MCATs, Affirmative Action, and DEI, Oh My

[Politesse]

This is moronic. You know perfectly well that it's not at all a reference to any indigenous group of people. It's damned near retarded to pretend it is.

Defending yourself against an accusation of using racist slurs... by using two psychonormative slurs in a row instead. Congratulations, you're a walking parody.

I'm neither autistic nor was I ever behind my school level by the way, but I have plenty of good friends who are, and whose moral judgement I'd trust over yours in a heartbeat.

 

[Derec]

We observe small differences between the White and Middle Eastern/North African MCAT and GPAs, but an unexpectedly large difference in acceptance rate. Do we comment "Islamophobia is for realz!", "Whites clearly are rigging the system," or do we try to delve into how this is happening? Likewise, for a comparison between Whites and Asians: Whites have a higher acceptance rate but slightly less GPA and less MCAT. Do we say this is due to racial preferences of propping up White people?

I have written before that acceptance rates are a red herring because they are a function of both selection criteria and the applicant pool. If MCAT/GPA of accepted students are comparable, that means that the selection criteria are likely as well. So most likely the difference is that more MENA students apply. Besides, MENA students have somewhat lower MCATs than whites in your table.

Do we try to blame this on the unseen statistics of the other racial groups and alleged preferences there? Well, in that case, each of the remaining top 3 groups would still be effected equally proportionally and not have such differences, first. Secondly, we're starting to see the idea here: there could be something unseen in the chart that affects the numbers and means by themselves (or means and stdevs) do not necessarily imply racism...

There is a big difference between groups having slight differences (like within top three rows and bottom three rows both) vs. groups having massive differences (like between top three rows vs. bottom three rows). But you want to ignore the big differences with the bottom three rows (you even put a big X through them) and instead pretend that these massive differences are the same as slight differences within the top three rows.

Okay, so how about this? Whatever the variables are that play into the differences we observe when we look at the whole table, those same variables also play some roles in the top three acceptance rate differences, too? Why not be consistent?

Because the differences are bigger.

Here's a possible contributing factor and it might not be the most significant (I don't think it is): foreigners. Foreign citizens cannot apply to most medical schools and the few to which they can apply are difficult to get into. If we suppose that there are relatively quite a few Asian and Middle Eastern foreigners who took the MCAT and are trying to get into medical school, they may be getting rejected at a higher rate and skewing the numbers.

Why do you assume there are no black foreigners - e.g. from African countries?
And anyway, it's a moot point. AAMC has a separate "Non-U.S. Citizen and Non-Permanent Resident" category.

To add--there are more medical schools that accept Canadians for some reason than foreigners in general, but Canadians are going to tend to be White.

And yes, that category also applies to Canadians.

True stories: when I took a break from college I worked at a restaurant and one of my co-workers was an Egyptian doctor working as a dishwasher trying to study for MCATs. He had to achieve a certain threshold to apply where he wanted to go to medical school (I think, if I recall correctly). Also, later on in my actual career, I had a colleague from China who had a MD Phd but he was not trying to take MCATs. In both cases, my recollection is that they did not have to do the same number of years of study to get their medical degrees in their home countries.

Yes, medical education is very different abroad. But most foreign medical graduates just apply for US residencies. Some states are even doing away with that requirement, and are allowing foreign doctors to skip even US residency. So I do not see why a medical doctor from abroad would have to take the MCAT in the first place. Maybe you misremembered and it was the USMLE Steps?

I think the other variables are still on the table from previous discussion. Not an exhaustive list: yes, actual discrimination or adjusting criteria directly in admissions based on race;

Since med schools are not coy about admitting that they did that at least before 2023, I do not think we should dismiss this.

"willingness" to work in underserved areas OR mission fitness differences across demographics,

Declared "willingness" is not binding. And mission fitness is subjective af, and thus a good way to smuggle in racial considerations.

What do you or anyone else think are the root cause(s) for the differences in acceptance rates for the top three rows and what is the evidence for that thinking?

Mostly differences among applicant pools.

 

[Derec]

That's ridiculous. The whole point of a standardized exam is to do exactly that, set some arbitrarily defined corpus of knowledge as "standard" and rate all takers relative to their familiarity with it. It's always "manipulated". There is no other way for it to be. Exams don't pop magically into existence, they are assembled by a committee based on their intersubjective experience and values.

Exams being created by some group does not mean that they are "manipulated". And certainly not in the sense I used it.
So MCAT is created. Every premed knows what's on it, everybody takes the same test, and there are plenty of study materials, some free, others not.

And when a student applies with a 512, that's the score. Adcoms cannot manipulate the 512 to better fit what they want it to be. It is what it is. When a student sends in essays, the adcoms can manipulate their evaluation of it. Because essay evaluations are subjective, they are susceptible to manipulation by adcoms. MCAT scores are not. Even if MCAT didn't fall fully formed from Mount Olympus or something.

 

[Derec]

There used to exist examples of SAT exam questions that were biased towards black students with references to black culture peppered throughout. Not ever actually used but to demonstrate how ‘standardized tests’ were inherently biased towards the culture of this writing the test questions. Predictably white people lost their damn minds because there were questions that flummoxed them.

[citation needed]
And if that happened, it should not have.

 

[Toni]

We observe small differences between the White and Middle Eastern/North African MCAT and GPAs, but an unexpectedly large difference in acceptance rate. Do we comment "Islamophobia is for realz!", "Whites clearly are rigging the system," or do we try to delve into how this is happening? Likewise, for a comparison between Whites and Asians: Whites have a higher acceptance rate but slightly less GPA and less MCAT. Do we say this is due to racial preferences of propping up White people?

I have written before that acceptance rates are a red herring because they are a function of both selection criteria and the applicant pool. If MCAT/GPA of accepted students are comparable, that means that the selection criteria are likely as well. So most likely the difference is that more MENA students apply. Besides, MENA students have somewhat lower MCATs than whites in your table.

Do we try to blame this on the unseen statistics of the other racial groups and alleged preferences there? Well, in that case, each of the remaining top 3 groups would still be effected equally proportionally and not have such differences, first. Secondly, we're starting to see the idea here: there could be something unseen in the chart that affects the numbers and means by themselves (or means and stdevs) do not necessarily imply racism...

There is a big difference between groups having slight differences (like within top three rows and bottom three rows both) vs. groups having massive differences (like between top three rows vs. bottom three rows). But you want to ignore the big differences with the bottom three rows (you even put a big X through them) and instead pretend that these massive differences are the same as slight differences within the top three rows.

Okay, so how about this? Whatever the variables are that play into the differences we observe when we look at the whole table, those same variables also play some roles in the top three acceptance rate differences, too? Why not be consistent?

Because the differences are bigger.

Here's a possible contributing factor and it might not be the most significant (I don't think it is): foreigners. Foreign citizens cannot apply to most medical schools and the few to which they can apply are difficult to get into. If we suppose that there are relatively quite a few Asian and Middle Eastern foreigners who took the MCAT and are trying to get into medical school, they may be getting rejected at a higher rate and skewing the numbers.

Why do you assume there are no black foreigners - e.g. from African countries?
And anyway, it's a moot point. AAMC has a separate "Non-U.S. Citizen and Non-Permanent Resident" category.

To add--there are more medical schools that accept Canadians for some reason than foreigners in general, but Canadians are going to tend to be White.

And yes, that category also applies to Canadians.

True stories: when I took a break from college I worked at a restaurant and one of my co-workers was an Egyptian doctor working as a dishwasher trying to study for MCATs. He had to achieve a certain threshold to apply where he wanted to go to medical school (I think, if I recall correctly). Also, later on in my actual career, I had a colleague from China who had a MD Phd but he was not trying to take MCATs. In both cases, my recollection is that they did not have to do the same number of years of study to get their medical degrees in their home countries.

Yes, medical education is very different abroad. But most foreign medical graduates just apply for US residencies. Some states are even doing away with that requirement, and are allowing foreign doctors to skip even US residency. So I do not see why a medical doctor from abroad would have to take the MCAT in the first place. Maybe you misremembered and it was the USMLE Steps?

I think the other variables are still on the table from previous discussion. Not an exhaustive list: yes, actual discrimination or adjusting criteria directly in admissions based on race;

Since med schools are not coy about admitting that they did that at least before 2023, I do not think we should dismiss this.

"willingness" to work in underserved areas OR mission fitness differences across demographics,

Declared "willingness" is not binding. And mission fitness is subjective af, and thus a good way to smuggle in racial considerations.

What do you or anyone else think are the root cause(s) for the differences in acceptance rates for the top three rows and what is the evidence for that thinking?

Mostly differences among applicant pools.

Can you explain why it is preferable to admit students who are unlikely —by their own stated goals—vs admitting also well qualified students who state they are interested in working in underserved areas?

 

[Derec]

Why do you think knowledge and reasoning are the only, or the most, or even significantly important indicators of which already qualified candidates are likely to become the best doctors?

I never said "only", but I definitely think they they are significantly important. Probably the most important, and even if not, they are certainly the most important metrics that can be usefully measured in undergrads.
Why do I think that? Because human bodies are complex, as are disease processes. And reasoning ability is about taking all this complex knowledge and coming up with a solution.
Why do you think otherwise? What do you think are "significantly important indicators" that med schools should focus on instead? Melanin content? What language someone's ancestors spoke? Presence of epicanthic folds?

Sure; But you can evaluate them based on their interpersonal skills and their interactions with other humans - one time honoured way to do this is by interviewing them.

And I never said that interpersonal skills are not important, or you should not interview people. But I'd much rather have a knowledgeable and intelligent Dr. House than somebody with a great bedside manner who is neither of those two.
Interviews are also inherently subjective, and thus susceptible to interviewer bias, whether conscious or not. Interview (or essay) scores can be used to systematically downgrade groups you want fewer of, like Harvard College giving Asian students unfavorable personality scores in order to justify admitting fewer of them.

Success at interview isn't only about answering the interviewer's questions in such a way as to be technically correct.
Interviews are not a great way to assess candidates - but then, nor are standardised test scores.

If Bilby were in charge of medical school admissions, how would you do it? For that matter, do you know how things are run in Australia?

 

[Derec]

Really? Black people today are still treated as they were in 1966???

I did not say that. I said that racial preferences didn't help anything, not that things are the same.

 

[Emily Lake]

Such cool reasoning powers demonstrated by your devolution into insults and name calling…

You've spent pages calling people racists, and insinuating that all disagreement to your beliefs is evidence of bigotry... and you're deeply offended by Bomb accurately describing your interactions as tribalistic?

I believe the point was that the pot was calling the kettle black. That you missed the point is not ironic, even given your post 788.

I think the point is that some people, including Toni, can dish it out but can't take it. And by that I mean they'll fling out insults with abandon, but the merest whiff of criticism of their behavior is the insult to end all insults.

Whoosh - it went past you once again. Perhaps if you weren't so intent on whiteknighting a fellow tribal member, you'd get it.

I'm not whiteknighting anyone. Nobody needs saving, least of all from me.

But I do dislike bullies, and I'll call them on their bullshit attempts to force compliance to their beliefs whenever I run across it.

BTW, if you don't think there are at least 2 racial bigots participating in this thread, then you are not very smart.

It's possible that there are some actual racists in here. But I don't think that's the case.

But I do understand that it's a really, really, really easy claim to make. And it's as unfalsifiable as calling someone a witch, and if they say they're not well that's just what witches would say.

 

[Emily Lake]

If noting that people engage in tribal thinking - which you 100% know means in-group assumed morally right, out-group cast as bad - is "racist", then you, sir, are not very smart.

Yes. That is exactly what I mean. Using loaded and historically racialized terms as a stand in the general concept of anri-social behavior is racist. Your Colonislism-shaped beliefs about what "tribes" are like is wrong, prejudicial, and speaks volumes about how you see the world. It is also, given the cause you are supposedly championing, incredibly ironic.

Oh for the love of reason stop trying to channel Judith Butler's style of empty rhetoric.

Seriously, all you have are school-yard taunts. You just wrap them up in a transparent veneer of academia as if that makes them meaningful. You're a fucking bully, Poli.

 

[Emily Lake]

This is moronic. You know perfectly well that it's not at all a reference to any indigenous group of people. It's damned near retarded to pretend it is.

Defending yourself against an accusation of using racist slurs... by using two psychonormative slurs in a row instead. Congratulations, you're a walking parody.

I'm neither autistic nor was I ever behind my school level by the way, but I have plenty of good friends who are, and whose moral judgement I'd trust over yours in a heartbeat.

I'm calling it as I see it. Your arguments are dumb, they're framed in idiotic ways. You rely on big words and condescension to make yourself feel like you're in the moral right... all while you treat others with absolute contempt and intolerance.

 

[Politesse]

That's ridiculous. The whole point of a standardized exam is to do exactly that, set some arbitrarily defined corpus of knowledge as "standard" and rate all takers relative to their familiarity with it. It's always "manipulated". There is no other way for it to be. Exams don't pop magically into existence, they are assembled by a committee based on their intersubjective experience and values.

Exams being created by some group does not mean that they are "manipulated". And certainly not in the sense I used it.
So MCAT is created. Every premed knows what's on it, everybody takes the same test, and there are plenty of study materials, some free, others not.

And when a student applies with a 512, that's the score. Adcoms cannot manipulate the 512 to better fit what they want it to be. It is what it is. When a student sends in essays, the adcoms can manipulate their evaluation of it. Because essay evaluations are subjective, they are susceptible to manipulation by adcoms. MCAT scores are not. Even if MCAT didn't fall fully formed from Mount Olympus or something.

So stop treating it like is fallen from Mount Olympus. Much of what you say is accurate. It's a standardized exam. It has all the strengths and weaknesses ofvl a standardized exam. To use it as one factor in an admissions decision is reasonable. To use it as the sole factor would be insane. Automatic cut offs around GPA or test scores used to be popular, but the university system largely turned its back on those kinds of simplistic culling methods, for a host of reasons. While demonstration of in-built race and class biases was one of those reasons, it was not the only reason, and pretending that is was is dishonest, whether you are a rando on the internet or our barely-educated President of the United States.

 

[Derec]

Wow. You admit that the data on failing to complete in medical school is not a clean indicator of academic performance, yet persist in looking at MCAT and GPA scores. Your hobby horse must have pretty good padding on it since you've been riding it so hard.

Will you give it a rest with the "hobby horse" nonsense? Step 1 failure is pretty clean as far as failing for academic reasons, and it shows a strong association with MCAT and GPA. Also, while not graduating may not be "clean" as you call it since people may drop out for non-academic reasons, the association with MCAT and GPA indicates that academic reasons are a major reason for dropping out of med school. There is no reason why non-academic reasons should be associated with MCAT/GPA, but there are reasons why academic failure in med school should be associated with academic performance in undergrad (MCAT/GPA).

In fact, those who believe that academic performance in med school is for some reason unrelated to academic performance in undergrad should show evidence for it.

I made no assumption. I pointed out that your analysis ignores many possible causal factors because of your obsession with race. Unlike you, I don't pretend to know the underlying causes, but as many others have pointed out, the requisite date is either insufficiently granular or nonexistent.

I do not believe you that you make no assumptions. You would not be arguing this hard on the side of Toni, Don2 etc. if you didn't.

 

[laughing dog]

Wow. You admit that the data on failing to complete in medical school is not a clean indicator of academic performance, yet persist in looking at MCAT and GPA scores. Your hobby horse must have pretty good padding on it since you've been riding it so hard.

Will you give it a rest with the "hobby horse" nonsense?

Lead the way.

Step 1 failure is pretty clean as far as failing for academic reasons, and it shows a strong association with MCAT and GPA. Also, while not graduating may not be "clean" as you call it since people may drop out for non-academic reasons, the association with MCAT and GPA indicates that academic reasons are a major reason for dropping out of med school.

Sorry, but “association “ does not indicate whether a variable is a major reason for anything, especially in an under specified model.

I made no assumption. I pointed out that your analysis ignores many possible causal factors because of your obsession with race. Unlike you, I don't pretend to know the underlying causes, but as many others have pointed out, the requisite date is either insufficiently granular or nonexistent.

I do not believe you that you make no assumptions. You would not be arguing this hard on the side of Toni, Don2 etc. if you didn't.

I didn’t say I made no assumptions. I said I made no assumption about a particular issue.

Your analysis rests on multiple assumptions and a refusal to consider many possible mitigating factors. It is unconvincing.