DOJ says Yale medical school discriminated against Asian, White applicants

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Elite schools want people. Not robots who pump and grind 24/7 without a purpose. The essays act as the differentiators. You can be academically qualified with certain numbers but that doesn’t equal qualified personality wise.

Harvard is one of the most liberal institutions in the US. To say that the whole admissions office must be racist against Asians and deny that Asians routinely score low on personality traits is massive cope.

This belief is exactly the proof of the huge IQ discrepancy. A person with significantly lower IQ would have no idea of how smarter people could achieve certain things without grinding because the kind of aptitude is simply out of their imagination.

Wrong. I said that because the Asian kids who grind at academics all day get shut out of the T20. The ones who naturally excel don’t because they have more time to devote to character development and ECs.

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

The discrimination claim failed twice and wasn’t even brought before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled in an equal protection argument that using race for anything in the decision process was a violation of the 14th amendment. Harvard flat out won, not once but twice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Maybe they are

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Elite schools want people. Not robots who pump and grind 24/7 without a purpose. The essays act as the differentiators. You can be academically qualified with certain numbers but that doesn’t equal qualified personality wise.

Harvard is one of the most liberal institutions in the US. To say that the whole admissions office must be racist against Asians and deny that Asians routinely score low on personality traits is massive cope.

SCOTUS ruling in Harvard lawsuits says exactly the opposite. So who do we believe? The SCOTUS or a liberal racist liar like you?

The SFFA case doesn’t say what you think that it does. Harvard won the discrimination portion of the case. The win was held up on appeal and not argued in front of the of the Supreme Court.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Elite schools want people. Not robots who pump and grind 24/7 without a purpose. The essays act as the differentiators. You can be academically qualified with certain numbers but that doesn’t equal qualified personality wise.

Harvard is one of the most liberal institutions in the US. To say that the whole admissions office must be racist against Asians and deny that Asians routinely score low on personality traits is massive cope.

This belief is exactly the proof of the huge IQ discrepancy. A person with significantly lower IQ would have no idea of how smarter people could achieve certain things without grinding because the kind of aptitude is simply out of their imagination.

So obnoxious but also true.

Sock puppet

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Elite schools want people. Not robots who pump and grind 24/7 without a purpose. The essays act as the differentiators. You can be academically qualified with certain numbers but that doesn’t equal qualified personality wise.

Harvard is one of the most liberal institutions in the US. To say that the whole admissions office must be racist against Asians and deny that Asians routinely score low on personality traits is massive cope.

SCOTUS ruling in Harvard lawsuits says exactly the opposite. So who do we believe? The SCOTUS or a liberal racist liar like you?

The SFFA case doesn’t say what you think that it does. Harvard won the discrimination portion of the case. The win was held up on appeal and not argued in front of the of the Supreme Court.

No one cares about the sophistic distinction you're trying to make, even if it might have some slim basis. Harvard's (and everyone else's) admissions practices were found to be illegal under the 1964 civil rights act. That overshadows anything else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Civil Rights Act of 1964 bans racial discrimination.

If people want positive discrimination or racial diversity, they have to either do it in a race-blind way (like geography, or discriminating by partisan affiliation, like Republican legistatures do) or pass an amendment to the Civil Rights Act.

But DOJ need to have evidence. If they make an argument based on disparate impact, that opens floodgates.

Grades and GPA beyond some basic qualifying threshold aren't relevant to graduating med school or being a doctor. There's no need to admit only the highest MCAT scorers.

If colleges can admit white kids for playing lax and rowing crew, they can admit black kids for living in Baltimore

Why not get rid of it? Republicans have gutted VRA, might as well take out the CRA. Everyone can discriminate who they want to.

Because the voting rights act enforces discrimination to reverse the impact of 100 years of Jim Crow. Now 60 years later, the preference is causing anti-racist gerrymandering.

Anti-racist gerrymandering? Oh, no! The horror!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Civil Rights Act of 1964 bans racial discrimination.

If people want positive discrimination or racial diversity, they have to either do it in a race-blind way (like geography, or discriminating by partisan affiliation, like Republican legistatures do) or pass an amendment to the Civil Rights Act.

But DOJ need to have evidence. If they make an argument based on disparate impact, that opens floodgates.

Grades and GPA beyond some basic qualifying threshold aren't relevant to graduating med school or being a doctor. There's no need to admit only the highest MCAT scorers.

If colleges can admit white kids for playing lax and rowing crew, they can admit black kids for living in Baltimore

Why not get rid of it? Republicans have gutted VRA, might as well take out the CRA. Everyone can discriminate who they want to.

Because the voting rights act enforces discrimination to reverse the impact of 100 years of Jim Crow. Now 60 years later, the preference is causing anti-racist gerrymandering.

That regiment is so stupid that it is laughable. Blaming the VRA for today’s blatantly partisan gerrymandering is way over the top but par for the course with your crew.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Elite schools want people. Not robots who pump and grind 24/7 without a purpose. The essays act as the differentiators. You can be academically qualified with certain numbers but that doesn’t equal qualified personality wise.

Harvard is one of the most liberal institutions in the US. To say that the whole admissions office must be racist against Asians and deny that Asians routinely score low on personality traits is massive cope.

SCOTUS ruling in Harvard lawsuits says exactly the opposite. So who do we believe? The SCOTUS or a liberal racist liar like you?

The SFFA case doesn’t say what you think that it does. Harvard won the discrimination portion of the case. The win was held up on appeal and not argued in front of the of the Supreme Court.

No one cares about the sophistic distinction you're trying to make, even if it might have some slim basis. Harvard's (and everyone else's) admissions practices were found to be illegal under the 1964 civil rights act. That overshadows anything else.

You really need to learn before hitting a keyboard. It is a huge distinction to anyone with a brain because they were not discriminating against Asians which is what people are screaming any time that admissions is based on something other than a test.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Elite schools want people. Not robots who pump and grind 24/7 without a purpose. The essays act as the differentiators. You can be academically qualified with certain numbers but that doesn’t equal qualified personality wise.

Harvard is one of the most liberal institutions in the US. To say that the whole admissions office must be racist against Asians and deny that Asians routinely score low on personality traits is massive cope.

SCOTUS ruling in Harvard lawsuits says exactly the opposite. So who do we believe? The SCOTUS or a liberal racist liar like you?

The SFFA case doesn’t say what you think that it does. Harvard won the discrimination portion of the case. The win was held up on appeal and not argued in front of the of the Supreme Court.

No one cares about the sophistic distinction you're trying to make, even if it might have some slim basis. Harvard's (and everyone else's) admissions practices were found to be illegal under the 1964 civil rights act. That overshadows anything else.

You really need to learn before hitting a keyboard. It is a huge distinction to anyone with a brain because they were not discriminating against Asians which is what people are screaming any time that admissions is based on something other than a test.

DP. Stop repeating the lies. If there was really no discrimination, the main stream media controlled by liberals would have had a field day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Elite schools want people. Not robots who pump and grind 24/7 without a purpose. The essays act as the differentiators. You can be academically qualified with certain numbers but that doesn’t equal qualified personality wise.

Harvard is one of the most liberal institutions in the US. To say that the whole admissions office must be racist against Asians and deny that Asians routinely score low on personality traits is massive cope.

SCOTUS ruling in Harvard lawsuits says exactly the opposite. So who do we believe? The SCOTUS or a liberal racist liar like you?

The SFFA case doesn’t say what you think that it does. Harvard won the discrimination portion of the case. The win was held up on appeal and not argued in front of the of the Supreme Court.

No one cares about the sophistic distinction you're trying to make, even if it might have some slim basis. Harvard's (and everyone else's) admissions practices were found to be illegal under the 1964 civil rights act. That overshadows anything else.

NP.

+1

The person repeatedly claiming Harvard won SFFA looks absolutely ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right, like they don’t cheat to get in at all.

Princeton (1/3 Asian now) announced they’re introducing proctoring back into exams due to widespread cheating.

In UC Berkeley (40% Asian) the number of students who require extra time on tests has nearly quintupled over past 15 years.

Let’s see what school wants to have a grind culture with cut throat competition and cheating? That’s right, none of them.

Why are the terms within the parentheses "Asian"? Why not "Hispanic" or "Black" or "Human"? Are you insinuating something?

Yes, they're all cheating, but have the gall to blame black students when they don't get into medical school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a bummer as studies have shown repeatedly that health outcomes for black patients (especially for chronic conditions) are much better when they see black physicians. Individuals in race-matched pairings are far more likely to see their doctors and even their mortality rate decreases

Ok, then HBCUs can start med schools.

Howard and Meharry have been producing black physicians and surgeons for well over a century now.

[Anonymous]

I find the assumption that standardized tests have no bearing on one's performance as a physician, perhaps outside of a few cognitively demanding specialties, pretty hilarious.

Doing well on standardized tests is not only correlated with stuff you'd expect (like credit score and years spent in school, both positively; or street crime, obviously negatively) but also stuff you wouldn't. There's a positive correlation with many aspects of emotional intelligence, such as being able to identify, describe, and regulate emotions. And negative correlations with even white collar crime, not to mention substance abuse, gambling, or being subject to discipline by professional boards.

Not all of these correlations are strong, but they all point in the same direction - being a good doctor. There is no correlation I know of between mediocre scores and traits that would make one a good physician.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a bummer as studies have shown repeatedly that health outcomes for black patients (especially for chronic conditions) are much better when they see black physicians. Individuals in race-matched pairings are far more likely to see their doctors and even their mortality rate decreases

Not a bummer at all. Don’t you want all doctors to meet the same qualifications regardless of race?

No, bigot troll moron, what I want is effective doctors.

White doctors have been wildly ineffective at treating Black patients for literally hundreds of years, apparently due to implicit bias.

I want Black patients to get the same quality of care as white patients. That’s the difference between you and me - you, and current DOJ leadership, don’t want positive outcomes for Black patients because you are bigots. As noted white supremacist Laura Loomer correctly said in a rare lucid moment, the GOP has a Nazi problem.

Cancer is cancer. Broken bones are broken bones. Heart disease is heart disease.

I really don't understand why anyone cares about the race of their doctor. You just want a good one in times of need, which everyone needs at some point. No one is looking for a best friend when they have a heart attack or stroke or get wrecked in a car accident.

What on earth does the race of a doctor have to do with anything? Most people just want a good, competent doctor when they need one.

And that's it.

Not looking to be besties with the doctor if I have stage 4 cancer or losing a limb. And I find it very weird when people get fixated on the melatonin content of their doctor's skin. That's an issue for the mental health ward.

Bless your heart.