New "Affirmative Action" nonsense

[Jolly_Penguin]

Does there exist "affirmative action" for those low on socioeconomic status? Do the poorer amongst us get admitted with lower scores, with points given for having a tough life? Or are there just bursaries to help pay for it once a poorer person actually gets in?

 

[Rhea]

The college or employer is basically saying, "holy shit, you did that with asthma!?" and they are rightly expecting this is a person who has shown that she can push through tough stuff. The other runner may be able to, or may not, but one can't tell that it has already likely happened as one can with the asthmatic.

Except this is assuming that all blacks suffer the same handicaps.

Since the actual problem is parental/cultural and not genetic this isn't the case. "Black" is an imperfect proxy for "troubled upbringing".

Clarifying - I obviously never equated black with troubled upbringing. I said it could be correlated to "more difficult time accessing things" if you're going to put words in my mouth, please don't make them stupid words.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Correlated or a perfect match? Because if it isn't a perfect match, then you are being at least somewhat racist in equating it. And is "more difficult time accessing things" something that will show up on test scores? If so, how so? If not, then why lower test score requirements?

 

[Metaphor]

We saw the study where women's resumes with exactly the same education and work experience get scored lower, showing that women who get the same score had to work harder in the test of scientific academic hires. Some people reading that concluded that women deserved that because... women, and some people saw that this means you get the very same fucking person with two different scores. The women's is lower. The score is lower, and the resume is absolutely no different.

Isn't it interesting, Rhea, that here you appear to be arguing that people with the exact same scores should be treated the same. I couldn't agree more, Rhea.

So that means people who have the same GPA and MCAT score should have the same chances of gaining admission as each other, right? And race should play no part, right?

No that is not what I was saying. I was saying that two people who performed the same level of work got two different scores, and that this is real.

And people who demonstrated the same aptitude and achievement by GPA and MCAT get different chances of admission, and that is real, too.

It's an unfortunate situation, don't you think?

 

[Metaphor]

I did not say that. I described how indeed something like an extremely difficult youth can indeed get you points on the olympic team.

I know you didn't say that. You twisted yourself in knots to avoid saying it. But by answering a different question, you thought you could dodge the question I asked.

The only reason I can think of for you to dodge the question I asked is that the implications of your answer are troubling for your support of affirmative action.

But you knew that. Look, I'm not trying to convince you. I can't. We see different things. I'm only describing what convinces me. If you never see any of what I'm describing it will never make any sense to you and you'll think this opinion is unfounded, because most of the evidence is not visible to you. Descriptions on my part won't bridge that gulf.

No, I don't see what you see since I don't live in America, but even if I did see what you see, I'd still disagree that affirmative action is the solution.

 

[J842P]

I'm going to answer this so no one can say I've dodged a question in this thread, despite my own very simple question being completely ignored.

Most important question to me: Why don't you believe that, in the absence of discrimination, over time, differences in test scores (all) of different races, ethnic groups, minorities would disappear or flatten out? Why don't you believe that in the absence of discrimination, the proportion of students from various ethnic groups/minorities/races/whatever admitted to universities and professional schools would more closely reflect the actual portion of the population?

Why do you believe it would? Asians tend to score significantly higher than whites in most standardized tests. Do you suppose that is because Whites are discriminated against compared to Asians? Or could it be that levels of discrimination in a society are only a component of the overall picture with regards to educational outcomes?

I believe that intelligence and academic ability are not more heavily distributed among some ethnic and racial groups more than other groups.

What do you believe?

I believe that if you take non-random groupings from a population you are likely to observe a non-random distribution of any given trait. There are very many ethnic groups and many of them are likely to have experienced a strong founder effect in the past. So yeah, I believe that it is more than likely that genetic variation associated with intelligence and academic ability is not evenly distributed among racial groups. That being said, I don't think the true genetic variation would necessarily be consistent with the racial prejudices present in our society. Indeed, I'm highly skeptical of that claim.


Additionally, I don't believe that the genetic variation comes even close to accounting for differences in observed variation, measured by things like IQ and academic achievement, and that environmental factors, especially those associated with poverty, would explain the majority of observed variation.

I do not think discrimination explains a significant portion of the disparity in test scores among different racial groups, which isn't to say that strong, institutionalized discrimination in the past didn't lead to some of those factors existing today that do explain it. But I don't think that if I magically waved a wand and racial discrimination were removed that all of the sudden the disparity in academic achievement would disappear for disadvantaged minority groups.

I think that discrimination most affects blacks in the United States, and they would make some modest gains if all discrimination were removed.

And now that I've answered your question, perhaps you would do me the courtesy of finally answering my question (which I've repeated 2 or 3 times so far):

Do you think it's OK for privileged Hispanics to get a leg up over poor Asians? If so, do you think poor Asians haven't been discriminated against like Hispanics, and haven't had to live in dangerous neighborhoods with crappy schools and be subjected to the disadvantages associated with lower income?

 

[J842P]

When the United States selects runners for its Olympic team, do you add and subtract to people's demonstrated run times based on how privileged the runners were, or whether they had poor nutrition as a child?

When the united states picks athletes for their olympic team, they do not go strictly on scores/times. They include a measure of reliability and performance under pressure. They would rather have a gymnast who can get a steady 14 than one who might get 16 or might get 10. There have been many sports talk shows about this.

So, your answer is 'no', the United States does not give leeway to people who had poor nutrition, or penalise those from elite training backgrounds, when selecting its Olympic athletes.

Why was it difficult for you to admit the obvious?

I did not say that. I described how indeed something like an extremely difficult youth can indeed get you points on the olympic team.

But you knew that. Look, I'm not trying to convince you. I can't. We see different things. I'm only describing what convinces me. If you never see any of what I'm describing it will never make any sense to you and you'll think this opinion is unfounded, because most of the evidence is not visible to you. Descriptions on my part won't bridge that gulf.

Rhea, I'm going to ask you a direct question. Should Asians be racially discriminated against, even poor ones, to the advantage of Hispanics. If so, why? Keep in mind when you frame your responses that saying "you don't understand the plight of Hispanics" doesn't really apply in my case.

- - - Updated - - -

No, I don't see what you see since I don't live in America, but even if I did see what you see, I'd still disagree that affirmative action is the solution.

This gets the the crux of the matter.

 

[J842P]

edited to add: I realize this is subtle and perhaps you will never be able to understand what thing I'm thinking and feeling when I consider it, but here goes. I said "how hard they have to work to get access to things. If you get something easy or you get something hard, you have a different view of the thing and a different process that you have practiced. If you see something that others are achieving easily and you keep getting detours, you will, in order to get that same thing that they got, have a different experience.

So, if there's an Asian kid with a 3.8 GPA and a 680 SAT and a Hispanic kid with a 3.3 GPA and a 590 SAT who are neighbors in the same suburb, go to the same school, have parents that have about the same income, etc you let the Hispanic kid in because you presume he "had to work harder to get access to things"?

What does that even mean?

Isn't it a bit insulting to Hispanics?

I'll note that dismal has asked a version of my question, and furthermore, I will note that it has been ignored. Why is this question so difficult to address directly?

 

[Jokodo]

The college or employer is basically saying, "holy shit, you did that with asthma!?" and they are rightly expecting this is a person who has shown that she can push through tough stuff. The other runner may be able to, or may not, but one can't tell that it has already likely happened as one can with the asthmatic.

Except this is assuming that all blacks suffer the same handicaps.

Since the actual problem is parental/cultural and not genetic this isn't the case. "Black" is an imperfect proxy for "troubled upbringing".

It's a very good proxy for "having had to deal with racism", and specifically and as a consequence thereof fairly good proxy for "not having received all the encouragement someone with your talents should have received".

That's not even disputable. It is an empirical fact that people in positions to make an impact - teachers, potential hirers, etc. - on aggregate rate the exact same performance lower when they believe they're dealing with a black person (or a woman) than when they believe it's a white male.

These are handicaps that are directly caused by being black in the US of today. Not because "genetic", not because "parental/cultural", but because (mostly implicit) racism.

 

[Jokodo]

Correlated or a perfect match? Because if it isn't a perfect match, then you are being at least somewhat racist in equating it. And is "more difficult time accessing things" something that will show up on test scores? If so, how so? If not, then why lower test score requirements?

If you have two people, one of whom with a privileged background that allowed him or her to get a GPA of 3.8 while only investing 80 units of effort, while the other had to invest 100 units of effort to get a 3.7, it is reasonable to expect the latter to overtake the former by the end of their university careers, is it not?

 

[Toni]

We saw the study where women's resumes with exactly the same education and work experience get scored lower, showing that women who get the same score had to work harder in the test of scientific academic hires. Some people reading that concluded that women deserved that because... women, and some people saw that this means you get the very same fucking person with two different scores. The women's is lower. The score is lower, and the resume is absolutely no different.

Isn't it interesting, Rhea, that here you appear to be arguing that people with the exact same scores should be treated the same. I couldn't agree more, Rhea.

So that means people who have the same GPA and MCAT score should have the same chances of gaining admission as each other, right? And race should play no part, right?

No that is not what I was saying. I was saying that two people who performed the same level of work got two different scores, and that this is real.

And people who demonstrated the same aptitude and achievement by GPA and MCAT get different chances of admission, and that is real, too.

It's an unfortunate situation, don't you think?

Two people who have the same GPA and the same MCAT scores may or may not have the same aptitude and may or may not have achieved the same, except having received the same score. Those metrics say nothing at all about whether or not a candidate would make a good doctor, aside from the ability to score well on tests. After you pass the boards, nobody gives a fuck how good you are at passing tests or getting high scores. They care about how well you are able to relate to patients, deal with frustration, solve real life problems, work as part of a team, for starters.

Two people with the same HIGH ENOUGH GPA and MCAT scores are about as likely to be admitted to medical school. Although not all of those with high scores are admitted to medical school because not all people who can get good grades and good test scores would actually be good doctors.

GPA and MCAT are not the only criteria for acceptance into medical school. If you read the link I posted a while back, there was a very nice, detailed discussion of the rationale of criteria other than GPA and MCAT scores.

 

[J842P]

Correlated or a perfect match? Because if it isn't a perfect match, then you are being at least somewhat racist in equating it. And is "more difficult time accessing things" something that will show up on test scores? If so, how so? If not, then why lower test score requirements?

If you have two people, one of whom with a privileged background that allowed him or her to get a GPA of 3.8 while only investing 80 units of effort, while the other had to invest 100 units of effort to get a 3.7, it is reasonable to expect the latter to overtake the former by the end of their university careers, is it not?

What does this all have to do with deducting (metaphorical) points from people with slanted eyes and giving extra points to people with brown skin? Do people really believe that the most important determinant of one's "privilege" is race? You think it is fair to consider a poor white kid or a poor Asian kid as having a significant advantage over ALL Hispanics, enough so that even those Hispanics or blacks that actually come from a privileged background (i.e. money) will be given lower entrance standards than the poor Asians?

 

[J842P]

We saw the study where women's resumes with exactly the same education and work experience get scored lower, showing that women who get the same score had to work harder in the test of scientific academic hires. Some people reading that concluded that women deserved that because... women, and some people saw that this means you get the very same fucking person with two different scores. The women's is lower. The score is lower, and the resume is absolutely no different.

Isn't it interesting, Rhea, that here you appear to be arguing that people with the exact same scores should be treated the same. I couldn't agree more, Rhea.

So that means people who have the same GPA and MCAT score should have the same chances of gaining admission as each other, right? And race should play no part, right?

No that is not what I was saying. I was saying that two people who performed the same level of work got two different scores, and that this is real.

And people who demonstrated the same aptitude and achievement by GPA and MCAT get different chances of admission, and that is real, too.

It's an unfortunate situation, don't you think?

Two people who have the same GPA and the same MCAT scores may or may not have the same aptitude and may or may not have achieved the same, except having received the same score. Those metrics say nothing at all about whether or not a candidate would make a good doctor, aside from the ability to score well on tests. After you pass the boards, nobody gives a fuck how good you are at passing tests or getting high scores. They care about how well you are able to relate to patients, deal with frustration, solve real life problems, work as part of a team, for starters.

GPA and MCAT are not the only criteria for acceptance into medical school. If you read the link I posted a while back, there was a very nice, detailed discussion of the rationale of criteria other than GPA and MCAT scores.

I'm not sure how many times this must be repeated, but that is completely irrelevant to the discussion of why we should be considering the slant of the eye or the darkness of the skin, unless you believe that people with slanted eyes are by their very nature less apt by the measures besides GPA/MCAT/SAT.

 

[Toni]

I was just thinking of something else. In terms of black enrollment at universities, wouldn't one need to take into account that the US has a number of historically black colleges that a large number of black students decide to go to and therefore one would expect a smaller number of black students at other universities in relation to their share of the demographics?

According to this site, there are about 7 million people enrolled in public four year universities in the US right now. According to wiki, African Americans are about 12.5% of the US population, so one would expect about 875,000 black students to be in that group.

According to this site, about 200,000 of those students are going to historically black universities, where they make up about 85% of the student bodies.

If close to a quarter of the potential applicants form this group choose to go to a historically black college, one would expect the demographics from this group at all other colleges and universities to be lower as a result.

Here's a link to a list of historically black colleges and universities in the U.S. How many are above the Mason/Dixon line? Hint: very few.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_historically_black_colleges_and_universities

MOST university students attend universities which are geographically close to their homes, largely because of both economics and because of familiarity. In the case presented in the OP, the state was Michigan, which has exactly one historically black college, a business college I never heard of, despite living in the Detroit area for a number of years.

Do you know why there exist historically black universities? Do you think it is an accident that almost all are located in the South?

 

[Toni]

edited to add: I realize this is subtle and perhaps you will never be able to understand what thing I'm thinking and feeling when I consider it, but here goes. I said "how hard they have to work to get access to things. If you get something easy or you get something hard, you have a different view of the thing and a different process that you have practiced. If you see something that others are achieving easily and you keep getting detours, you will, in order to get that same thing that they got, have a different experience.

So, if there's an Asian kid with a 3.8 GPA and a 680 SAT and a Hispanic kid with a 3.3 GPA and a 590 SAT who are neighbors in the same suburb, go to the same school, have parents that have about the same income, etc you let the Hispanic kid in because you presume he "had to work harder to get access to things"?

What does that even mean?

Isn't it a bit insulting to Hispanics?

Can you demonstrate that your scenario actually happens?

- - - Updated - - -

Does there exist "affirmative action" for those low on socioeconomic status? Do the poorer amongst us get admitted with lower scores, with points given for having a tough life? Or are there just bursaries to help pay for it once a poorer person actually gets in?

Actually, there is a bigger push now for diversity of socioeconomic status, at least by some schools. In some ways, this has been the case for many years as many schools have sought to include students from a diverse geography.

 

[Toni]

When the United States selects runners for its Olympic team, do you add and subtract to people's demonstrated run times based on how privileged the runners were, or whether they had poor nutrition as a child?

When the united states picks athletes for their olympic team, they do not go strictly on scores/times. They include a measure of reliability and performance under pressure. They would rather have a gymnast who can get a steady 14 than one who might get 16 or might get 10. There have been many sports talk shows about this.

So, your answer is 'no', the United States does not give leeway to people who had poor nutrition, or penalise those from elite training backgrounds, when selecting its Olympic athletes.

Why was it difficult for you to admit the obvious?

Actually, the U.S. does have Olympic development programs which scout and support prospective athletes for some sports, at least. Generally speaking, there is a lot of scholarship money involved. That elite training is very expensive.

 

[Rhea]

Rhea, I'm going to ask you a direct question. Should Asians be racially discriminated against, even poor ones, to the advantage of Hispanics. If so, why? Keep in mind when you frame your responses that saying "you don't understand the plight of Hispanics" doesn't really apply in my case.

This is a meaty question, a good one. My answer will be full of nuance and shades and subtlety. Can you handle that? Some folks here can't, which is why people may not be answering this question. There are several levels of discourse going on here, and some of the levels damage other levels beyond comprehension. So a question that addresses the nuances may be regrettably passed up because of the expected sledge-hammer reaction that it is sure to elicit from some of the commenters here.

But I'll step in with some of my thoughts. Never perfect, of course, just an opinion. Always open to new information and different angles if they make sense.

One question is whether the university has anything to gain in "creating a diverse atmosphere." Whether something is at play that they are trying to create that goes beyond a collection of the most likely to score high. If the university can foster a better academic atmosphere (in their opinion) by having a wide variety of approaches, of personalities, of ideas all present on campus; if that academic atmosphere becomes more rich and hence makes a bigger mark on the world through its graduates; if that academic atmosphere binds the students together in a way that is unusual or special or, well, again, marketable.

If the university feels this is better for fostering their product, they will feel that discriminating against high-scoring but perhaps monochromatic populations will be a "should do".

Do _I_ think that? Yeah, I think I do. I have spent meetings in rooms full of high white foreheads and it is _weird_ and creepy. Plus they all think alike. I _love_ working with diverse populations, they have different ways of looking at things, they have a fun and colorful (not to them because it's normal to them, to me it's colorful) effect on a team. I would love to see more hispanic people in my workplace, just as I would like to see a few more southerners and Scandinavians and natives. It makes the whole team more vibrant - and more productive and inventive, IMHO.

So do I think some cultures should have to answer for more than their test scores to get on my team? I think it would make my team better, yes.

 

[Toni]

We saw the study where women's resumes with exactly the same education and work experience get scored lower, showing that women who get the same score had to work harder in the test of scientific academic hires. Some people reading that concluded that women deserved that because... women, and some people saw that this means you get the very same fucking person with two different scores. The women's is lower. The score is lower, and the resume is absolutely no different.

Isn't it interesting, Rhea, that here you appear to be arguing that people with the exact same scores should be treated the same. I couldn't agree more, Rhea.

So that means people who have the same GPA and MCAT score should have the same chances of gaining admission as each other, right? And race should play no part, right?

No that is not what I was saying. I was saying that two people who performed the same level of work got two different scores, and that this is real.

And people who demonstrated the same aptitude and achievement by GPA and MCAT get different chances of admission, and that is real, too.

It's an unfortunate situation, don't you think?

Two people who have the same GPA and the same MCAT scores may or may not have the same aptitude and may or may not have achieved the same, except having received the same score. Those metrics say nothing at all about whether or not a candidate would make a good doctor, aside from the ability to score well on tests. After you pass the boards, nobody gives a fuck how good you are at passing tests or getting high scores. They care about how well you are able to relate to patients, deal with frustration, solve real life problems, work as part of a team, for starters.

GPA and MCAT are not the only criteria for acceptance into medical school. If you read the link I posted a while back, there was a very nice, detailed discussion of the rationale of criteria other than GPA and MCAT scores.

I'm not sure how many times this must be repeated, but that is completely irrelevant to the discussion of why we should be considering the slant of the eye or the darkness of the skin, unless you believe that people with slanted eyes are by their very nature less apt by the measures besides GPA/MCAT/SAT.

I am sorry that you are unwilling to read or unable to understand the information in the link previously posted. Not as sorry as to read your continual phrase 'slant of the eye.' How disgusting.

I am sorry that you are unable or unwilling to understand or accept that GPA and MCAT scores are only a portion of the criteria used to select medical school students. And always have been. Interviews and recommendations have ALWAYS been an important part of the selection criteria. In the past, it just happened that most recommendations came from alumni and donors who were quite likely to be white, male and happy to write recommendations for their golf buddy's son/nephew because their golf buddy would happily do the same for theirs.

 

[Toni]

No, I'm not. I'm asking you (or anyone reading and replying) a question. That question has been ignored. I'll repeat it again:

Do you think it's OK for privileged Hispanics to get a leg up over poor Asians? If so, do you think Asians haven't been discriminated against just like Hispanics, and haven't had to live in dangerous neighborhoods with crappy schools? If you don't think that, then why do you think that Hispanics as a group should get preferential treatment and why should Asians be discriminated against because of their race? How does that do anything to right previous injustices?

A quota system would indeed reward (on average) wealthy students of any racial makeup over (on average) students of low socioeconomic status because a great deal of achievement is reflective of socioeconomic status of the parents, rather than actual ability of the students. This holds true in countries other than the U.S. To an increasing degree, universities and professional schools are looking for diversity in more than just racial and ethnic parameters.

Please see this, which you seem to have missed before:

http://www.smbs.buffalo.edu/FACULTY/...olicy_2013.pdf

I didn't miss that. I honestly have no idea what you think that shows. That is some medical schools statement of selection criteria. I graduated in 2011. I am intimately aware of the process of med school admissions. Although I went the PhD route, many of my friends are going to medical school. I read many similar statements from many different schools because I served as the moral support for one of my good friends/ house-mate who was applying at the top level. He ended up getting into Johns Hopkins University (though he decided to attend medical school closer to his family), so I know what the best, most competitive students look like and what they went through.

It is a fact that those in power make the rules and generally make the rules such that the power structure favors the status quo. This can be deliberate and conscious as it has been done openly in the past and still is practiced in less open ways today. But it also includes much more subtle, and even unintentional bias if the thinking comes from one or from a narrow range of perspectives. As groups which were traditionally excluded absolutely, and often by law if not just policy and custom, from institutions of higher learning gain admission to such hallowed halls, and take their place in the professional class, yes, there is more influence. But it still pales compared to the power wielded by those who have held power since the beginning of this country and before.

Despite the decades since the Civil Rights Movement began, there still exists tremendous inequality that is centered on race, even against blacks and Hispanics who are highly educated and highly successful.

Again, I have no idea what this is in regards to. I am aware of the history and current status of race relations and politics in the United States. I am not sure how actively discriminating based on racial criteria today is somehow justified given previous racial discrimination. Why should MINORITIES today (people from East and South Asia) have to put up with institutionalized discrimination against them?

It is true that whites no longer get an automatic place in the front of the line.

I don't understand. So now, black people and Hispanic people have gained institutionalized advantages over Asians and Indians and whites in the limited sphere of college admissions. I suppose since white people are being harmed, that's suppose to make it OK? I don't follow you. Honestly. I cannot understand the point you are making. If the point you are making is that black and Hispanic people (and actually Asian people too) used to live in a society where there were strong institutions keeping them disadvantaged, vestiges of which still exist today, then I'm not sure how that is relevant to the issue at hand.

I have been trying to catch up on the thread, hence some pretty piecemeal responses. I am sure I am missing some posts I would like to respond to but it's a pretty hectic time of year for me. I'm doing my best.

Short answer:

Yes, that was one particular medical school's criteria for selection. I posted that particular link as it was the most detailed one that I could find online.

Like you, I know quite a few successful medical school applicants (including Johns Hopkins--she has graduated now) and also some who were not successful. I am quite aware of not only what it takes to get accepted into medical school but also what it takes to become a physician and further, what it takes to become a good physician. Some of the ones I know who were not successful applicants were extremely good students with perfect or near perfect GPAs and very high MCAT scores but poor interpersonal skills and one brilliant student who quite frankly applied to medical school as an act of rebellion (and who ended up in a very prestigious Ph.D. program in mathematics, where she belonged.) And some who were not quite such excellent students.

Medical schools do use criteria which is not limited to MCAT and GPA because they want to admit students who actually want to practice medicine and in particular, students who are likely to graduate and practice medicine in areas and in populations which are poorly served.

Asian is a pretty all encompassing term. In fact, at least some schools are actively encouraging applications from those with SE Asian backgrounds.

And no, I don't think Asians have been discriminated against 'just like Hispanics.' Asians have experienced discrimination because they are Asian and also specific discrimination particular to their background.

 

[J842P]

I'm not sure how many times this must be repeated, but that is completely irrelevant to the discussion of why we should be considering the slant of the eye or the darkness of the skin, unless you believe that people with slanted eyes are by their very nature less apt by the measures besides GPA/MCAT/SAT.

I am sorry that you are unwilling to read or unable to understand the information in the link previously posted. Not as sorry as to read your continual phrase 'slant of the eye.' How disgusting.

I am sorry that you are unable or unwilling to understand or accept that GPA and MCAT scores are only a portion of the criteria used to select medical school students. And always have been. Interviews and recommendations have ALWAYS been an important part of the selection criteria. In the past, it just happened that most recommendations came from alumni and donors who were quite likely to be white, male and happy to write recommendations for their golf buddy's son/nephew because their golf buddy would happily do the same for theirs.

The fact that there are other criteria becides GPA and MCAT have never once been a point of contention in this thread. Do you really believe that I don't understand that there are other criteria that applicants are judged by? The issue is whether candidates should be judged on their race. Or are you seriously trying to argue that the link you provided is suppose to be some sort of response to Metaphor's clear demonstration of racial bias in admissions?

Also, spare me your complaints of disgust. They ring hollow when you fail to be disgusted by the blatant, institutionalized, racial discrimination against Asians in college admissions. Apparently all that is fine. But heaven forbid someone facetiously use the term "slanted eyes!" The horror!

- - - Updated - - -

No, I'm not. I'm asking you (or anyone reading and replying) a question. That question has been ignored. I'll repeat it again:

Do you think it's OK for privileged Hispanics to get a leg up over poor Asians? If so, do you think Asians haven't been discriminated against just like Hispanics, and haven't had to live in dangerous neighborhoods with crappy schools? If you don't think that, then why do you think that Hispanics as a group should get preferential treatment and why should Asians be discriminated against because of their race? How does that do anything to right previous injustices?

A quota system would indeed reward (on average) wealthy students of any racial makeup over (on average) students of low socioeconomic status because a great deal of achievement is reflective of socioeconomic status of the parents, rather than actual ability of the students. This holds true in countries other than the U.S. To an increasing degree, universities and professional schools are looking for diversity in more than just racial and ethnic parameters.

Please see this, which you seem to have missed before:

http://www.smbs.buffalo.edu/FACULTY/...olicy_2013.pdf

I didn't miss that. I honestly have no idea what you think that shows. That is some medical schools statement of selection criteria. I graduated in 2011. I am intimately aware of the process of med school admissions. Although I went the PhD route, many of my friends are going to medical school. I read many similar statements from many different schools because I served as the moral support for one of my good friends/ house-mate who was applying at the top level. He ended up getting into Johns Hopkins University (though he decided to attend medical school closer to his family), so I know what the best, most competitive students look like and what they went through.

It is a fact that those in power make the rules and generally make the rules such that the power structure favors the status quo. This can be deliberate and conscious as it has been done openly in the past and still is practiced in less open ways today. But it also includes much more subtle, and even unintentional bias if the thinking comes from one or from a narrow range of perspectives. As groups which were traditionally excluded absolutely, and often by law if not just policy and custom, from institutions of higher learning gain admission to such hallowed halls, and take their place in the professional class, yes, there is more influence. But it still pales compared to the power wielded by those who have held power since the beginning of this country and before.

Despite the decades since the Civil Rights Movement began, there still exists tremendous inequality that is centered on race, even against blacks and Hispanics who are highly educated and highly successful.

Again, I have no idea what this is in regards to. I am aware of the history and current status of race relations and politics in the United States. I am not sure how actively discriminating based on racial criteria today is somehow justified given previous racial discrimination. Why should MINORITIES today (people from East and South Asia) have to put up with institutionalized discrimination against them?

It is true that whites no longer get an automatic place in the front of the line.

I don't understand. So now, black people and Hispanic people have gained institutionalized advantages over Asians and Indians and whites in the limited sphere of college admissions. I suppose since white people are being harmed, that's suppose to make it OK? I don't follow you. Honestly. I cannot understand the point you are making. If the point you are making is that black and Hispanic people (and actually Asian people too) used to live in a society where there were strong institutions keeping them disadvantaged, vestiges of which still exist today, then I'm not sure how that is relevant to the issue at hand.

I have been trying to catch up on the thread, hence some pretty piecemeal responses. I am sure I am missing some posts I would like to respond to but it's a pretty hectic time of year for me. I'm doing my best.

Short answer:

Yes, that was one particular medical school's criteria for selection. I posted that particular link as it was the most detailed one that I could find online.

Like you, I know quite a few successful medical school applicants (including Johns Hopkins--she has graduated now) and also some who were not successful. I am quite aware of not only what it takes to get accepted into medical school but also what it takes to become a physician and further, what it takes to become a good physician. Some of the ones I know who were not successful applicants were extremely good students with perfect or near perfect GPAs and very high MCAT scores but poor interpersonal skills and one brilliant student who quite frankly applied to medical school as an act of rebellion (and who ended up in a very prestigious Ph.D. program in mathematics, where she belonged.) And some who were not quite such excellent students.

Medical schools do use criteria which is not limited to MCAT and GPA because they want to admit students who actually want to practice medicine and in particular, students who are likely to graduate and practice medicine in areas and in populations which are poorly served.

Asian is a pretty all encompassing term. In fact, at least some schools are actively encouraging applications from those with SE Asian backgrounds.

And no, I don't think Asians have been discriminated against 'just like Hispanics.' Asians have experienced discrimination because they are Asian and also specific discrimination particular to their background.

Can you explain to me how your response addresses any of the points in my post or in any previous posts? Honestly, it seems to me you aren't even trying to participate in a discussion but just wish to use the forum as some soapbox.