MCATs, Affirmative Action, and DEI, Oh My

[laughing dog]

How so?

By giving them a preference in admissions.

You know this because…..?

How is that counter productive?

Because it is a form of segregation. In this case not driven by whites, but by blacks.

How is “segregation” necessarily “counter productive”?

 

[Toni]

No, not at all. You are the person who thinks only certain degrees should be funded by the state.

I don't think she is. I think her concern is about the number of certain degrees.

We need some English Lit PhDs. But probably significantly fewer than universities are graduating at the moment.
A few years ago we had a thread about PhDs working poorly paid adjunct professor jobs. A big reason for it is the oversupply - all those people got their PhD in the hope of using them to teach in college. Except there are too many of them, so universities hire them as adjuncts teaching a few courses each.

Do you not think that oversupply of any major should be discouraged?

Why do you believe that some collective ‘we’ knows the value of and market for certain Ph.D’s? I don’t mean to be rude here but I’m not that smart and neither are you.

You and I have a different world view: You seem to think that the only real value of any degree is how many bucks you can make from it. My personal view is that people who earn PhDs in some area of English ( or whatever discipline you want to knock on) are smart enough to know the market for their degree. Sure sure: some people do think they can beat the odds.

But I contend that education is of value to the person pursuing knowledge—and also to society as a whole. Even if the person never earns a dime using that particular knowledge/degree.

I know for certain that the government does not do a good job of predicting all of the kinds of jobs needed 10 years or 20 years or 5 years from now.

It’s weird to me. I see you and Emily as being very anti-government telling people what they can and cannot do to the extent possible but here you both are, trying to argue that the government t has any business at all telling people what they should or cannot study. You’re basically arguing for government control in a way that sounds a lot like communism.

 

[Politesse]

From here. We spend a little more than countries like France, Germany and even Canada.

France is literally in flames because years of austerity budgeting have gutted their schools...

 

[ZiprHead]

Yes, you are correct. That was changed early this year.

Are you sure? I think I remember it being 10 years even when I graduated, and that was >20 years ago.

Damn, you;re good.

1965: The Higher Education Act formally set the benchmark 10-year repayment structure for federal student loan guarantees. [1, 2]

I was thinking of this.
2026: Recent federal legislation adjusted the standard repayment framework into a tiered 10-to-25-year model for brand-new loans disbursed after July 1, 2026. [1, 2]

 

[Derec]

One of the primary justifications for the prices a physician charges is absolutely rooted in the need to discharge enormous student debt.

Is it? I somehow doubt they would be happy with much lower salaries if you got rid of the need for them to take on student loans.

Another piece that goes into the cost of a simple office visit os that out of the fee that is paid, only a percentage goes into the physician’s bank account,

Of course. But when we talk about physician salaries, all that is accounted for. Salary is not the same as gross revenues.

Straight out paying for public education through university and grad and professional schools is a step towards lowering the cost of a doctor’s visit.

I do not think it would. It would just cost the taxpayers more.
Changing how medical services are compensated would do that. US is mostly "fee for service".

I don’t resent doctors being paid well.

Depends on the kind of doctor really. I do not think most PCPs are overpaid, and surgeons command high pay because of the skills involved and long hours most of them work.
But there is also a type of doctor that games the "free for service" model where they can schedule a lot of short appointments (often telehealth so they don't even have to leave their house) prescribing trendy meds like GLP-1s, boner pills or or antidepressants and charging as much as a full length in-person appointment. Low overhead, high volume results is a very high salary at the expense of patients.

I resent insurance companies deciding what treatments I can receive and where and by whom and under what circumstances.

Unless you pay cash for everything, some other entity has to decide what treatments are approved or not. If not a private insurance company, then some government agency like the NHS. There is no system where a third party will pay for your medical treatment with no restrictions and no approval process.

Truthfully, I think that everyone should be able to earn enough at a full time job to pay for good housing, good food, good medical care, transportation, clothing, utilities: basic necessities of life.

What does that have to do with doctors being overpaid in the US compared to other OECD countries?

 

[Derec]

Here’s the thing: Maybe it should not but it frankly dies matter if students see someone teaching a class who looks like them. My husband’s destine t used to be comprised of only make faculty. Once they hired a woman, there was an uptick in female majors.

Having people who look like you is very different than wanting only (or >90%) people who look like you. The HBCU model is the latter. It's the antithesis of diversity. I think it is hypocritical to tout diversity for others but support monochormaticity for your ingroup.

So?

See my explanation to Toni. Do you really support such hypocrisy or are you just being contrarian for the sake of being a contrarian?

 

[Derec]

France is literally in flames because years of austerity budgeting have gutted their schools...

France is literally in flames because of years of treating spoiled rioters with kid gloves. I think last time they rioted because the government wanted to raise the retirement age from 62 to 64.

 

[Derec]

The GI Bill that paid for college did not distinguish between private and public institutions.

[citation needed]

There is a distinct difference between thinking no one should have to take out loans and canceling student debt.

It's the same idea, just different implementation.

 

[Derec]

How is “segregation” necessarily “counter productive”?

So now you are in favor of segregation as long as it's the blacks that are segregating?

 

[laughing dog]

Here’s the thing: Maybe it should not but it frankly dies matter if students see someone teaching a class who looks like them. My husband’s destine t used to be comprised of only make faculty. Once they hired a woman, there was an uptick in female majors.

Having people who look like you is very different than wanting only (or >90%) people who look like you. The HBCU model is the latter. It's the antithesis of diversity. I think it is hypocritical to tout diversity for others but support monochormaticity for your ingroup.

According to AI

Black students make up roughly 76% of total enrollment across Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs). [1]

Key Details

• • Non-Black Enrollment: Non-Black students (including White, Hispanic, Asian, and other racial backgrounds) make up the remaining 24% of HBCU enrollment. [1]
  • Historical Trend: The share of Black students at HBCUs has shifted over the decades—down from about 85% in 1976—as more diverse student populations have chosen HBCUs for their affordability and academic environments. [1, 2]
  • Institution Variation: While most HBCUs maintain a strong Black majority (over 80% Black at 65 of the 99 institutions), a small number of public or community HBCUs—such as West Virginia State University and St. Philip's College—enroll student bodies where Black students represent a minority. [1]

Moreover, there are 8 HCBU's where black students make up less than 50% of the student body.

So provide evidence to support your assertion that HCBUs want only (or >90%) blacks.

So?

See my explanation to Toni. Do you really support such hypocrisy or are you just being contrarian for the sake of being a contrarian?

Your explanation is based on misinformation, misunderstanding, and unreason.

 

[laughing dog]

How is “segregation” necessarily “counter productive”?

So now you are in favor of segregation as long as it's the blacks that are segregating?

Evading the question with a non-sequitur suggests you either do not understand the question or cannot answer the question.

 

[laughing dog]

There is a distinct difference between thinking no one should have to take out loans and canceling student debt.

It's the same idea, just different implementation.

No it is not. Cancelling student debt is a retroactive policy. Funding higher education so that students do not have to take out loans is a pro active policy.

 

[Toni]

Here’s the thing: Maybe it should not but it frankly dies matter if students see someone teaching a class who looks like them. My husband’s destine t used to be comprised of only make faculty. Once they hired a woman, there was an uptick in female majors.

Having people who look like you is very different than wanting only (or >90%) people who look like you. The HBCU model is the latter. It's the antithesis of diversity. I think it is hypocritical to tout diversity for others but support monochormaticity for your ingroup.

So?

See my explanation to Toni. Do you really support such hypocrisy or are you just being contrarian for the sake of being a contrarian?

Oh, I’m very aware of why some (white) people prefer all white or mostly white instructors and classmates. I have friends who are not white and who teach at public universities. I know some of the shit they have to put up with. Mostly from their students.

But that’s a bit off topic: see LD’s post re: HBC’s.

 

[Derec]

Why do you believe that some collective ‘we’ knows the value of and market for certain Ph.D’s? I don’t mean to be rude here but I’m not that smart and neither are you.

I recall an old thread where this was an issue. An oversupply of PhDs in certain fields, like history or English (or even worse, an EdD), led to most of them taking jobs as adjuncts. Of course, the issue is not just the degrees, but that they got these degrees because they wanted to teach those subjects at a college level. But of course, there is a limited demand for it.

You and I have a different world view: You seem to think that the only real value of any degree is how many bucks you can make from it.

It's not about my worldview. It's about that I do think that vast majority of people pursuing advanced degrees do so not solely for their personal edification, but because they are seeking a career where such a degree is either necessary or helpful.

My personal view is that people who earn PhDs in some area of English ( or whatever discipline you want to knock on) are smart enough to know the market for their degree. Sure sure: some people do think they can beat the odds.

Do they? I think the "sure sure" is much more common than you think.
But if you want to pursue a degree with limited career prospects, then unless you get a scholarship or have parents with bulging 529, then you should go to your state school. In state tuition at a public university is much lower than at a private one. And I think it's fair for the federal government to restrict the amount that can be borrowed based on projected ability to repay it. If you are dead-set on majoring in say theater, maybe don't insist to go to Davidson (tuition: $73k/a) as well.

But I contend that education is of value to the person pursuing knowledge—and also to society as a whole. Even if the person never earns a dime using that particular knowledge/degree.

It really depends. If a career is not a goal, and thus formal credentials do not matter, then one can educate oneself for free.

I know for certain that the government does not do a good job of predicting all of the kinds of jobs needed 10 years or 20 years or 5 years from now.

If you want government role in funding education, then it is the government that has to do the planning and predicting. The alternative is a private market. I don't think aspiring physicians would have much problems attracting private funding, but those seeking an English Lit BA at Davidson or Oberlin will probably struggle even more than under what I or Emily think the government should do for federal loans.

It’s weird to me. I see you and Emily as being very anti-government telling people what they can and cannot do to the extent possible but here you both are, trying to argue that the government t has any business at all telling people what they should or cannot study.

If there is a government program to fund education, then by necessity there needs to be some method to decide how those funds are spent. Government resources are limited, and thus decisions have to be made. That is true for countries with tuition-free university too. It's not just open to anyone to study anything.

You’re basically arguing for government control in a way that sounds a lot like communism.

Wrong. Neither I nor Emily argue for some kind of "single payer" program for educational funding. We don't want to ban 529s, private loans nor income share agreements.
So how exactly is it like communism? Because we don't think government programs should be indiscriminate?

 

[Derec]

Oh, I’m very aware of why some (white) people prefer all white or mostly white instructors and classmates. I have friends who are not white and who teach at public universities. I know some of the shit they have to put up with. Mostly from their students.

So in other words: white people bad, mkay.

As to LDs posts, no thanks. Even as we disagree, your posts at least show some intelligent engagement with the subject matter. LD is just automatically gainsaying.

 

[Toni]

One of the primary justifications for the prices a physician charges is absolutely rooted in the need to discharge enormous student debt.

Is it? I somehow doubt they would be happy with much lower salaries if you got rid of the need for them to take on student loans.

Another piece that goes into the cost of a simple office visit os that out of the fee that is paid, only a percentage goes into the physician’s bank account,

Of course. But when we talk about physician salaries, all that is accounted for. Salary is not the same as gross revenues.

Straight out paying for public education through university and grad and professional schools is a step towards lowering the cost of a doctor’s visit.

I do not think it would. It would just cost the taxpayers more.
Changing how medical services are compensated would do that. US is mostly "fee for service".

I don’t resent doctors being paid well.

Depends on the kind of doctor really. I do not think most PCPs are overpaid, and surgeons command high pay because of the skills involved and long hours most of them work.
But there is also a type of doctor that games the "free for service" model where they can schedule a lot of short appointments (often telehealth so they don't even have to leave their house) prescribing trendy meds like GLP-1s, boner pills or or antidepressants and charging as much as a full length in-person appointment. Low overhead, high volume results is a very high salary at the expense of patients.

I resent insurance companies deciding what treatments I can receive and where and by whom and under what circumstances.

Unless you pay cash for everything, some other entity has to decide what treatments are approved or not. If not a private insurance company, then some government agency like the NHS. There is no system where

Truthfully, I think that everyone should be able to earn enough at a full time job to pay for good housing, good food, good medical care, transportation, clothing, utilities: basic necessities of life.

What does that have to do with doctors being overpaid in the US compared to other OECD countries?

First of all: physician salaries are being conflated by some with fees for service.

Secondly: the persons who should be involved with determining a patient’s treatment t options are: the physician, operating under the guidance of whatever policies and best practices established by the directors of the medical facility, state medical boards, AMA, etc. and the patient.

Not any insurance company or legislature.

If I go to the doctor and am diagnosed with a disease or condition requiring medical intervention, it should be my decision from options and with advice from my doctor ( or PA or NP)—not the insurance company. The insurance company cares only about profits for shareholders. They are not physicians and they have no experience with me as a patient. They are not competent to make medical decisions for anyone. What they make are financial decisions that determine medical treatment for people they don’t know and have no medical training to make.

It is —well, worse than sad —wrong—that telemedicine is taking the place of real in person medical exams and consultations. Sometimes people live in remote areas and telemedicine is the only practical way to receive medical care.

If you want to argue about limiting the scope of telemedicine, I’ll probably be right there with you.

I do not know for certain abd gave y a clue where to look to find out but my gut tells me doctors practicing telemedicine are not commanding huge salaries based off televisits.

 

[laughing dog]

Oh, I’m very aware of why some (white) people prefer all white or mostly white instructors and classmates. I have friends who are not white and who teach at public universities. I know some of the shit they have to put up with. Mostly from their students.

So in other words: white people bad, mkay.

That straw man response is uncalled for. Whether you admit it or not, bigotry exists, and its victims have to deal with it. And before you get in huff about it, notice that the previous sentence neither mentions race nor targets race.

As to LDs posts, no thanks. Even as we disagree, your posts at least show some intelligent engagement with the subject matter. LD is just automatically gainsaying.

That is yet another untrue statement you have made about me.

 

[Toni]

Oh, I’m very aware of why some (white) people prefer all white or mostly white instructors and classmates. I have friends who are not white and who teach at public universities. I know some of the shit they have to put up with. Mostly from their students.

So in other words: white people bad, mkay.

As to LDs posts, no thanks. Even as we disagree, your posts at least show some intelligent engagement with the subject matter. LD is just automatically gainsaying.

Racism is bad. Segregation was/remains bad. It allows different t groups of people to make erroneous assumptions about those in the other groups and occasionally about themselves and the extent to which they deserve their luck.

Sexism is also bad. I’ve sat in classrooms where a handful of male students repeatedly challenged the female professor (PhD) during an intro level course. They were not particularly bright, refusing to learn from a lowly woman.

I’ve witnessed it from the other side as well, with female coworkers expressing shock and disbelief that a handsome young make coworker was an accomplished cook abd capable of sewing a pair of curtains—and straight. My mother in law liked to believe that men were incompetent in the kitchen and was infuriatingly dismissive of my husband/her son’s accomplishments as a cook. it was her main fault—she loved all of her kids deeply and openly but she believed the kitchen and running a home were a woman’s domain. It was infuriating because it was hurtful and he did not deserve that disregard.

No one—no one at all deserves to be thought less capable because of stereotypes. Or because of who their parents are or where they were born or what language is their first language or what religion they grew up in —including no religion. No one deserves to be considered less capable because of their sex or gender or sexual orientation. Everyone should be treated equally under the law regardless of their socioeconomic status. Everyone deserves safe housing and clean water and decent nutritious food and access to good medical care and education.

These are basic functions of a decent society.

 

[Emily Lake]

Unfortunately, in university, art classes tended to be limited to art majors and I was a biology major so.......

You did not have free electives at your university?

Everyone wants to take art as an elective. My school limited art classes to those with at least a declared minor.

I was a math major with an art minor.

 

[Emily Lake]

Why do you believe that some collective ‘we’ knows the value of and market for certain Ph.D’s? I don’t mean to be rude here but I’m not that smart and neither are you.

This doesn't require you to be super smart. It just requires some really basic common sense.

• Do we need competent primary school teachers? Yes. Are we likely to continue needing competent primary school teachers in the future? Also yes.
• Do we need farmers and ranchers? Yes. Are we likely to continue needing competent farmers and ranchers in the future? Also yes.
• Do we need plumbers? Yes. Are we likely to continue needing plumbers in the future? Also yes.
• Do we need health actuaries? Sort of but not really a lot of them. Are we likely to continue needing health actuaries in the future? Odds are grim.
• Do we need russian literature experts? I mean, maybe two or three I suppose. Are we likely to continue needing russian literature experts in the future? We can probably get by without them and it's not going to cause any widespread suffering.

I get that you value education - so do I. But this isn't rocket surgery, Toni. Not all education has the same potential, the same social value, and the same need.

It’s weird to me. I see you and Emily as being very anti-government telling people what they can and cannot do to the extent possible but here you both are, trying to argue that the government t has any business at all telling people what they should or cannot study. You’re basically arguing for government control in a way that sounds a lot like communism.

This is a false representation of my argument. And I'm pretty sure you are aware that it's a false representation.

But your argument sure loses a lot of oomph when you try to say "I see you being very anti-government control, but here you are arguing that the government should be prudent in how it spends tax dollars and should only fund higher ed in fields that meet a clear societal need".