Pretends to be black to get into Medical school and it works

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have Egyptian friends who were born in Egypt (you know, actual Africa). They always checked that they were African American.

Egyptians are not African-American. Most forms that have a blurb about this sort of thing say that African-Americans are people of sub-saharan african descent. Most Egyptian immigrants come from privileged backgrounds, and a lot of them appear to be white, and go through their entire lives basically as white people with a neat ethnic story. I'm Egyptian, and I'm white to the point of pale. These are precisely not the type of people that need affirmative action. That is my problem with affirmative action- you are giving some people a boost, and those people are going to have to do the rest themselves, but how do you know you are giving that advantage to someone who really even needs it? I went to an elite college, and quite frankly, most of the black kids were children of well-to-do African immigrants. At this point, shouldn't affirmative action be based on socioeconomic data that you can't change and not on whatever race you decide to be that day?

If they went by socioeconomic data the number of AAs at schools would plummet. Poor whites and Asians drastically outperform poor blacks, and there are many more poor whites than there are poor blacks. For example, the children of the poorest white families get the same SAT scores as the children of the most affluent black families.

1. Do you have a cite for this information? I think this is an exaggeration, at best. We all know there is a racial disparity but if it is that extreme then more drastic steps need to be taken. Affirmative action is like trying to fix a broken leg with a band aid in this respect. Also, what you appear to be saying is that poor black kids are completely UN-qualified and have no shot of getting into college period. What the people above are arguing is that affirmative action is a boost for minorities that are already qualified. Both of those ideas cannot be true. If, instead of looking just at some subjective idea about race, colleges looked at socioeconomic data, they'd get kids who are actually in need. If you are worried about minority kids being left out, they could target specific regions where there are high concentrations of poor minorities and make sure to admit a proportion of students that way. By specifically targeting racial categories, you get a bunch of rich minority kids who were going to figure out a way to get to college anyway.

They quit breaking out the race/income numbers in 2005, but the numbers are from that year. Look at the last bullet.

But there is a major flaw in the thesis that income differences explain the racial gap. Consider these three observable facts from The College Board's 2005 data on the SAT:

• Whites from families with incomes of less than $10,000 had a mean SAT score of 993. This is 129 points higher than the national mean for all blacks.

• Whites from families with incomes below $10,000 had a mean SAT test score that was 61 points higher than blacks whose families had incomes of between $80,000 and $100,000.

• Blacks from families with incomes of more than $100,000 had a mean SAT score that was 85 points below the mean score for whites from all income levels, 139 points below the mean score of whites from families at the same income level, and 10 points below the average score of white students from families whose income was less than $10,000.

WRT poverty, http://www.nccp.org/media/releases/release_34.html

Whites make up 42% of poor people, blacks 27%. That coupled with the stark differences in scores would lead to a very large reduction in the number of black students accepted at competitive colleges if only SES were taken into account.

Is that a problem? Not being snarky....

[Anonymous]

Who is the liberal with the nose/lip/eye caliper and corresponding hair/skin color-texture combination calibration and formula so that I can tell who I'm supposed to discriminate and reverse descriminate against?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have Egyptian friends who were born in Egypt (you know, actual Africa). They always checked that they were African American.

Egyptians are not African-American. Most forms that have a blurb about this sort of thing say that African-Americans are people of sub-saharan african descent. Most Egyptian immigrants come from privileged backgrounds, and a lot of them appear to be white, and go through their entire lives basically as white people with a neat ethnic story. I'm Egyptian, and I'm white to the point of pale. These are precisely not the type of people that need affirmative action. That is my problem with affirmative action- you are giving some people a boost, and those people are going to have to do the rest themselves, but how do you know you are giving that advantage to someone who really even needs it? I went to an elite college, and quite frankly, most of the black kids were children of well-to-do African immigrants. At this point, shouldn't affirmative action be based on socioeconomic data that you can't change and not on whatever race you decide to be that day?

If they went by socioeconomic data the number of AAs at schools would plummet. Poor whites and Asians drastically outperform poor blacks, and there are many more poor whites than there are poor blacks. For example, the children of the poorest white families get the same SAT scores as the children of the most affluent black families.

1. Do you have a cite for this information? I think this is an exaggeration, at best. We all know there is a racial disparity but if it is that extreme then more drastic steps need to be taken. Affirmative action is like trying to fix a broken leg with a band aid in this respect. Also, what you appear to be saying is that poor black kids are completely UN-qualified and have no shot of getting into college period. What the people above are arguing is that affirmative action is a boost for minorities that are already qualified. Both of those ideas cannot be true. If, instead of looking just at some subjective idea about race, colleges looked at socioeconomic data, they'd get kids who are actually in need. If you are worried about minority kids being left out, they could target specific regions where there are high concentrations of poor minorities and make sure to admit a proportion of students that way. By specifically targeting racial categories, you get a bunch of rich minority kids who were going to figure out a way to get to college anyway.

They quit breaking out the race/income numbers in 2005, but the numbers are from that year. Look at the last bullet.

But there is a major flaw in the thesis that income differences explain the racial gap. Consider these three observable facts from The College Board's 2005 data on the SAT:

• Whites from families with incomes of less than $10,000 had a mean SAT score of 993. This is 129 points higher than the national mean for all blacks.

• Whites from families with incomes below $10,000 had a mean SAT test score that was 61 points higher than blacks whose families had incomes of between $80,000 and $100,000.

• Blacks from families with incomes of more than $100,000 had a mean SAT score that was 85 points below the mean score for whites from all income levels, 139 points below the mean score of whites from families at the same income level, and 10 points below the average score of white students from families whose income was less than $10,000.

WRT poverty, http://www.nccp.org/media/releases/release_34.html

Whites make up 42% of poor people, blacks 27%. That coupled with the stark differences in scores would lead to a very large reduction in the number of black students accepted at competitive colleges if only SES were taken into account.

Is that a problem? Not being snarky....

PP here, it depends on what you want to accomplish with AA. I used to be a strong proponent of AA before I went to a selective graduate program and had to TA and grade exams. I saw first hand that a significant number of the AA students simply weren't capable of doing the work at the same level as most of the rest of the student body. It was sobering. Like most selective schools though very few people actually flunked out. We gave these students B-/C- grades and moved them along. They've studied thse kinds of things with medical/law school as well. When you let in less qualified AA candidates they have lower graduation and licensing exam pass rates, but when you correct for (as an example) LSAT scores these disparities disappear. Good article here: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/10/the-painful-truth-about-affirmative-action/263122/

I think AA should be based on deprivation; the children of doctors, engineers and lawyers need no helping hand.

[Anonymous]

^^ how about accepting people on their merits alone. There is always a way for people who really want something and have talent. The descrimination and reverse descrimination create more problems than they solve and they are administered by busibody control freaks .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^ how about accepting people on their merits alone. There is always a way for people who really want something and have talent. The descrimination and reverse descrimination create more problems than they solve and they are administered by busibody control freaks .

I don't think this is realistic, honestly. Kids are not admitted into college on their merits or character. They are admitted based on a bunch of different test scores from tests that cost money to prepare for and take, they are admitted based on a bunch of interesting extracurriculars that also cost money to participate in, and they are admitted based on grades from schools that have vastly different standards. If you want to admit kids based on merit, fine, but then you have to create a playing field that is at least slightly level. The difference between the best and worst high schools in this country are so vast it is terrible. Think about the resources that rich kids have to prepare and give themselves an advantage. THIS is the real problem, and no one wants to fix it. But admitting poor kids who show some ambition/potential at least gives those people a little chance, although often it is not enough even on an individual level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have Egyptian friends who were born in Egypt (you know, actual Africa). They always checked that they were African American.

Egyptians are not African-American. Most forms that have a blurb about this sort of thing say that African-Americans are people of sub-saharan african descent. Most Egyptian immigrants come from privileged backgrounds, and a lot of them appear to be white, and go through their entire lives basically as white people with a neat ethnic story. I'm Egyptian, and I'm white to the point of pale. These are precisely not the type of people that need affirmative action. That is my problem with affirmative action- you are giving some people a boost, and those people are going to have to do the rest themselves, but how do you know you are giving that advantage to someone who really even needs it? I went to an elite college, and quite frankly, most of the black kids were children of well-to-do African immigrants. At this point, shouldn't affirmative action be based on socioeconomic data that you can't change and not on whatever race you decide to be that day?

If they went by socioeconomic data the number of AAs at schools would plummet. Poor whites and Asians drastically outperform poor blacks, and there are many more poor whites than there are poor blacks. For example, the children of the poorest white families get the same SAT scores as the children of the most affluent black families.

1. Do you have a cite for this information? I think this is an exaggeration, at best. We all know there is a racial disparity but if it is that extreme then more drastic steps need to be taken. Affirmative action is like trying to fix a broken leg with a band aid in this respect. Also, what you appear to be saying is that poor black kids are completely UN-qualified and have no shot of getting into college period. What the people above are arguing is that affirmative action is a boost for minorities that are already qualified. Both of those ideas cannot be true. If, instead of looking just at some subjective idea about race, colleges looked at socioeconomic data, they'd get kids who are actually in need. If you are worried about minority kids being left out, they could target specific regions where there are high concentrations of poor minorities and make sure to admit a proportion of students that way. By specifically targeting racial categories, you get a bunch of rich minority kids who were going to figure out a way to get to college anyway.

They quit breaking out the race/income numbers in 2005, but the numbers are from that year. Look at the last bullet.

But there is a major flaw in the thesis that income differences explain the racial gap. Consider these three observable facts from The College Board's 2005 data on the SAT:

• Whites from families with incomes of less than $10,000 had a mean SAT score of 993. This is 129 points higher than the national mean for all blacks.

• Whites from families with incomes below $10,000 had a mean SAT test score that was 61 points higher than blacks whose families had incomes of between $80,000 and $100,000.

• Blacks from families with incomes of more than $100,000 had a mean SAT score that was 85 points below the mean score for whites from all income levels, 139 points below the mean score of whites from families at the same income level, and 10 points below the average score of white students from families whose income was less than $10,000.

WRT poverty, http://www.nccp.org/media/releases/release_34.html

Whites make up 42% of poor people, blacks 27%. That coupled with the stark differences in scores would lead to a very large reduction in the number of black students accepted at competitive colleges if only SES were taken into account.

Is that a problem? Not being snarky....

PP here, it depends on what you want to accomplish with AA. I used to be a strong proponent of AA before I went to a selective graduate program and had to TA and grade exams. I saw first hand that a significant number of the AA students simply weren't capable of doing the work at the same level as most of the rest of the student body. It was sobering. Like most selective schools though very few people actually flunked out. We gave these students B-/C- grades and moved them along. They've studied thse kinds of things with medical/law school as well. When you let in less qualified AA candidates they have lower graduation and licensing exam pass rates, but when you correct for (as an example) LSAT scores these disparities disappear. Good article here: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/10/the-painful-truth-about-affirmative-action/263122/

I think AA should be based on deprivation; the children of doctors, engineers and lawyers need no helping hand.

Your school did not use the blind number system to grade papers and exams?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have Egyptian friends who were born in Egypt (you know, actual Africa). They always checked that they were African American.

Egyptians are not African-American. Most forms that have a blurb about this sort of thing say that African-Americans are people of sub-saharan african descent. Most Egyptian immigrants come from privileged backgrounds, and a lot of them appear to be white, and go through their entire lives basically as white people with a neat ethnic story. I'm Egyptian, and I'm white to the point of pale. These are precisely not the type of people that need affirmative action. That is my problem with affirmative action- you are giving some people a boost, and those people are going to have to do the rest themselves, but how do you know you are giving that advantage to someone who really even needs it? I went to an elite college, and quite frankly, most of the black kids were children of well-to-do African immigrants. At this point, shouldn't affirmative action be based on socioeconomic data that you can't change and not on whatever race you decide to be that day?

If they went by socioeconomic data the number of AAs at schools would plummet. Poor whites and Asians drastically outperform poor blacks, and there are many more poor whites than there are poor blacks. For example, the children of the poorest white families get the same SAT scores as the children of the most affluent black families.

1. Do you have a cite for this information? I think this is an exaggeration, at best. We all know there is a racial disparity but if it is that extreme then more drastic steps need to be taken. Affirmative action is like trying to fix a broken leg with a band aid in this respect. Also, what you appear to be saying is that poor black kids are completely UN-qualified and have no shot of getting into college period. What the people above are arguing is that affirmative action is a boost for minorities that are already qualified. Both of those ideas cannot be true. If, instead of looking just at some subjective idea about race, colleges looked at socioeconomic data, they'd get kids who are actually in need. If you are worried about minority kids being left out, they could target specific regions where there are high concentrations of poor minorities and make sure to admit a proportion of students that way. By specifically targeting racial categories, you get a bunch of rich minority kids who were going to figure out a way to get to college anyway.

They quit breaking out the race/income numbers in 2005, but the numbers are from that year. Look at the last bullet.

But there is a major flaw in the thesis that income differences explain the racial gap. Consider these three observable facts from The College Board's 2005 data on the SAT:

• Whites from families with incomes of less than $10,000 had a mean SAT score of 993. This is 129 points higher than the national mean for all blacks.

• Whites from families with incomes below $10,000 had a mean SAT test score that was 61 points higher than blacks whose families had incomes of between $80,000 and $100,000.

• Blacks from families with incomes of more than $100,000 had a mean SAT score that was 85 points below the mean score for whites from all income levels, 139 points below the mean score of whites from families at the same income level, and 10 points below the average score of white students from families whose income was less than $10,000.

WRT poverty, http://www.nccp.org/media/releases/release_34.html

Whites make up 42% of poor people, blacks 27%. That coupled with the stark differences in scores would lead to a very large reduction in the number of black students accepted at competitive colleges if only SES were taken into account.

Is that a problem? Not being snarky....

PP here, it depends on what you want to accomplish with AA. I used to be a strong proponent of AA before I went to a selective graduate program and had to TA and grade exams. I saw first hand that a significant number of the AA students simply weren't capable of doing the work at the same level as most of the rest of the student body. It was sobering. Like most selective schools though very few people actually flunked out. We gave these students B-/C- grades and moved them along. They've studied thse kinds of things with medical/law school as well. When you let in less qualified AA candidates they have lower graduation and licensing exam pass rates, but when you correct for (as an example) LSAT scores these disparities disappear. Good article here: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/10/the-painful-truth-about-affirmative-action/263122/

I think AA should be based on deprivation; the children of doctors, engineers and lawyers need no helping hand.

Your school did not use the blind number system to grade papers and exams?

Names were not available when grading, but we were also responsible for inputting grades into system and names were used then. It's probably better anonymized now as this was 20 years ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ how about accepting people on their merits alone. There is always a way for people who really want something and have talent. The descrimination and reverse descrimination create more problems than they solve and they are administered by busibody control freaks .

I don't think this is realistic, honestly. Kids are not admitted into college on their merits or character. They are admitted based on a bunch of different test scores from tests that cost money to prepare for and take, they are admitted based on a bunch of interesting extracurriculars that also cost money to participate in, and they are admitted based on grades from schools that have vastly different standards. If you want to admit kids based on merit, fine, but then you have to create a playing field that is at least slightly level. The difference between the best and worst high schools in this country are so vast it is terrible. Think about the resources that rich kids have to prepare and give themselves an advantage. THIS is the real problem, and no one wants to fix it. But admitting poor kids who show some ambition/potential at least gives those people a little chance, although often it is not enough even on an individual level.

+1


When I read the article all I could think is that I wonder if he got into the expensive prep school and college based on strictly merit. Then he gets to college and basically parties and thinks oh I want to be a doctor so I will pretend to be someone else to get in. Wait, I notice some discrimination but I can change back and all is good. Oh and in the end, he becomes an entrepreneur, which I would love to see him continue the experiment as a black man for that. He is the same person and theoretically works with the same dedication in his chosen profession but would he get the same results?

[Anonymous]

He took a slot away from someone who may have truly become a doctor.

[Anonymous]

Put medical school on-line . Let everybody in and allow anybody who passes an entrance exam be selected by lottery to get hands on training.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have Egyptian friends who were born in Egypt (you know, actual Africa). They always checked that they were African American.

Egyptians are not African-American. Most forms that have a blurb about this sort of thing say that African-Americans are people of sub-saharan african descent. Most Egyptian immigrants come from privileged backgrounds, and a lot of them appear to be white, and go through their entire lives basically as white people with a neat ethnic story. I'm Egyptian, and I'm white to the point of pale. These are precisely not the type of people that need affirmative action. That is my problem with affirmative action- you are giving some people a boost, and those people are going to have to do the rest themselves, but how do you know you are giving that advantage to someone who really even needs it? I went to an elite college, and quite frankly, most of the black kids were children of well-to-do African immigrants. At this point, shouldn't affirmative action be based on socioeconomic data that you can't change and not on whatever race you decide to be that day?

If they went by socioeconomic data the number of AAs at schools would plummet. Poor whites and Asians drastically outperform poor blacks, and there are many more poor whites than there are poor blacks. For example, the children of the poorest white families get the same SAT scores as the children of the most affluent black families.

1. Do you have a cite for this information? I think this is an exaggeration, at best. We all know there is a racial disparity but if it is that extreme then more drastic steps need to be taken. Affirmative action is like trying to fix a broken leg with a band aid in this respect. Also, what you appear to be saying is that poor black kids are completely UN-qualified and have no shot of getting into college period. What the people above are arguing is that affirmative action is a boost for minorities that are already qualified. Both of those ideas cannot be true. If, instead of looking just at some subjective idea about race, colleges looked at socioeconomic data, they'd get kids who are actually in need. If you are worried about minority kids being left out, they could target specific regions where there are high concentrations of poor minorities and make sure to admit a proportion of students that way. By specifically targeting racial categories, you get a bunch of rich minority kids who were going to figure out a way to get to college anyway.

They quit breaking out the race/income numbers in 2005, but the numbers are from that year. Look at the last bullet.

But there is a major flaw in the thesis that income differences explain the racial gap. Consider these three observable facts from The College Board's 2005 data on the SAT:

• Whites from families with incomes of less than $10,000 had a mean SAT score of 993. This is 129 points higher than the national mean for all blacks.

• Whites from families with incomes below $10,000 had a mean SAT test score that was 61 points higher than blacks whose families had incomes of between $80,000 and $100,000.

• Blacks from families with incomes of more than $100,000 had a mean SAT score that was 85 points below the mean score for whites from all income levels, 139 points below the mean score of whites from families at the same income level, and 10 points below the average score of white students from families whose income was less than $10,000.

WRT poverty, http://www.nccp.org/media/releases/release_34.html

Whites make up 42% of poor people, blacks 27%. That coupled with the stark differences in scores would lead to a very large reduction in the number of black students accepted at competitive colleges if only SES were taken into account.

Is that a problem? Not being snarky....

Absolutely. The question for me is not about scores on the front end, but passing rates for the boards. Admissions departments have been doing this for a long time. They can usually spot a good candidate. As the poster stated above, black doctors usually go to poor minority areas. If we need doctors there, we should have black doctors. Remember, Ben Carson, whom I can't stand, but is a very good doctor, was very poor. I'm sure that his scores were not great, but his tenure in med school was.

I did poorly on the LSAT. I went to law school (I'm sure that Affirmative Action helped), finished in the top 5% of my top 50 law school class and did well on the bar exam. That means that although I tested poorly on the LSAT, I was ready.

[Anonymous]

Yes, African-American and Hispanic students do considerably worse on the SAT. That explains why it is a bad test, not that they are unqualified for the career. Frankly, I think our country could use more doctors, not fewer. African American and Hispanic doctors who graduate U.S. medical schools overwhelmingly pass their boards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, African-American and Hispanic students do considerably worse on the SAT. That explains why it is a bad test, not that they are unqualified for the career. Frankly, I think our country could use more doctors, not fewer. African American and Hispanic doctors who graduate U.S. medical schools overwhelmingly pass their boards.

All the college bound African American students I know have done well on the SAT. That said, they attended good private and public schools. You needn't be a rocket scientist to realize with the right academic and domestic exposure, most AA kids would and do well or at least decent on the SAT or ACT.

Generalizing that ALL African American and Hispanic students do worse does nothing but feed into preconceived notions that any minority admitted to colleges are admitted with sub par scores and low grades. It just isn't true.