Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So someone having dark pigmentation in their skin helps you determine that he or she has these other important, non-score-related traits?

Not PP, but in some cases yes. There is reams of evidence that doctors treat black patients differently than white (and even other minority) patients. Black doctors are less likely to do so...and for that reason alone, I think it's important to have more black doctors. Sorry if that upsets you.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/17/opinion/sunday/the-case-for-black-doctors.html

So the reason for race-based preferences in med school admissions is because white med students are racist?

I don't work in med school admissions, so I can't say for sure what their reasons are. But to me, yes, in a sense that's a reason. It's not openly racist, it's implicit bias that has been studied and documented in the ways doctors interact with their patients...even if the doctors are not openly racist. Also, black patients trust black doctors more.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So someone having dark pigmentation in their skin helps you determine that he or she has these other important, non-score-related traits?

Not PP, but in some cases yes. There is reams of evidence that doctors treat black patients differently than white (and even other minority) patients. Black doctors are less likely to do so...and for that reason alone, I think it's important to have more black doctors. Sorry if that upsets you.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/17/opinion/sunday/the-case-for-black-doctors.html

So the reason for race-based preferences in med school admissions is because white med students are racist?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So someone having dark pigmentation in their skin helps you determine that he or she has these other important, non-score-related traits?

Not PP, but in some cases yes. There is reams of evidence that doctors treat black patients differently than white (and even other minority) patients. Black doctors are less likely to do so...and for that reason alone, I think it's important to have more black doctors. Sorry if that upsets you.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/17/opinion/sunday/the-case-for-black-doctors.html

Anonymous wrote:
So someone having dark pigmentation in their skin helps you determine that he or she has these other important, non-score-related traits?

Anonymous wrote:Check out this chart to see exactly how this effect plays out in admissions to medical schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cal tech admissions model for all schools.

Cal Tech is 29% whites, 41% Asian and 16% URM.

MIT is 35% white, 26% Asian, and 20% URM.

All the white people clebrating this need to take a minute and realize that if college admissions were truly race blind, there would be fewer whites and fewer URMs, and a lot more Asians. Right now, Asians are the group that takes a hit on college admissions, not whites. And both of the big lawsuits out there on race based admissions are brought by Asian Americans-- not whites.

Bingo. This is what many people are not getting. The affirmative action takes from Asians and gives it to Whites, Blacks and Hispanics. I am of Asian origin and honestly the really good asian students get through to top public schools like Berkley, UNC, UVA, Michigan etc EVEN IF they are rejected admission to Ivies. They do just fine in the end.

So I am for AA but it should be based on Socio-Economic factors with income as a big factor.

No. What you are not getting is that many people oppose race-based preferences in admissions for principled reasons - regardless of whether Asian Americans or anyone else might benefit most from their removal.

You didn't read my last sentence. Without Affirmative action many blacks and hispanics coming from disadvantaged background will never move up. College is ONLY one aspect of life NOT ALL for the wealthy and upper middle class. Students coming from a high social class get to where they want regardless of which college they go to. Thats not the case for many blacks if they never get to college and finish college because they get sucked right back into the gloom of their neighborhood.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this is a backdoor way to remove the tax exemption Harvard, MIT, Stanford et al. endowments enjoy I'm all for it. Biggest scam going. They're basically massive tax free shelters operating like hedge funds.

Sort of like the tax exemptions that mega churches that own strip malls and lobby at the local, state and federal level is also a big scam. Take away their tax exempt status too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Check out this chart to see exactly how this effect plays out in admissions to medical schools.



Article discussing it is here:

http://www.aei.org/publication/acceptance-rates-at-us-medical-schools-in-2015-reveal-ongoing-discrimination-against-asian-americans-and-whites/

You seem to believe this chart demonstrates a problem But it's important that we have doctors from different backgrounds/experiences, because it absolutely affects their practice of medicine and their ability to connect with patients. Men on average have higher MCAT scores than women--should they get preference in med school admissions? Isn't it important that we have female doctors as well as male ones?

There is so much that goes into being a good doctor that is not about achievement scores. You need some baseline level of intelligence to be a good doctor, but beyond that baseline, being a good doctor is about so much more than test scores or even innate intelligence--perhaps especially in the primary care specialties, where we have a shortage of providers. In fact, as discussed in the piece below, personality tests are more highly correlated with medical school success than are measures of cognition.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/15/health/14chen.html

High performance on multiple choice tests is not what makes someone a good doctor.

So someone having dark pigmentation in their skin helps you determine that he or she has these other important, non-score-related traits?

No, but recommendations, volunteer work and extracurriculars, and interviews might.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Check out this chart to see exactly how this effect plays out in admissions to medical schools.



Article discussing it is here:

http://www.aei.org/publication/acceptance-rates-at-us-medical-schools-in-2015-reveal-ongoing-discrimination-against-asian-americans-and-whites/

You seem to believe this chart demonstrates a problem But it's important that we have doctors from different backgrounds/experiences, because it absolutely affects their practice of medicine and their ability to connect with patients. Men on average have higher MCAT scores than women--should they get preference in med school admissions? Isn't it important that we have female doctors as well as male ones?

There is so much that goes into being a good doctor that is not about achievement scores. You need some baseline level of intelligence to be a good doctor, but beyond that baseline, being a good doctor is about so much more than test scores or even innate intelligence--perhaps especially in the primary care specialties, where we have a shortage of providers. In fact, as discussed in the piece below, personality tests are more highly correlated with medical school success than are measures of cognition.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/15/health/14chen.html

High performance on multiple choice tests is not what makes someone a good doctor.

So someone having dark pigmentation in their skin helps you determine that he or she has these other important, non-score-related traits?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cal tech admissions model for all schools.

Cal Tech is 29% whites, 41% Asian and 16% URM.

MIT is 35% white, 26% Asian, and 20% URM.

All the white people clebrating this need to take a minute and realize that if college admissions were truly race blind, there would be fewer whites and fewer URMs, and a lot more Asians. Right now, Asians are the group that takes a hit on college admissions, not whites. And both of the big lawsuits out there on race based admissions are brought by Asian Americans-- not whites.

Bingo. This is what many people are not getting. The affirmative action takes from Asians and gives it to Whites, Blacks and Hispanics. I am of Asian origin and honestly the really good asian students get through to top public schools like Berkley, UNC, UVA, Michigan etc EVEN IF they are rejected admission to Ivies. They do just fine in the end.

So I am for AA but it should be based on Socio-Economic factors with income as a big factor.

No. What you are not getting is that many people oppose race-based preferences in admissions for principled reasons - regardless of whether Asian Americans or anyone else might benefit most from their removal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Check out this chart to see exactly how this effect plays out in admissions to medical schools.



Article discussing it is here:

http://www.aei.org/publication/acceptance-rates-at-us-medical-schools-in-2015-reveal-ongoing-discrimination-against-asian-americans-and-whites/

You seem to believe this chart demonstrates a problem But it's important that we have doctors from different backgrounds/experiences, because it absolutely affects their practice of medicine and their ability to connect with patients. Men on average have higher MCAT scores than women--should they get preference in med school admissions? Isn't it important that we have female doctors as well as male ones?

There is so much that goes into being a good doctor that is not about achievement scores. You need some baseline level of intelligence to be a good doctor, but beyond that baseline, being a good doctor is about so much more than test scores or even innate intelligence--perhaps especially in the primary care specialties, where we have a shortage of providers. In fact, as discussed in the piece below, personality tests are more highly correlated with medical school success than are measures of cognition.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/15/health/14chen.html

High performance on multiple choice tests is not what makes someone a good doctor.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cal tech admissions model for all schools.

Cal Tech is 29% whites, 41% Asian and 16% URM.

MIT is 35% white, 26% Asian, and 20% URM.

All the white people clebrating this need to take a minute and realize that if college admissions were truly race blind, there would be fewer whites and fewer URMs, and a lot more Asians. Right now, Asians are the group that takes a hit on college admissions, not whites. And both of the big lawsuits out there on race based admissions are brought by Asian Americans-- not whites.

Bingo. This is what many people are not getting. The affirmative action takes from Asians and gives it to Whites, Blacks and Hispanics. I am of Asian origin and honestly the really good asian students get through to top public schools like Berkley, UNC, UVA, Michigan etc EVEN IF they are rejected admission to Ivies. They do just fine in the end.

So I am for AA but it should be based on Socio-Economic factors with income as a big factor.

Anonymous wrote:If this is a backdoor way to remove the tax exemption Harvard, MIT, Stanford et al. endowments enjoy I'm all for it. Biggest scam going. They're basically massive tax free shelters operating like hedge funds.

Anonymous wrote:

Maybe if their name is Michelle Johnson. Not if their name is Shamika or LaTravinia or Shaunfanauita or any other abomination.