty of highly qualified people from all walks of life to fill positions that in the past were only filled by white men. I personally love diversity.

The devil is in the detail. What exactly do you mean by diversity? Should for example NBA institute measures to sign more white and Asian players in order to increase the diversity of the league, i.e. so that the NBA resembles the society more? Even if the DEI players have worse objective metrics?

I have more Black friends than I do white friends because I find them, at least where I live, to be friendlier and have more in common with me, especially when it comes to music. Plus, the ones I know don't judge me for being an atheist, like so many white Christians do. Cultural diversity is what makes life interesting and more joyful.

Choosing friends you vibe with is different than a university using race as a reason somebody is hired over another.

 

[Derec]

Your claim didn't actually demonstrate that schools are "blatantly discriminating against white and Asian applicants", so not certain why I should debunk a baseless claim.

I certainly did demonstrate it. With confidence intervals and p values and everything.

However, I might note that over 20% of graduates of Medical School are Asian.

So?

That would be more than 3 times the percent of Asians living in the US. This would imply your accusation hinges on your complete misunderstanding of what the word "discrimination" means.

I think you misunderstand what the word "discrimination" means. It has nothing to do with how many Asians are admitted. It has to do with how an individual Asian applicant is treated compared with applicants of other races. That Asians need higher grades and MCAT scores to get in is result of discrimination.

Let me give you another example. NBA is, what, 80% black. But blacks are only 14% of the population. Let's say there is a DEI initiative in the NBA to make it somewhat better reflect the country at large. So more Asian and white players are signed and now only 42% of the league are black. Individual black players are definitely discriminated against, but under your misconception of "discrimination" they would not be since they are still in the NBA at a rate 3x as high as in the population at large.
Did it finally sink in or do I need to bust out the crayons?

 

[Derec]

You need to know the percentage of a particular race applying to med schools and compare that to their acceptance percentage to determine whether there is discrimination compared to other races.

No, that would not show it either, because the applicant pools may differ significantly in qualifications. And if you look at AAMC data, for med school admissions (first table) they definitely do.

 

[Derec]

No, not really. The whole 3x on population infers enough that there isn't discrimination. But, I know that people are wanting to die on this molehill.

No, that wouldn't show anything of the sort. Also, you are misusing the word "infers".

To get back to my NBA example, if NBA started discriminating against black players in order to increase diversity and blacks dropped to 42% of the league, they'd be "3x on population" but that would in no way show that there wasn't discrimination.

There is this. It is blog-ish so if someone finds sounder stats, please post them.

Jubbal is just using the AAMC data, but he got his hands on slightly more recent data. It is not substantially different though.

This would imply that demographics are being accepted at a rate that is generally proportional to their scores.

I am not sure what you mean by that. Can you clarify?

Just to clarify something that may be confusing to some: MCAT is not scored out of 528. It is scored out of 56 (14 points per section) and then 472 is added. This was likely done to avoid confusion with the old, three section MCAT.
So if you want to check for it being "proportional", you'd need to convert to a zeroed out scale that allows for that.

That also means that differences in scores that seem minor, like 514 vs 507 averages, are in fact HUGE.

 

[Derec]

No it doesn't.

Of course it does.

You would need to not understand what an "average" is to claim that. I'm pretty certain you understand what the word "average" means.

The real question is: do you?

If the acceptance rate was equivalent despite the difference in MCAT / GPA scores or the acceptance rate was random or reversed as shown relative to MCAT / GPA, that would provide evidence of your claim.

Not necessarily.

Instead, the stats above show that higher score/GPA means you have a better chance at acceptance.

Slightly better chance of acceptance, yes. But because the applicant pools have very different stats, the slightly different acceptance rates do not begin to compensate for that. That means that among matriculants, not applicants, there are still vast differences in grades and scores. I did an analysis of the MCAT data earlier. Let me post it again.


Look at the vast difference of where the black and Hispanic confidence intervals are compared to white and Asian ones. American Indian and Alaska Native have an even worse mean MCAT, but their numbers are so low, the confidence interval is wide and approaches black and Hispanic CIs.

 

[Derec]

Well, for Loren, it’s all about what family upbringing you have.

Upbringing, from a young age, makes a huge difference.

Good families care enough to ensure that you are in the very best school districts and all the best extracurricular and all of the cram courses and expensive tutors you might need.

You can be of modest means and still bring up your kids in a way that furthers their kids' intellectual and academic development.

Unlike those black parents who don’t care enough not to raise their kids in the projects.

There are many black parents who do care about their children's development. But also many who don't.

The fact is, however, that right now blacks - on average - do not perform as well academically. I do not think the solution is to discriminate against other groups in the name of "equity". I also think that 60 years of "affirmative action" helped perpetuate this lack of achievement - it's the principle of least action. If you can get into college by doing less - worse grades, worse SAT, then why try harder? If you can get into med school by doing less - worse grades, worse MCAT, then why try harder?

 

[Derec]

What was/is it called when candidates were specifically excluded if they were not white and make and preferably ‘Christian?’

Why does the Left think that discriminating against white "makes"[sic] today makes up for discrimination in the past rather than adding new injustices to old?

Why can’t you answer a question?

That question wasn't rhetorical?
What would you call it yourself? And why do you think doing the same, just against different groups, is somehow progressive and laudable?

The question was not rhetorical.

I thought it was because the answer was so obvious: it's discrimination by race and gender.

It is also discrimination by race and gender when the same thing is done against other groups.

Why do you support one but oppose the other? And no, that is not a rhetorical question either.
In order words, answer my questions as well:

What would you call it yourself? And why do you think doing the same, just against different groups, is somehow progressive and laudable?

 

[Derec]

You aren’t demonstrating different standards.

I am.

You are looking at averages across an entire class.

And the averages show a very different levels of performance by racial/ethnic groups.

You are further assuming that GPA and MCAT scores are the only criteria that matter.

No, I am not. I never said that they are the only criteria that matter.
But they do matter, as they show the level of academic performance of the students.

You are assuming that higher GPA and higher MCAT scores = better doctors.

All other things being equal, that is definitely true. Medicine requires a base of knowledge and reasoning skills, and those are both things that also affect ones performance in college and on MCAT. MCAT specifically is not just a knowledge test where you regurgitate facts. No, reasoning is a big part of it. Most questions are based on passages where most of the necessary facts are given to you. You are then required to integrate that information with your knowledge base and come up with an answer. Under time pressure.

It is a better gauge that somebody will be a good doctor than writing an essay about oneself or checking volunteering boxes by spending a few weekends at a soup kitchen. And it is certainly a better gauge that somebody will be a good doctor than race. So I fail to see why that should compensate for mediocre academic performance.

You said yourself: medical schools are highly invested in admitting students who will be successful at completing their studies and becoming physicians.

Did I? That would be ideal. Medical schools are unfortunately also highly invested in the idea of diversity über alles, including academics.

Don’t you think that they know what they are doing?

They are still fallible human beings that can be blinded by ideology and groupthink. Especially when people who dare question the received wisdom get fired.
Med school professor removed by UPMC as fellowship director over white paper

 

[steve_bank]

I listened to a BBC radio show on it today, both sides argued.

To begin with he was hyped from the start with his appointment. Cambridge made him into a symbol of DEI. See, we are not racist. One argument from the media side is that Chambridgee made him a target. And the lack of transparency by Cambridge fed the media investigations.

Over here back in the 80s there was debate over quality and rigor of black PHD theses on black topics.. The rise of Black Studies departments. Was there some racism in the criticism? Probably. Was there valid criticism? Maybe so, institutions went out of their way to pave the way for black assimilation into mainstream America. Bussijness and education did not want to appear racist.

Do I think blacks are inherently inferior? No. I think racism in England is probably stronger than may be thought. The media went after Harry, his black wife, and his mixed race family, and had rtroublewith his royal family members.

AI Overview
Racism in British media involves structural newsroom inequalities, biased framing of minority communities, and hostile tabloid narratives. Critics and research organizations document how repetitive tropes marginalize Black, Asian, and minority ethnic groups, shape damaging public perceptions, and create hostile working environments for minority journalists.

I have no doubt British media hounded the guy in large part for being black.

 

[Bomb#20]

...
Data show that black, Hispanic and American Indian applicants are admitted with significantly lower scores and grades than white and Asian ones. That should not be allowed. Same standards should apply to everybody.

If you look at the data, blacks have a 505.7 and standard deviation of 6.6 [yes, SD is appropriate here since we are just looking at population distributions and not doing hypothesis testing]. That means that ~16% of all black matriculants have the MCAT score of 499 or less. Asian students the mean is 514.3 and the SD is 6.0. That means that only ~2.5% have an MCAT of 502 or less. That is a huge difference in academic preparedness.
...

...
You are further assuming that GPA and MCAT scores are the only criteria that matter.

You are assuming that higher GPAand higher MCAT scores = better doctors.
...

He is assuming nothing of the sort. This has been explained to you many times. Why do you persist in misrepresenting your opponents on this issue? At some point it stops looking like an innocent misunderstanding on your part and starts looking like a deliberate strawman.

One more time. When a black guy with a 506 MCAT has a good chance of getting admitted and an Asian guy with a 506 MCAT has a negligible chance of getting admitted, it follows that either the admissions officers are discriminating against Asians or else that Asian applicants are systematically worse than black applicants on some other criterion of student desirability being applied. There is no value judgment involved here, no reliance on anyone's opinion about whether MCAT is important or whether something else is more important or whether there's any correlation with doctor quality -- you could bloody well assume the only important criterion is birth order and a middle child makes the best doctor if you like and the admission probability argument is still decisive. It is an inference about what admissions officers do, not about what they ought to do.

So if you think medical schools aren't discriminating against Asians, what criterion do you think admissions officers are applying alongside their reliance on MCAT that's making up for some students' lower MCAT scores? And why do you think Asian students are worse than black students at satisfying that criterion?