Summary: I respect what you are trying to allude to. Your latest post made a convincing argument that you seem genuine and that you value fairness. However, the ratio suggested above may suggest a different story in reality. In fact, the opposite may be true: most minorities may have to show higher scores (a
s you mentioned above). Furthermore, you are really competing with
every student and your slippery slope contributes to more of the same flawed reasoning.
I still think this thread is a troll.
I admire your very well put together reply above. For the sake of space, I'm going to reply to your points in this.
1. Isn't everything more or less based upon generalizations, Gator? Even your two fantastic examples of Neurosurgeons working in prestigious settings are specific examples that do not represent the majority, which can be as suspect as my hypothetical tit-for-tat with "OC Girl". I think to ignore the importance of generalization as a human basis for observation ignores social learning theory - That is to say, if Person A and Person B grow up in virtually the same circumstances, but Person A succeeds and Person B fails (or does not meet the same level of success that Person A does), why should race even enter the equation? Not withstanding MRSA's hypothesis that AA is good for "creating an ideal", to encourage more URMs to aspire to be pharmacists and to equal out the ratio of "ORM:URM", any sort of preferential treatment based on race is tantamount to the same discrimination that African-Americans decry about "driving while black." So, what am I doing, "Applying to Pharmacy School While White"?
2. An ad hominem attack is not the same as stating an observation or factual analysis. If I said, "Gator, you're stupid", I would be commiting the ad hominem logical fallacy. I am not attacking Miguel's person (Ad hominem means "at the person") or personality but rather am demonstrating the difference between my study habits and his (I stayed home and read, he came home drunk/still drinking, etc). To call this ad hominem seems to be a reach.
3. I have excellent grades and I am not a minority, but I might as well have been. Why isn't there a Hall of Achievement dedicated to white folks who grew up in the same circumstances as minorities
and still managed to succeed? Oh, are we assuming white people are innately more able to succeed despite circumstances and therefore it doesn't need to be recognized?
4. I can't argue the fact that the ratio of Me-types to URM-types is low. That stands to reason on prima facie and I'd be a fool to attempt to rebut that (and you knew that by writing your statement in that way), HOWEVER, we're not addressing the question of
why the disparity exists. Is it because well-qualified URMs are not chosen to attend schools because they're URMs, or is it because URMs automatically have the deck stacked against them and they don't even bother trying, or is it because URMs who have excellent qualifications go somewhere other than Pharmacy school? I don't think there are good answers for ANY of these questions.
5. You want me to explain two paintings done by presumably white men? Your rebuttal to my statement about the armed forces being a diverse culture in and of itself is a painting of Iwo Jima's flag-raising, and the flag-raising at the center of the WTC? C'mon, your logical capacity is obviously expansive enough to understand that 2 examples of something do not automatically mean that it is accurate or two. Furthermore, I fail to see what firefighters have to do with the military - While Fire Depts are paramilitary, they are far and away separated from the Armed Forces, please do not compare the two as you'll only embarass yourself. It is well known that many minorities participated in WWII (and were then subsequently discriminated against by the VA for the home loans in the late 40s/50s but that's a matter of public record and for one I don't think anyone is unapologetic for).
You're not really saying that the military of today is even remotely cross-sectioned like the military was in the '40s, are you?
Anyway, you're right, this thread does seem to be a troll, and I am sorry I got myself involved in it. We're obviously arguing in circles, so I guess the best course of action is to simply agree to disagree and go about our happy, merry pharmacological lives.