DOJ says Yale medical school discriminated against Asian, White applicants

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Bingo! Falls right in line why Ken Griffin openly prioritizes athletes in hiring at Citadel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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[b]. 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.

Totally false!
Harvard won in the lower courts which were liberal dominated. They lost at the Supreme Court. You liberals are just pure evil.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Bingo! Falls right in line why Ken Griffin openly prioritizes athletes in hiring at Citadel.

Go visit citsec and then tell us what the demographics are.

[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?

I don't think most maga voters care anything at all about Yale or Harvard. or higher education anywhere else for that matter.

[Anonymous]

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.

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?

I don't think most maga voters care anything at all about Yale or Harvard. or higher education anywhere else for that matter.

Libs labeling again.

[Anonymous]

Sue the crap out of them.

[Anonymous]

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.

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?

I don't think most maga voters care anything at all about Yale or Harvard. or higher education anywhere else for that matter.

Libs labeling again.

Not sure if those libs are just exercising their labeling obligation or actually that idiotic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Bingo! Falls right in line why Ken Griffin openly prioritizes athletes in hiring at Citadel.

Good to know! But both Citadel and Citsec are more than 50% Asian. So maybe Asians are good athletes after all.

[Anonymous]

The system is stacked against whites and asians. Hopefully they can finally get equality.

[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.

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?

I don't think most maga voters care anything at all about Yale or Harvard. or higher education anywhere else for that matter.

Libs labeling again.

Not sure if those libs are just exercising their labeling obligation or actually that idiotic.

Yale medical school probably subscribes to vacccine science and abortion as needed healthcare and IVF to tackle certain fertility issues and medical research based on the scientific method and on and on. But sure, maga are all in for Yale medical school education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's not being one dimensional but rather racism.

Cope harder.

Like the Jews back in the days?

The fact that you’re comparing Asians struggling to have a personality on paper to the verifiable Jewish quotas is insane.

Interestingly, DC’s Asian friends who consistently earned top grades in English at our rigorous private got into top schools. DC’s Asian friends that struggled in English didn’t. So clearly there is a correlation between masterful writing ability and college outcomes.

The fact that you couldn't (refuse to?) see the Asians/Jews similarity is insane. Lack of personality is a convenient excuse, useful back then and useful now.

Cry about it in College Park.

[Anonymous]

HYP wants the brightest Whites, Asians, Blacks, Latinos, Natives, etc. So, no, Cindy is not getting in just because she has a 1550 and a 4.0 because half the other Asian applicants are more impressive than that. Black/Latino/Native kids have historically been disadvantaged more than other races, so obviously they’re not all churning out 1580s left and right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:HYP wants the brightest Whites, Asians, Blacks, Latinos, Natives, etc. So, no, Cindy is not getting in just because she has a 1550 and a 4.0 because half the other Asian applicants are more impressive than that. Black/Latino/Native kids have historically been disadvantaged more than other races, so obviously they’re not all churning out 1580s left and right.

How do know who is the brightest? I thought it was just a sampling of the "qualified" because if you're qualified then it doesn't matter who is the best above that threshold. It can't be both.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:HYP wants the brightest Whites, Asians, Blacks, Latinos, Natives, etc. So, no, Cindy is not getting in just because she has a 1550 and a 4.0 because half the other Asian applicants are more impressive than that. Black/Latino/Native kids have historically been disadvantaged more than other races, so obviously they’re not all churning out 1580s left and right.

After decades of this policy there is essentially no movement in scores. It's not because of ability. It's because people respond to incentives. We're not doing anyone favors by allowing differences in preparation to vary by this much. We're baking in different expected achievement levels culturally. It's really dangerous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:HYP wants the brightest Whites, Asians, Blacks, Latinos, Natives, etc. So, no, Cindy is not getting in just because she has a 1550 and a 4.0 because half the other Asian applicants are more impressive than that. Black/Latino/Native kids have historically been disadvantaged more than other races, so obviously they’re not all churning out 1580s left and right.

How do know who is the brightest? I thought it was just a sampling of the "qualified" because if you're qualified then it doesn't matter who is the best above that threshold. It can't be both.

It's like no one on this forum has ever needed to go see a doctor. We've all had medical issues for ourselves and our families and have been to a variety of doctors. Some are really talented and some are useless even if smart. And there seems to be a lot more to it then a score on a test.