MCATs, Affirmative Action, and DEI, Oh My

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

 

[Derec]

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.