DOJ says Yale medical school discriminated against Asian, White applicants

[Anonymous]

*pre-med clubs

[Anonymous]

Just because a kid grinded since preK, to do well on tests and went to Kumin, AeOPS, doesn’t make them better professionals at the end.

I like how Dutch universities in the Netherlands approached the problem when they realized that the kids getting into medical schools had one thing in common - wealthy parents who could afford extensive tutoring.

They introduced a lottery system. We should do the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Okay let's make this more concrete
You are the admissions committee. Your state is in need of more doctors willing to go into primary care to serve patients in underserved/rural areas. Here are your applicant potentials.
-Applicant 99% percentile MCAT, junior in college, has always wanted to be a doctor, did all of their pre-reqs with As. Joined the typical pre-med courses
-Applicant with 80% percentile MCAT. A nurse. did all her pre-reqs over the course of 3 years while working in a busy trauma center. Speaks fluent Spanish. Has won awards for patient-centered care. Has a family in the area and plans to stay to serve the community
-Applicant with 70% percentile MCAT. served in the military (thank you for your service). has a heart to serve the Veteran population. Wants to be a surgeon. has already done surgical training while serving (did EMS training).

And let me tell you... this is truly what the applicant pool looks like (if not more impressive).

You know based on historical data that anyone with >70% MCAT will pass all boards and succeed. Who will you pick?

DP. Great thought-provoking post.

I have no idea who I’d pick—legitimate and compelling reasons for each of them. I think (hope) most of us would agree.

Worth noting that these are race-neutral choices. My sense is that opponents’ primary objection is using race as a proxy for (and in lieu of) the kids of substantive differences listed in your hypothetical.

[Anonymous]

Low grades and MCAT scores are correlated with higher rates of discipline by medical boards (though less so than unprofessional behavior during training).

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa052596

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just because a kid grinded since preK, to do well on tests and went to Kumin, AeOPS, doesn’t make them better professionals at the end.

I like how Dutch universities in the Netherlands approached the problem when they realized that the kids getting into medical schools had one thing in common - wealthy parents who could afford extensive tutoring.

They introduced a lottery system. We should do the same.

Lottery system? Yup, let's do the same to other professions. Lottery to design/fly airplanes, play in the Boston Symphony Orchestra, or make an NBA roster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just because a kid grinded since preK, to do well on tests and went to Kumin, AeOPS, doesn’t make them better professionals at the end.

I like how Dutch universities in the Netherlands approached the problem when they realized that the kids getting into medical schools had one thing in common - wealthy parents who could afford extensive tutoring.

They introduced a lottery system. We should do the same.

We should definitely not have a random lottery for med school admissions. And of course there shouldn't be racial preferences either. There are tons of strong black and hispanic students these days. It's not 1926. If there is one field where you really want genuine talent, it's medicine.

For my grandparents generation, they used to seek out Jewish doctors, because they knew how much discrimination they faced in med school admissions back in that era. They figured Jews have to be very talented to get through all the discrimination from that time. Race and religion are dumb reasons to choose a doctor. Now everyone will want an asian or white doctor because it's so much tougher for them to get into med school. This is not wonderful. Health care is life and death stuff. No one gives a damn about the race or religion of their oncologist or surgeon. But people do need some assurance they are good and not gliding through because they got lucky with being born a certain race.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We all know many colleges discriminate against Asians and whites. It is a liberal trend that current administration tries to revert. Not because they care about law, or fairness, but because they care about predominantly white maga base. What maga doesn't get is that with a pure merit based adminission, top schools like Yale or Harvard will be 80%+ Asian. And it is not because Asian kids are smarter but because they work harder being pushed most of the times by their families. That's the reality like it or not.

As someone who voted for Trump - not sure if that qualifies me as MAGA, I don’t care at all if 80% of admissions go to Asians assuming that it’s due to merit.

Why in the world do you think this would bother MAGA?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We all know many colleges discriminate against Asians and whites. It is a liberal trend that current administration tries to revert. Not because they care about law, or fairness, but because they care about predominantly white maga base. What maga doesn't get is that with a pure merit based adminission, top schools like Yale or Harvard will be 80%+ Asian. And it is not because Asian kids are smarter but because they work harder being pushed most of the times by their families. That's the reality like it or not.

As someone who voted for Trump - not sure if that qualifies me as MAGA, I don’t care at all if 80% of admissions go to Asians assuming that it’s due to merit.

Why in the world do you think this would bother MAGA?

It sounds like you assume that the most selective schools in the country aren't admitted qualified applicants.

They have thousands of applicants with FLAWLESS academics applying, so they look at non-academic factors as well.

These people who assume that if you use non-academic factors, you must be admitted unqualified people are bonkers. Do you understand the size of these applicant pools. Step one is perfect academics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay let's make this more concrete
You are the admissions committee. Your state is in need of more doctors willing to go into primary care to serve patients in underserved/rural areas. Here are your applicant potentials.
-Applicant 99% percentile MCAT, junior in college, has always wanted to be a doctor, did all of their pre-reqs with As. Joined the typical pre-med courses
-Applicant with 80% percentile MCAT. A nurse. did all her pre-reqs over the course of 3 years while working in a busy trauma center. Speaks fluent Spanish. Has won awards for patient-centered care. Has a family in the area and plans to stay to serve the community
-Applicant with 70% percentile MCAT. served in the military (thank you for your service). has a heart to serve the Veteran population. Wants to be a surgeon. has already done surgical training while serving (did EMS training).

And let me tell you... this is truly what the applicant pool looks like (if not more impressive).

You know based on historical data that anyone with >70% MCAT will pass all boards and succeed. Who will you pick?

DP. Great thought-provoking post.

I have no idea who I’d pick—legitimate and compelling reasons for each of them. I think (hope) most of us would agree.

Worth noting that these are race-neutral choices. My sense is that opponents’ primary objection is using race as a proxy for (and in lieu of) the kids of substantive differences listed in your hypothetical.

Thought provoking I agree. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that MCAT is highly predictive of quality of doctor (measured by medical outcomes, say, I know that's hard). This is a hypothetical, bear with me.

Under that hypothetical, if you deliberately choose lower-scoring applicants (by a lot, in your hypo) to match the population, then this is not a harmless choice. You are actually saddling that population with worse doctors, compounding the medical challenges they already face.

So what this means is that you'd better be darn sure that the "unmeasurables" in your formulation really do add up to better care. The rub, of course, is that these are always unmeasurables. And in general Mr./Ms. 99%, who always wanted to be a doctor, while perhaps short on life experience, has been honing their ability to assimilate and analyze data from the cradle (if we are going to buy into stereotypes here) and reads med journals for fun. So they get some unmeasurables too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We all know many colleges discriminate against Asians and whites. It is a liberal trend that current administration tries to revert. Not because they care about law, or fairness, but because they care about predominantly white maga base. What maga doesn't get is that with a pure merit based adminission, top schools like Yale or Harvard will be 80%+ Asian. And it is not because Asian kids are smarter but because they work harder being pushed most of the times by their families. That's the reality like it or not.

Why would maga care if a lot of doctors are Asian? Does maga have respect for doctors of any race?

You didn't get it. Maga care about their white kids not getting into colleges and about them not being able to find white doctors. They blame it on DEI but even without the DEI, their kids will not get higher chances because in a merit based process Asian will fill all the spots.

Asians consistently fail holistic admissions. It’s not racism but rather being one dimensional.

This has been debunked again and again including the SCOTUS ruling in the Harvard lawsuit. And yet you keep bringing it up to mislead people. This is much less true than all white fathers raping their own daughters.

People rep always quoting the Harvard lawsuit as evidence of discrimination. Those people have no idea what they re talking about.

David Card completely dismantled the SFFA case and Harvard won the discrimination portion. They were found not to have discriminated against Asians in the plaintiff’s case and that any other discrimination that might have occurred was within legal bounds. The decision of the court had nothing to do with discrimination per se but rather the use of race in any manner for admissions purposes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When you had universities thrashing about when SFFA came out, did anyone believe these institutions would obey the constitution? If they get federal funds, they can't be racist.

It is a simple proposition.

DEI in individual admissions decisions is not racial discrimination.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just because a kid grinded since preK, to do well on tests and went to Kumin, AeOPS, doesn’t make them better professionals at the end.

I like how Dutch universities in the Netherlands approached the problem when they realized that the kids getting into medical schools had one thing in common - wealthy parents who could afford extensive tutoring.

They introduced a lottery system. We should do the same.

Racist stereotype, not true. Keep your cheap shots coming.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay let's make this more concrete
You are the admissions committee. Your state is in need of more doctors willing to go into primary care to serve patients in underserved/rural areas. Here are your applicant potentials.
-Applicant 99% percentile MCAT, junior in college, has always wanted to be a doctor, did all of their pre-reqs with As. Joined the typical pre-med courses
-Applicant with 80% percentile MCAT. A nurse. did all her pre-reqs over the course of 3 years while working in a busy trauma center. Speaks fluent Spanish. Has won awards for patient-centered care. Has a family in the area and plans to stay to serve the community
-Applicant with 70% percentile MCAT. served in the military (thank you for your service). has a heart to serve the Veteran population. Wants to be a surgeon. has already done surgical training while serving (did EMS training).

And let me tell you... this is truly what the applicant pool looks like (if not more impressive).

You know based on historical data that anyone with >70% MCAT will pass all boards and succeed. Who will you pick?

DP. Great thought-provoking post.

I have no idea who I’d pick—legitimate and compelling reasons for each of them. I think (hope) most of us would agree.

Worth noting that these are race-neutral choices. My sense is that opponents’ primary objection is using race as a proxy for (and in lieu of) the kids of substantive differences listed in your hypothetical.

Thought provoking I agree. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that MCAT is highly predictive of quality of doctor (measured by medical outcomes, say, I know that's hard). This is a hypothetical, bear with me.

Under that hypothetical, if you deliberately choose lower-scoring applicants (by a lot, in your hypo) to match the population, then this is not a harmless choice. You are actually saddling that population with worse doctors, compounding the medical challenges they already face.

So what this means is that you'd better be darn sure that the "unmeasurables" in your formulation really do add up to better care. The rub, of course, is that these are always unmeasurables. And in general Mr./Ms. 99%, who always wanted to be a doctor, while perhaps short on life experience, has been honing their ability to assimilate and analyze data from the cradle (if we are going to buy into stereotypes here) and reads med journals for fun. So they get some unmeasurables too.

Or it can just be a test of socioeconomic factors like having parents who support them to study all day. The nurse and veteran in this case have less time but more life experience and more supporting evidence that they can succeed in high stakes environments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We all know many colleges discriminate against Asians and whites. It is a liberal trend that current administration tries to revert. Not because they care about law, or fairness, but because they care about predominantly white maga base. What maga doesn't get is that with a pure merit based adminission, top schools like Yale or Harvard will be 80%+ Asian. And it is not because Asian kids are smarter but because they work harder being pushed most of the times by their families. That's the reality like it or not.

As someone who voted for Trump - not sure if that qualifies me as MAGA, I don’t care at all if 80% of admissions go to Asians assuming that it’s due to merit.

Why in the world do you think this would bother MAGA?

If what you are saying is true would be an exception to the rule.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We all know many colleges discriminate against Asians and whites. It is a liberal trend that current administration tries to revert. Not because they care about law, or fairness, but because they care about predominantly white maga base. What maga doesn't get is that with a pure merit based adminission, top schools like Yale or Harvard will be 80%+ Asian. And it is not because Asian kids are smarter but because they work harder being pushed most of the times by their families. That's the reality like it or not.

Why would maga care if a lot of doctors are Asian? Does maga have respect for doctors of any race?

You didn't get it. Maga care about their white kids not getting into colleges and about them not being able to find white doctors. They blame it on DEI but even without the DEI, their kids will not get higher chances because in a merit based process Asian will fill all the spots.

Asians consistently fail holistic admissions. It’s not racism but rather being one dimensional.

This has been debunked again and again including the SCOTUS ruling in the Harvard lawsuit. And yet you keep bringing it up to mislead people. This is much less true than all white fathers raping their own daughters.

People keep quoting the Harvard lawsuit as evidence of discrimination. Those people have no idea what they re talking about.

David Card completely dismantled the SFFA case and Harvard won the discrimination portion. They were found not to have discriminated against Asians in the plaintiff’s case and that any other discrimination that might have occurred was within legal bounds. The decision of the court had nothing to do with discrimination per se but rather the use of race in any manner for admissions purposes.