• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Moved Medical school admissions and race - was: VP pick

To denote the thread has been moved
Blacks are highly under represented among med students and doctors. This is a problem, because there is evidence that black patients have superior health outcomes when treated by black doctors.
So what is your solution? Lower the standards even more for black students? And what if that means that they are more likely to flunk out of med school or not pass their board exams? Institute "race-conscious" policy for STEP too?
Because lower grades and MCAT scores also beget lower STEP scores.
Screenshot_2.png
From:
The impact of United States Medical Licensing Exam (USMLE) step 1 cutoff scores on recruitment of underrepresented minorities in medicine: A retrospective cross-sectional study

Note that the authors are in full favor of the "more diversity" doctrine, but even they had to admit the facts.

The right way to get more blacks into medicine is to close the achievement gap, not to apply different standards to black students. That's the soft bigotry of low expectation that has become so endemic on the left.

And I find this idea that black patients should be treated by black doctors basically segregationist.

There are multiple factors for that, one being that a black doctor is more likely to be familiar with the typical lives of black people, and understanding of a patient is important. Even infant mortality rates are impacted.
What are "typical lives of black people"? And do you extend this to others - i.e. only white doctors understand the "typical lives of white people", only Asian doctors understand the "typical lives of Asian people"?
Another factor is that black people often have a distrust of the medical community for very rational reasons, they have been abused by highly unethical practices in medicine and medical research.
That's called prejudice. I do not think aspiring medical students should be discriminated against on the basis of race becasue of bigotry of some black patients.
The most famous but far from only example being the Tuskegee study (which was still happening into the 1970's).
This study ended in 1972, more than half a century ago. Why should some 24 year old be punished over it?
AAMC is an organization that is fully committed to racial preferences and will jump on anything to justify that.
That all matters for this med school issue, because it is highly plausible that the health benefits of having more black doctors outweigh any impact of lower entrance exam scores on the quality of the doctors post med school. And improving actual health outcomes of people is the most important basis for med school admissions decisions.
Even if that were true, it perpetuates stereotypes about only black physicians being good for black patients. Especially if the different outcomes are largely based on prejudice on the part of black patients.
 
I’m almost certain I’m old enough to be your mom and I’m pretty sure you’d be insulted if I started referring to you as boy. However informal this forum.
Depends on context I would say. Just like with girl. But I do not think only girls/women should be allowed to use the word "girl" as you implied upthread.
People are allowed to be as insulting and demeaning as they wish to be. And people are allowed to be offended, even if no offense is intended.

Parents of adults are still asked how many children or grandchildren they have and how many boys and how many girls. High school coaches typically refer to their male team players as 'men' even though often they are not yet allowed to vote and maybe can't yet drive a car. They are still boys.

Female players are almost always called 'girls.' There is nothing inherently wrong with this but calling male high school players 'men' elevates their status or makes them want to become more mature and adult. It increases their self respect. It encourages them to step up to the occasion. Or I assume that's the intention.

Referring to the same age female players as girls is perhaps more accurate than calling them women but it still plays into the stereotype that in females, the most important virtues are youth and possibly virginity, a certain perpetual childhood that keeps women 'safe.' Of course, who they need to be kept safe from is generally boys and men.

Analogous to boy, girl also denotes a lesser status, one lacking authority or power. Somehow, woman has become kind of a dirty word. Adolescent and adult female persons are often called 'ladies' as a less offensive term than woman, implying that they are a better sort of adult female.
It is an insult to boys and men to be referred to as girl or lady or perhaps woman.

Imagine growing up when what you are is considered an insult if used for a (white) male.

In any case, there is nothing illegal about calling anyone boy or girl. In the wrong context or setting, it might be considered rude or dismissive.

I realize that you may never have looked at it this way before but now you know that it can be offensive, in the wrong context. What you do is up to you.
 
Especially not young Black adults. :whistle:
giphy.webp


Filing motion to end this particular fruitless derail.

I meant being called one, but whatever, I expected you to do the semantic boogaloo.
 
"Girl" is commonly used in the English language for young adult women.
It is wrong to do so, disrespectful, lacking respect and dignity.
The Left just loves to police language in most weird of ways ...
It's not about policing language; It's about calling out disrespect.

The word "Girl" is not a problem - until it is used disrespectfully, towards someone who has done nothing to earn our derision.
Indeed. Language has nuance, both in the words, grammar, context of the situation, and how it is emphasized when it is being spoken. History also is often involved in how things get interpreted.

Some people are overly sensitive to the words used towards them, including those who were told that what they just said wasn't appropriate.
 
...says the guy who flipped out when Trayvon Martin's mother called him her child.
No, I never "flipped out". I was just criticizing those on the old forum who insisted a 17 year old is a "child"....

So it's okay when you try to police someone's words in reference to a third party but when someone informs you that usage of words that apply directly to them are not their preferred terminology and they provide justified reasoning for it, that's bad, bad bad. That is rather bizarre and inconsistent reasoning. I will add that you also tried to police people's words when it came to calling Trayvon Martin a "kid," but in other threads when discussing entrants to college or persons you wished to defend who were in college you personally called them "kids," even if ADULTS. Your posts criticizing people for word policing are very inconsistent with your posts where you try to police other people's words, but you also use the same words you try to police when it's your favorite people being discussed.
 
Even if that were true, it perpetuates stereotypes about only black physicians being good for black patients. Especially if the different outcomes are largely based on prejudice on the part of black patients.
That conjecture appears more as like an example of the pot calling the kettle black than anything else.
 
I would think that more important than the statistical breakdown by race of students getting in to medical school would be the statistics of quality of care once those students get out of school and become doctors. Does Derec have the statistics to show that any of these supposedly “sub-par” applicants who get into medical school because of their race end up providing sub-par care to their patients?

I believe I have seen studies that do support a contention made here that white doctors do provide sub-par care to non-white patients. Presumably, if there is a problem with letting in less qualified non-white medical students we should see supporting evidence of that bad decision in the results of care, yes?
 
Blacks are highly under represented among med students and doctors. This is a problem, because there is evidence that black patients have superior health outcomes when treated by black doctors.
So what is your solution? Lower the standards even more for black students? And what if that means that they are more likely to flunk out of med school or not pass their board exams? Institute "race-conscious" policy for STEP too?
Because lower grades and MCAT scores also beget lower STEP scores.
View attachment 47348
From:
The impact of United States Medical Licensing Exam (USMLE) step 1 cutoff scores on recruitment of underrepresented minorities in medicine: A retrospective cross-sectional study

Note that the authors are in full favor of the "more diversity" doctrine, but even they had to admit the facts.
.

What your article shows is that about 87% of blacks pass the USMLE board exams on the first attempt, despite being admitted to med school with lower scores. And other data show 70% of people who fail and retake it pass. So, we're talking about maybe 4% who won't get licensed, which is not a big deal.
The article also showed that the numerical score difference between whites and blacks is small, only 0.35 standard deviations. The article stressed that if residencies use their own score cut offs that are higher than pass/fail , they will exclude many under-represented doctors, pointing to the same evidence I did that this will cause lack of doctors and poorer health in poor and minority communities. Well, guess what happened two years ago? The USMLE only now reports pass/fail scores.

As for flunking out of med school, only about 5% of blacks currently do so, despite being admitted with lower scores. So, a slight reduction in scores admitted is unlikely to increase failure rates more than 1% or so. Plus, the evidence that black doctors, despite having lower scores, increase the health and reduce mortality of their black patients shows that those scores have no meaningful impact on whether they become good doctors.


The right way to get more blacks into medicine is to close the achievement gap, not to apply different standards to black students. That's the soft bigotry of low expectation that has become so endemic on the left.

Only racists who ignore the still existing impacts of racism and pervasive white supremacy on black achievement would think there is anything wrong with looking beyond small differences in achievement scores when gatekeeping who can attempt to acquire the knowledge and skills to be a doctor and solve the crisis of doctor shortages that is killing people.

Of course, we should also strive to close the achievement gap caused by centuries of oppression and racism. but the right denies the reality of the causes of that gap and of refuses the efforts needed to help close it, which includes funneling additional (and yes, disproportionate) resources into those communities victimized for centuries and well into the late 20th century very disproportionate lack of resources.
But the gap is the result of centuries and will take a long time even with direct strong efforts at the grade school level. We shouldn't let black communities suffer for a couple centuries, though most on the right could care less about that.

And I find this idea that black patients should be treated by black doctors basically segregationist.

Yeah, I'm sure that is what bothers you. You're not fooling anyone. No one is suggesting black patients are only allowed to see black doctors, which would be segregationist. They are suggesting their should before black doctors available, first so that there are any doctors available for black people since white doctors are less willing to serve those communities, and second so there is a choice of doctors for patients to choose from, so they have better health outcomes. The actual lives of black people currently getting poor healthcare is more important than your pretense of being upset about what you wrongly construe as segregation.


Another factor is that black people often have a distrust of the medical community for very rational reasons, they have been abused by highly unethical practices in medicine and medical research.
That's called prejudice. I do not think aspiring medical students should be discriminated against on the basis of race becasue of bigotry of some black patients.

No, it is called rational evidence based distrust based on objective fact. They are not prejudging, they are post judging after the white controlled medical industry has proven itself to have no regard for black lives. It will take a lot of counter evidence until they have rational basis to believe that is no longer true.

The most famous but far from only example being the Tuskegee study (which was still happening into the 1970's).
This study ended in 1972, more than half a century ago. Why should some 24 year old be punished over it?

No 24 year olds are being punished for it, stop you insane narrative. What is happening is blacks continue to suffer because of they have been given no reason to trust that anything has changed, and the rabid white supremacy that is the heart of the MAGA movement gives them plenty of evidence that white supremacy is no less today than when that and other medical studies were killing black people. Plus, that was just one of dozens of examples.

AAMC is an organization that is fully committed to racial preferences and will jump on anything to justify that.

AAMC is committed to committed to something you and MAGAs care less about, black people having access to effective live saving health care.
And the AAMC is just citing several peer reviewed published studies that clearly support the point, but I'm sure you didn't bother to read it because why bother with evidence when you have dogma.
 
Last edited:
I get so tired of the endless effort to discount and dismiss the data that does show discrimination and disparate outcomes and tries to make it NEVER about racism, (or sexism, or ablism,) under the assumption that racism doesn’t exist. That’s it’s all yesteryear, and none of that matters any more.
And I get so tired of all the data that might remotely be connected being treated as ironclad proof. If there actually is high quality evidence why do we see the crap returning over and over?
Arguing that women are treated badly by doctors for some reason OTHER than that they are women.
That Black people lose out on mortgage and property equity for some reason that is NOT race.
That disabled people suffer job discrimination for some reason that ISN’T ablism.
And nobody has presented any reason to think it wasn't about whether a loan would end up underwater.

If it's about race why does it make zero difference the race of the buyer of any given house? If it's about race why does it make zero difference on an 80/20 mortgage? Any answer needs to consider why they "discriminate" only against low-down mortgages. Until that is addressed it's garbage data.

Of course, of course. It’s like a broken fucking record. It’s always some elusive factor that can’t be fixed. NEVER is it bias. Never should bias be addressed. Never should bias be mitigated or counteracted.
It's a broken record because you keep ignoring the problems with the arguments you are using. Repeating the same flawed argument 1000 times doesn't make it fixed.

So what if the OUTCOME is that minorities, women, marginalized groups are always the victims of this. So what if the ongoing disparities are never solved. As long as white guys never ever ever have to think that they are dwelling in a systemic bias that harms others but not them.
Asians are clearly the victim in university situations. I don't consider the marginalized.

You just keep on living in your bias bubble thinking none of it is ever worth fixing. And I’ll keep looking at the harmful effect your opinion has on real people, and know that you don’t wish to care about it.
You're skipping the step where you prove the discrimination in the first place.
 
One study that comes to mind is the 83 000 fake resumes the researchers sent out with white names, Hispanic names, black sounding names and different genders. I wouldn’t call discrimination against a potential employee a disparate outcome. Obvious the disparate outcome arises as this occurs over time a population. Of course there are other causes for disparate outcomes- and there are specific studies for these too. Generational wealth/poverty as already mentioned.

I will link the study if you’re interested
The Freakonomics guys noticed some big problems.

1) If it's racism why does the race of the person making the hiring decision not matter? Black employers are just as likely as white to "discriminate".

2) What even is a white name? What they found was that there was a very good correlation between the average educational level of people with a name and how hiring managers responded to resumes with that name. Once again, a confounder that's never been addressed.
 
First - may I remind you that they are not “girls”. They are women. They are adult, post-pubescent humans. It’s time to stop infantilizing women by calling them children.
"Girl" is commonly used in the English language for young adult women.
It is wrong to do so, disrespectful, lacking respect and dignity.
If it's so wrong why do a lot of the female hikers I know use it to refer to themselves and other female hikers?
 

The first one focuses on infant mortality. For many reasons black infants have higher mortality rates than whites. But when black mothers and their infants are treated by black doctors, the infant mortality rate difference is cut in half. They control for insurance provider, which hospital, time of year, and the 65 most prevalent predictors of infant mortality.

The second study is a longitudinal study over 10 years examining 1600 different US counties for the life expectancy and mortality rate differences between whites and blacks in those counties (every county in the USA with at least a single black PCP).
"Between-county influence results indicated that greater Black workforce representation was associated with higher life expectancy and was inversely associated with all-cause Black mortality and mortality rate disparities between Black and White individuals."
Am I missing something? Because neither of these seem to control for a known problem: What the hospital is like. You get inferior care at inner city hospitals. Inner cities hospitals have more black births.

And black workforce rates would be related to the environment. Better outcomes in wealthier areas.

"Black workforce representation" was measured by dividing the % of PCP in a country who are black by the % of residents of that county who are black (so equal representation among PCPs and the population would be 1.0.

In addition to controlling for difference in total number of doctors, they controlled for all the following: rural or urban designation, percentage living under the poverty threshold, percentage of uninsured individuals, median age, percentage who identified as Hispanic, ratio of men per women, percentage with less than a high school degree, median home value, unemployment percentage, percentage of Medicare-enrolled individuals, age-adjusted percentage of adult tobacco smokers, percentage of adults with obesity, average daily density of fine particulate matter (air pollution), and number of hospital beds.
They analyzed those various factors and we see that there's a lot of noise. That paper does not show that the result is not socioeconomic.

In addition to this strong evidence of better health outcomes for blacks with access to black doctors, see my post above on this page about the evidence that black patients who have access to black doctors are more willing to seek medical care, honestly disclose to their doctor, and follow doctor advice. This is a result of both general culturally widespread white supremacy that leads to their distrust, and also the long and recent history of abhorrently unethical (nazi-like) experimentation on blacks causing the pain and death (with Tuskegee being just one example).
You're assuming black doctors are distributed equally.
 
You don’t have to be a person of color to have doctors under treat your pain or other symptoms. Just female. And it’s worse if you are a woman of color. Black and Native American women have the highest rates of maternal mortality.
While I do agree that women's symptoms tend to get dismissed there's the very real issue of what facility. An awful lot of it comes down to the quality of care they have access to, not whether doctors are treating them differently.
Speaking from personal experience, your suppositions are absolutely incorrect. Data does not support your 'guess' either.
I'm agreeing with women getting inferior treatment.

It's the racial part that has been shown to be facility rather than patient.
 

Female players are almost always called 'girls.' There is nothing inherently wrong with this but calling male high school players 'men' elevates their status or makes them want to become more mature and adult. It increases their self respect. It encourages them to step up to the occasion. Or I assume that's the intention.
I have never heard an adult male refer to other adult males as "boys". I have heard many adult females refer to other adult females as "girls".
 
You don’t have to be a person of color to have doctors under treat your pain or other symptoms. Just female. And it’s worse if you are a woman of color. Black and Native American women have the highest rates of maternal mortality.
While I do agree that women's symptoms tend to get dismissed there's the very real issue of what facility. An awful lot of it comes down to the quality of care they have access to, not whether doctors are treating them differently.
Speaking from personal experience, your suppositions are absolutely incorrect. Data does not support your 'guess' either.
I'm agreeing with women getting inferior treatment.

It's the racial part that has been shown to be facility rather than patient.
No, it absolutely HAS NOT been shown that it is the (assuming you mean) lower quality facility rather than the race of the patient or doctor that causes different outcomes for patients. Yes, it is complex, but even controlling for education, socioeconomic class, black patients tend to have much worse medical outcomes compared with white patients. I've mentioned this before but I will do it again: Serena Williams, an extremely wealthy, educated woman with a very deep understanding of her own body nearly died because her doctors would not listen to her.
 

Female players are almost always called 'girls.' There is nothing inherently wrong with this but calling male high school players 'men' elevates their status or makes them want to become more mature and adult. It increases their self respect. It encourages them to step up to the occasion. Or I assume that's the intention.
I have never heard an adult male refer to other adult males as "boys". I have heard many adult females refer to other adult females as "girls".
Really? Never?
Maybe it's a regional thing, but a guy saying something that starts with "The boys and I are gonna..." wouldn't be the least bit unusual around here.

Generally, like "girls", it's more of a familiarity thing. A person's friends or a church group or a batch of siblings, something like that.
Tom
 
If it's racism why does the race of the person making the hiring decision not matter?
Because racism is cultural rather than personal. There are plenty of racist black people, who think that they themselves are the exception, but that black people are inferior as a rule.

What even is a white name?
Loren Pechtel.
 
First - may I remind you that they are not “girls”. They are women. They are adult, post-pubescent humans. It’s time to stop infantilizing women by calling them children.
"Girl" is commonly used in the English language for young adult women.
It is wrong to do so, disrespectful, lacking respect and dignity.
If it's so wrong why do a lot of the female hikers I know use it to refer to themselves and other female hikers?
Because context is everything.

As has already been pointed out.
 
Back
Top Bottom