Match 2024

[rowsdower88]

I see what you’re saying, but I would think the real reason that four white students were accepted with lower scores for every black student is strictly a numbers game.

That. Is the point. There is VERY little reason for a white student to be upset with affirmative action programs because they (more likely than not) don't impact them in the slightest. The harm that BLADE et al have expressed: "black students are taking the places of better white/asian students", isn't a serious concern when viewed in this light. The meritocracy that BLADE et al are trying to protect doesn't really exist when we look at MCAT scores this way.

At those two points, the black student still has about 56% chance and 67% chance respectively of being admitted. A white candidate with those low scores has an 8% and 14% chance of admission. The overall population of applicants is far greater for whites because the overall acceptance rate is not very far off from the overall white acceptance rate and nowhere near the elevated black acceptance rate, so it stands to reason that there would be far greater white people accepted who got a lower score than there would be black people. Strictly by sheer numbers of applicants.

This is all true. But the HARM done on the unaccepted white student isn't due to the black student being admitted. It's much more likely due to other dumber white students getting admitted. So if I was a white student with average scores, I should be much more upset at the dumber white student who got in despite poorer scores than the rare black student who got in.

However, I’m not sure I follow the leap of faith to state that missing 1-2 questions is the equivalent of the overall impact of these AA/DEI policies. The low GPA/low MCAT (22-24) section for blacks is a 56% acceptance rate. To approach that rate for whites, they have to have mid range GPA and a high MCAT (30-32) and then their acceptance rate jumps to 48%. The only group that is higher acceptance rate for whites is the high GPA/high MCAT group, which rises to an acceptance rate of 63%. An acceptance rate just slightly higher (but in the same ballpark) than the acceptance rate of the black student with low GPA and low MCAT.

I'm taking figure 4 from the stats page I linked as true. If you disagree with that table (which it sounds like you do), then there's not much more to argue. That table purports to show odds for white/black students likelihood of "taking your spot".

To me, there is no way having a cold and missing an additional 1-2 questions is the equivalent of those stats. I’m just not sure I draw the same conclusions from that data chart that you do. I’m open to hearing if you are able to help me understand your point of view better.

I think if you recognize just how few black students apply to medical school each year (and that number has actually been going down in recent years) that might explain the disconnect. Demonstrating that the average black score is lower than the average white score does not mean that the unaccepted white student was significantly harmed by the lower scoring black student. The article suggests that some white students lost out to black students due to affirmative action policies, but those are a very very small percentage of students and I would argue the benefits of the policies far outweigh that harm.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[rowsdower88]

Again. U fell hook line and sink for the percentage vs raw numbers.

The article purposely interchanges percentages vs raw numbers to booster take arguments

It’s like me says there are more white people on food stamps than black people . It’s true. Right?

But when I tell u whites makes up 70%? Of the USA population and make up 36% of food stamps people

Blacks make up 12% of population but 27% of food stamps participants

That’s how u fool people with data.

The aamc just fools most people with their propaganda. Except I like to tell people I’m usually the smartest person in the room when it comes to data interpretation. Complete mis use of real stats. Duh more white applications than blacks.

So aamc show me the percentage of black applicants to black acceptance rates.

I am so far from med school but I have a very good memory when aamc used to published real non DEI agenda.

Latino women in the early 90s had 50% chance of getting admitted to med school.

Than African American women were 45%

Native American women Indians were the same. Yet their mcat (the old scoring were than than 24/25 on average ). A score of 30 was consider above average out of 45.

White and Asians had a 33% acceptance rate with average score of 29/30. So whites and Asian had lower acceptance rate but higher scores even 30 plus years ago.

So how u need to interpret real data.

I can barely understand this but I'll attempt a response anyways.

I don't think that article is attempting to "fool people with data". I think it's an attempt to take seriously an argument opponents to affirmative action make that amounts to: affirmative action policies result in lower scoring black students taking the spots of higher scoring white students.

Taking the article as true, it seems to be the case that while this does happen, it happens exceedingly rarely. The article attempts to demonstrate that an average scoring white student is more likely to "lose their spot" to a lower scoring white student than a lower scoring black student even after accounting for affirmative action policies.

If that last statement is true, then we should recognize that the statement "affirmative action policies result in lower scoring black students taking the spots of higher scoring white students" is less than half of the picture and doesn't accurately reflect the harms impacted on lower and average scoring white students.

 

[mmag]

That. Is the point. There is VERY little reason for a white student to be upset with affirmative action programs because they (more likely than not) don't impact them in the slightest. The harm that BLADE et al have expressed: "black students are taking the places of better white/asian students", isn't a serious concern when viewed in this light. The meritocracy that BLADE et al are trying to protect doesn't really exist when we look at MCAT scores this way.




This is all true. But the HARM done on the unaccepted white student isn't due to the black student being admitted. It's much more likely due to other dumber white students getting admitted. So if I was a white student with average scores, I should be much more upset at the dumber white student who got in despite poorer scores than the rare black student who got in.




I'm taking figure 4 from the stats page I linked as true. If you disagree with that table (which it sounds like you do), then there's not much more to argue. That table purports to show odds rates for white/black students likelihood of "taking your spot".




I think if you recognize just how few black students apply to medical school each year (and that number has actually been going down in recent years) that might explain the disconnect. Demonstrating that the average black score is lower than the average white score does not mean that the unaccepted white student was significantly harmed by the lower scoring black student. The article suggests that some white students lost out to black students due to affirmative action policies, but those are a very very small percentage of students and I would argue the benefits of the policies far outweigh that harm.

The real harm is to Asian students. Tons of dumber white students got in despite poorer scores. That's why affirmative action was brought down by SFFA who sued Harvard on behalf of Asian American students.
Compared to white students, harder for Asian American students to get into medical school. Harder for Asian Americans to advance in academic medicine. Don't see many Asian American chairs and PDs - certainly not 20% of total if it was proportionate to the % of Asian American medical students.

 

[rowsdower88]

The real harm is to Asian students. Tons of dumber white students got in despite poorer scores. That's why affirmative action was brought down by SFFA who sued Harvard on behalf of Asian American students.
Compared to white students, harder for Asian American students to get into medical school. Harder for Asian Americans to advance in academic medicine. Don't see many Asian American chairs and PDs - certainly not 20% of total if it was proportionate to the % of Asian American medical students.

I'm not certain that the same arguments presented in the article can't be shown wrt asian students, but I admit I never read the SFFA cases and my article doesn't reference them.

 

[aneftp]

I can barely understand this but I'll attempt a response anyways.

I don't think that article is attempting to "fool people with data". I think it's an attempt to take seriously an argument opponents to affirmative action make that amounts to: affirmative action policies result in lower scoring black students taking the spots of higher scoring white students.

Taking the article as true, it seems to be the case that while this does happen, it happens exceedingly rarely. The article attempts to demonstrate that a average scoring white student is more likely to "lose their spot" to a lower scoring white student than a lower scoring black student even after accounting for affirmative action policies.

If that last statement is true, then we should recognize that the statement "affirmative action policies result in lower scoring black students taking the spots of higher scoring white students" is less than half of the picture and doesn't accurately reflect the harms impacted on lower and average scoring white students.

The article is a mix of msnbc and cnn. Half liberal truths.

I have explained and Gern explained even better than me.

If you have 100 black students apply. 50% of them are getting in. That's 50 black students. That's as plain as day with all the data. And with lower grades and test scores. It's already been posted.

If you have 1000 white/asian students apply, only 333 of them are getting in. That's 33% and with higher grades and scores.

How clearer do I need to explain to.

Why are black and latino students getting in as a higher percentage? Explain that. The reality is of those 100 applicants and 50 of them getting in. That really means at least 20 of those slots the black and latino students are getting really should be redistrubted to white/asians more qualified based Soley on grades/test scores. Agree or disagree?

Again, the article clearly and deliberately confuses readers by blurring percentages and overall raw numbers (Like the food stamps example I used). Where total number of whites far out pace blacks on food stamps based purly on raw numbers. But as a percentage of their overall population blacks are twice as likely to be on food stamps as whites.

 

[triggermaster]

The real harm is to Asian students. Tons of dumber white students got in despite poorer scores. That's why affirmative action was brought down by SFFA who sued Harvard on behalf of Asian American students.
Compared to white students, harder for Asian American students to get into medical school. Harder for Asian Americans to advance in academic medicine. Don't see many Asian American chairs and PDs - certainly not 20% of total if it was proportionate to the % of Asian American medical students.

White students aren’t taking spots from Asians. If the top applicants were accepted without consideration of race, the number of both Asian and White med students would go up.

 

[aneftp]

White students aren’t taking spots from Asians. If the top applicants were accepted without consideration of race, the number of both Asian and White med students would go up.

Indians (Asians) males are harm the most in my opinion. I have no skin in this game but the Indians have by far the hardest entry these days. Not the East Asians.

So
1. Indian males
2. East Asian males

Those are the most harm

The indian women and East Asian females have slightly better chances since they still can fit into the DEI initiative

 

[rowsdower88]

Why are black and latino students getting in as a higher percentage? Explain that.

They are getting in at a higher percentage as you suggest, that isn't disputed. Maybe go read what I've written or linked. The point I'm making is that even if black students (not sure about hispanic students) are admitted at these higher percentages, their admission isn't harming middle and low scoring white students. (Setting asian students aside for now.)

The harm to average white students isn't coming from low scoring black students, but from other low scoring white students. That's the much more relevant deviation from the meritocratic ideal.

Where total number of whites far out pace blacks on food stamps based purly on raw numbers. But as a percentage of their overall population blacks are twice as likely to be on food stamps as whites.

I... I'm just not sure how you got to food stamps. But I'll take your concern about the numbers seriously. To my knowledge, the article isn't trying to deliberately mislead anyone. If you feel misled by the numbers in some way I think it's unintentional.

 

[aneftp]

They are getting in at a higher percentage as you suggest, that isn't disputed. Maybe go read what I've written or linked. The point I'm making is that even if black students (not sure about hispanic students) are admitted at these higher percentages, their admission isn't harming middle and low scoring white students. (Setting asian students aside for now.)

The harm to average white students isn't coming from low scoring black students, but from other low scoring white students. That's the much more relevant deviation from the meritocratic ideal.



I... I'm just not sure how you got to food stamps. But I'll take your concern about the numbers seriously. To my knowledge, the article isn't trying to deliberately mislead anyone. If you feel misled by the numbers in some way I think it's unintentional.

We are going round and round on this.

Percentages

Vs raw numbers

That’s the crux of these arguments.

percentages wise. Why are blacks and Latinos getting admitted at a higher percentage than whites and Asians? Look at the graph/charts.

Even at lowers scores. Percentage wise. The black student is much more higher likely to take a spot from a higher performing white student.

Again. I think u want to believe what you want to believe by using raw numbers saying the poorer performing white student is getting these coveted spots over other white students. Which makes no sense as poorer performing white students get admitted at a much lower percentage rate as their equally poorer performing black student.

It’s the higher performing white student who gets rejected who loses a spot to the poorer performing black student who gets it.

Anyways after the Supreme Court decisions. There will be more attacks on DEI. It’s coming. And it’s the right thing to do. Take the best of the best.
Or else why doesn’t the semi good Asian kid get a scholarship to play on a an elite college basketball team? Right? If we used DEI. Jeremy Lin would have gotten a basketball scholarship to Kentucky or Kansas or duke or similar elite schools since he was a very good high school basketball player. But he wasn’t good enough to compete with the blacks on those teams. Athletic performance and academic performance should both be DEI considerations.

 

[rowsdower88]

Why are blacks and Latinos getting admitted at a higher percentage than whites and Asians? Look at the graph/charts.

This is correct. I don't disagree with you here. They are getting in at higher percentages. I'm saying it doesn't matter.

This is because at the rate low performing black students are coming in, it hurts very few low and average performing white students and (statistically speaking) those same low and average performing white students are more likely to "lose a spot" to another low performing white student.

I assure you, there is no confusion over raw numbers or percentages. I agree with you that on average a lower scoring black student is more likely to be accepted than a lower scoring white student. I'm saying that fact is irrelevant if we're looking at harm being done to the white student.

Even at lowers scores. Percentage wise. The black student is much more higher likely to take a spot from a higher performing white student.

Ok. This isn't true and is the whole point of the article. The higher performing white student isn't very likely to lose a spot to a black student, or at least if they lost a spot it was more likely to a lower scoring white student than a black student. That's the point of the article. Maybe that's what you think is a confusion of raw numbers/percentages?

It’s the higher performing white student who gets rejected who loses a spot to the poorer performing black student who gets it.

This isn't true (or at least it happens so infrequently it's irrelevant) and if you read the article you would understand why I'm saying that. Maybe you could share an article of your own that could persuade me otherwise? Something that tries to disprove the statistics in the article I shared?

 

[triggermaster]

Indians (Asians) males are harm the most in my opinion. I have no skin in this game but the Indians have by far the hardest entry these days. Not the East Asians.

So
1. Indian males
2. East Asian males

Those are the most harm

The indian women and East Asian females have slightly better chances since they still can fit into the DEI initiative

That may or may not be true. My point is, you would have to see how many positions each group would have in a color blind admissions system and subtract the current number of students. Any group whose number goes up isn’t taking spots from anyone.

This can’t really be done because there isn’t one admissions pool nationwide. There are obviously lots of state schools and varying degrees of competitiveness amongst private med schools. There’s also variability between colleges and majors. No one applies everywhere so the relatively small difference between South Asians, East Asians, and various white groups (which are all lumped together inappropriately) might or might not be due to factors other than discrimination- there’s probably some discrimination and some difference due to where everyone lives and applies.

If I had to guess, Asians are probably discriminated against the most at top schools and less so at average schools. That’s just a guess. There aren’t numbers available to back it up.

In defense of black admissions, their averages are dragged down by historically black schools. If those were subtracted out, the averages for black students at all the other med schools have to be higher than their nationwide averages.

 

[Gern Blansten]

You consistently say that it is the low performing white student who is losing out to another low performing white student. The high performing white students are also losing out at a very significant rate. Couldn’t it be said that high performing white and Asian students are losing those same spots? If a white student has high MCAT and high GPA, shouldn’t their acceptance rate be higher than the fairly abysmal 63%? I recognize that some will be weeded out for personality or immaturity or professionalism issues. But to perform that well and only have less than a 2/3 chance is pretty rough. Meanwhile, a person of a different ethnicity in their same college classes who was a chronic underperformer gains admittance at a higher percentage than the person at the top of their class.
To me, it’s not about comparing the bottom dwellers in the classroom to each other. It’s about comparing the bottom dwellers of a certain race to the top students in the class who did not get accepted. There are apparently a whole 37% of them that are whites and higher percentage than that who are Asian. Those are the ones I’m talking about. The low performing students made their own situation a challenge and should realize they probably did this to themselves. So, to clarify, top students with high GPA and high MCATs who are white get in at nearly the same rate as black students with low GPA and low MCATs and that leaves 37% of top students without a spot.
To be clear, I feel strongly that the need for black physicians is very important. We need to have more and especially more who are multi generational US citizens (as opposed to affluent immigrants who just check a skin color box). However, the statistics can also not be denied. You cannot logically look at the stats and say that there is no impact to this effort to increase minority presence in medicine. The process has costs and they are staring us in the face in the form of AAMC statistics. The question then becomes, “is the mission worth the cost to the better qualified students who will not get a spot?” Maybe to some it is and to some it is not. The problem I have is denying the cost exists at all. To deny there is a cost is something that I can’t do when looking at the numbers.

I also recognize that the system used to be rigged for legacy families to take a number of available medical school spots. If you were a doctor (almost always white) and you wanted your kid to be one as well, there was a fairly good chance someone could make it happen. In the present time, I think that having a physician parent works against the applicant. If you are a white or Asian male child of a physician, you better have some darn good grades and scores if you wanna get it, at least in my region of the country. That legacy system needed to go away because it was also blatantly unfair. Even though it only affected a handful of people in each medical school class, it was still a cost to other applicants and, when multiplied across all med schools in the country, the impact became much larger. That cannot be denied either.

 

[coffeebythelake]

Indians (Asians) males are harm the most in my opinion. I have no skin in this game but the Indians have by far the hardest entry these days. Not the East Asians.

So
1. Indian males
2. East Asian males

Those are the most harm

The indian women and East Asian females have slightly better chances since they still can fit into the DEI initiative

How about the Asian international students?

 

[aneftp]

How about the Asian international students?

They are all treated the same. It’s the sad truth
While a rich international true African (from the continent) student who’s barley been in the USA will get preferred status if they are applied even though their family have not suffered any discrimination cause the barely been in the USA.

 

[rowsdower88]

If a white student has high MCAT and high GPA, shouldn’t their acceptance rate be higher than the fairly abysmal 63%?

Sure. But getting rid of affirmative action won't really change that. Per the article I shared, if affirmative action programs were eliminated and ALL of the spots African Americans received who benefited from those policies were given to white students (unrealistic on multiple levels), it would only improve white admissions by ~3%.

"Reducing the number of black applicants admitted to medical school by 750 and giving all those seats to white applicants would increase the acceptance rate of white applicants from 45.15 percent to 47.97 percent, a 2.82 percent increase."

If you want to argue that that potential 3% increase is more in line with our meritocraric ideals, fine. But I would still say that is meaningless when there is a pseudo-white affirmative action program currently in place for low scoring white students. We're so far away from the meritocratic goal already.

Meanwhile, a person of a different ethnicity in their same college classes who was a chronic underperformer gains admittance at a higher percentage than the person at the top of their class.

Yes, and I argue that that admission is a negligible harm on the white student who didn't get in relative to other factors.

You cannot logically look at the stats and say that there is no impact to this effort to increase minority presence in medicine.

I'm not saying that. I'm saying the benefit of affirmative action policies is large (and good) for black students and the harm done to white students associated with their implementation is small (and bad). This is an ethical stance I'm happy to defend.

The process has costs and they are staring us in the face in the form of AAMC statistics. The question then becomes, “is the mission worth the cost to the better qualified students who will not get a spot?” Maybe to some it is and to some it is not. The problem I have is denying the cost exists at all. To deny there is a cost is something that I can’t do when looking at the numbers.

Ok, I'm not denying the cost. I'm saying it's negligible relative to other factors with admission. But this is sort of a new argument. I'm reading this as you saying Affirmative Action policies have a sort of corrosive effect on society. I disagree with that argument, but I recognize it as new and we could talk about it more if you want.

If you want to incorporate the cost of white people and asian people feeling bad when they see charts that show black people having an easier time getting in, that's a cost I suppose. I just am less concerned with it. Maybe you're referring to some other societal cost I'm oversimplifying, but chances are I'm still going to say it's less impactful than the benefits of black admission.

That legacy system needed to go away because it was also blatantly unfair.

Yeah, they should get rid of legacy admissions. I haven't heard people talk about them in the context of med school admissions, but if they're happening that is bad.

 

[triggermaster]

"Reducing the number of black applicants admitted to medical school by 750 and giving all those seats to white applicants would increase the acceptance rate of white applicants from 45.15 percent to 47.97 percent, a 2.82 percent increase."

For those 750 applicants it’s one of the most important things that will ever happen in their lives.

 

[makemoney2024]

That will be the new model. It’s coming

Notice the aana propaganda machine has stopped saying crnas are cheaper. They aren’t cheaper when comparing availability of days and hours.

Crnas are cheaper.

Aana just holds on to the “access” to critical needs to keep the rural hospitals to themselves. They don’t want to share with docs. There are crna locums making $250-300/hr at critical access hospital doing less cases but billing the same hours being available as docs actually working solo cases in big cities at much higher acuity.

And these same Critical Access hospitals don’t want MDs. Although I have done a stint at one and you could tell it was run by nurses. So poorly organized. Docs wouldn’t put up w the way it was set up.

 

[makemoney2024]

The CRNAs working independently in these rural areas would never be allowed to work anywhere else because they usually suck bigtime and nobody anywhere else would ever accept such poor quality. I've seen a bunch of these "independent" CRNAs doing locums. God help their patients.

Tell us what you have seen please.

 

[rowsdower88]

For those 750 applicants it’s one of the most important things that will ever happen in their lives.

True. You could just as easily take out the 750 lowest scoring white applicants who were admitted and give those spots to 750 white applicants who scored higher than them but didn't get in. There are far more people in this category than affirmative action beneficiaries as well.

 

[Gern Blansten]

Ok, I'm not denying the cost. I'm saying it's negligible relative to other factors with admission. But this is sort of a new argument. I'm reading this as you saying Affirmative Action policies have a sort of corrosive effect on society. I disagree with that argument, but I recognize it as new and we could talk about it more if you want.

If you want to incorporate the cost of white people and asian people feeling bad when they see charts that show black people having an easier time getting in, that's a cost I suppose. I just am less concerned with it. Maybe you're referring to some other societal cost I'm oversimplifying, but chances are I'm still going to say it's less impactful than the benefits of black admission.



Yeah, they should get rid of legacy admissions. I haven't heard people talk about them in the context of med school admissions, but if they're happening that is bad.

Thanks for the response. I never implied corrosive effect as you stated. I simply said the stats show the cost is there. Some will say it’s worth it and others will disagree. My point was that to deny the cost being there was the issue. You seem to have acknowledged the cost in your most recent posts and stated that you believe it is worth it. That’s fine. In earlier posts, you seemed to deny the costs and state that it was the low scoring white student that was the bigger problem.
WRT the legacy admissions issue, I stated that it used to be a thing. Now its presence is minute and more often than not, a legacy offspring needs to have even better grades and scores to get in so there can be no hint of nepotism in the process. So, I would say that issue has been solved and possibly even over corrected for.

 

[triggermaster]

True. You could just as easily take out the 750 lowest scoring white applicants who were admitted and give those spots to 750 white applicants who scored higher than them but didn't get in. There are far more people in this category than affirmative action beneficiaries as well.

Yeah, you should do both.

The reason we are talking about DEI is that it is explicitly racist. There’s no office dedicated to admitting less qualified white and Asian students. Presumably someone in admissions thinks those students have high potential for non-racist reasons. Admissions officers ability to predict performance should definitely be studied and policies altered based on the results, but that has nothing to do with admitting with race as the primary criterion.

 

[rowsdower88]

Yeah, you should do both. That isn’t a defense of racist admissions policies. It’s an additional, unrelated problem.

There is a concerted political movement to remove affirmative action policies, there is no equivalent aimed at correcting white meritocracy despite its impact on more individuals.

The defense of affirmative action is that it (generally) has appreciable benefits that outweigh the costs.

 

[makemoney2024]

I had a 260 step 2, 4 peer reviewed pubs, multiple honors, USMD, no red flags and I had 7 interviews out of 54 applied. It was definitely a rough cycle. I matched my #5 which surprised me honestly, but I’m going to be an anesthesiologist so I really have nothing to be upset about.

Wow!!! Congratulations!! But wow. I would never have matched in today’s climate.

 

[makemoney2024]

Same for New Haven.

Except New Haven is close to one of the largest most diverse metropolitan cities in the world. I can see the appeal based on proximity to NYC.

 

[Dr. Anonymouss]

Wow!!! Congratulations!! But wow. I would never have matched in today’s climate.

Thank you! Beyond excited to be joining all of you. I can’t wait to see the charting outcomes are for this year. I genuinely believe anesthesia match data will be shocking

 

[triggermaster]

There is a concerted political movement to remove affirmative action policies, there is no equivalent aimed at correcting white meritocracy despite its impact on more individuals.

The defense of affirmative action is that it (generally) has appreciable benefits that outweigh the costs.

The benefits don’t outweigh the costs to the individual victims of AA/DEI. (not to mention the harm to deserving minorities who got admitted without racist preference)

How would you target preference for connected people? I’m all for it.

 

[makemoney2024]

THIS is exactly what I am talking about. Skin color is completely meaningless if you didn't grow up with significant barriers and hardships. Growing up black with two parents as physicians does not mean you were disadvantaged and thus should need a lower MCAT/GPA/STEP score. Looking solely at skin color to check a box is as racist as it comes. Looking at their upbringing, household income, zip code, specific circumstances is what makes individuals disadvantaged and this is what admissions committees should be focusing on.

So why is your assumption that rich Black Africans had lower stats? African student tend to be very studious and competitive and can our score Caucasians. Why this assumption? If they have access to wealth and tutoring and good schools they are likely as qualified as Caucasians.

 

[makemoney2024]

Wow, I’m surprised the average MCAT for Asians and Hispanics is so much higher than for whites.

Why the surprise?

 

[makemoney2024]

You consistently say that it is the low performing white student who is losing out to another low performing white student. The high performing white students are also losing out at a very significant rate. Couldn’t it be said that high performing white and Asian students are losing those same spots? If a white student has high MCAT and high GPA, shouldn’t their acceptance rate be higher than the fairly abysmal 63%? I recognize that some will be weeded out for personality or immaturity or professionalism issues. But to perform that well and only have less than a 2/3 chance is pretty rough. Meanwhile, a person of a different ethnicity in their same college classes who was a chronic underperformer gains admittance at a higher percentage than the person at the top of their class.
To me, it’s not about comparing the bottom dwellers in the classroom to each other. It’s about comparing the bottom dwellers of a certain race to the top students in the class who did not get accepted. There are apparently a whole 37% of them that are whites and higher percentage than that who are Asian. Those are the ones I’m talking about. The low performing students made their own situation a challenge and should realize they probably did this to themselves. So, to clarify, top students with high GPA and high MCATs who are white get in at nearly the same rate as black students with low GPA and low MCATs and that leaves 37% of top students without a spot.
To be clear, I feel strongly that the need for black physicians is very important. We need to have more and especially more who are multi generational US citizens (as opposed to affluent immigrants who just check a skin color box). However, the statistics can also not be denied. You cannot logically look at the stats and say that there is no impact to this effort to increase minority presence in medicine. The process has costs and they are staring us in the face in the form of AAMC statistics. The question then becomes, “is the mission worth the cost to the better qualified students who will not get a spot?” Maybe to some it is and to some it is not. The problem I have is denying the cost exists at all. To deny there is a cost is something that I can’t do when looking at the numbers.

I also recognize that the system used to be rigged for legacy families to take a number of available medical school spots. If you were a doctor (almost always white) and you wanted your kid to be one as well, there was a fairly good chance someone could make it happen. In the present time, I think that having a physician parent works against the applicant. If you are a white or Asian male child of a physician, you better have some darn good grades and scores if you wanna get it, at least in my region of the country. That legacy system needed to go away because it was also blatantly unfair. Even though it only affected a handful of people in each medical school class, it was still a cost to other applicants and, when multiplied across all med schools in the country, the impact became much larger. That cannot be denied either.

The legacy system is still around. When did it go away? I recently also did some reasearch on this. Something like 20% of med students come
From the Doctor Dynasties.

 

[triggermaster]

The legacy system is still around. When did it go away? I recently also did some reasearch on this. Something like 20% of med students come
From the Doctor Dynasties.

A lot of doctors’ kids are really smart. They are also likely to have had educational opportunities to be well prepared for med school. The problem isn’t dynasties. The problem is the underperforming kids getting in anyway. It’s the same problem as AA, but less easily identified because numbers aren’t gathered or published. Ideally, neither should exist and merit should determine admissions.

 

[triggermaster]

So why is your assumption that rich Black Africans had lower stats? African student tend to be very studious and competitive and can our score Caucasians. Why this assumption? If they have access to wealth and tutoring and good schools they are likely as qualified as Caucasians.

They DO have lower stats, but that’s not the point. The point is that lower stats are supposedly justified as a way to help black Americans catch up because they are supposedly behind because of a ‘legacy of slavery’. When the lower stats are accepted to promote the descendants of slaves in the US but end up actually benefiting people who are not descendants of slaves in the US (recent African and Caribbean immigrants) then the justification for AA falls apart.

 

[makemoney2024]

They DO have lower stats, but that’s not the point. The point is that lower stats are supposedly justified as a way to help black Americans catch up because they are supposedly behind because of a ‘legacy of slavery’. When the lower stats are accepted to promote the decedents of slaves in the US but end up actually benefiting people who are not descendants of slaves in the US (recent African and Caribbean immigrants) then the justification for AA falls apart.

I would honestly love to see the data on this before coming to a conclusion.

 

[makemoney2024]

A lot of doctors’ kids are really smart. They are also likely to have had educational opportunities to be well prepared for med school. The problem isn’t dynasties. The problem is the underperforming kids getting in anyway. It’s the same problem as AA, but less easily identified because numbers aren’t gathered or published. Ideally, neither should exist and merit should determine admissions.

A lot of Black Doctors kids are also smart you know.

 

[sloh]

The consequence of DEI is East Asians are now categorized as White Adjacent haha

 

[triggermaster]

A lot of Black Doctors kids are also smart you know.

No one ever said lots of black kids don’t deserve admission. Those that do, but are assumed to be AA admissions, are the second biggest victims after the individuals who miss out on their dream because of AA.

 

[makemoney2024]

No one ever said lots of black kids don’t deserve admission. Those that do, but are assumed to be AA admissions, are the second biggest victims after the individuals who miss out on their dream because of AA.

You said a lot of Doctors kids are smart and I just simply agreed with you that a lot of Black Doctors kids are also included in your statement. However if you have the stats showing Black kids of Physician parents are not as qualified as their White counterparts please show us. I am honestly curious.

 

[rowsdower88]

The consequence of DEI is East Asians are now categorized as White Adjacent haha

If we used DEI. Jeremy Lin would have gotten a basketball scholarship to Kentucky or Kansas or duke or similar elite schools since he was a very good high school basketball player.

The benefits don’t outweigh the costs to the individual victims of AA/DEI.

All you have to do is look over their MATCH for this year and last year to see that DEI matters a great deal to program directors

Alright, I'm now convinced that DEI is the new conservative buzzword for anything they dislike.

Too many Black people (but not the right kind of Black people) and not enough East Asians at my workplace? Too much DEI.

A famous basketball player didn't get a scholarship to a good school? Too much DEI.

Boeing planes falling apart in the sky? Too much DEI.

Tucker must have talked about DEI in a monologue or something. I'm calling for a moratorium on all mentions of DEI until we can figure out what is going on.

 

[BLADEMDA]

You said a lot of Doctors kids are smart and I just simply agreed with you that a lot of Black Doctors kids are also included in your statement. However if you have the stats showing Black kids of Physician parents are not as qualified as their White counterparts please show us. I am honestly curious.

The point was well qualified Black applicants are not affirmative action admissions. They have earned their spot by competing and even beating their white/asian classmates. But, the white/asian majority in med school and in hospitals may view these well qualified applicants the same as their affirmative action classmates.

 

[makemoney2024]

The point was well qualified Black applicants are not affirmative action admissions. They have earned their spot by competing and even beating their white/asian classmates. But, the white/asian majority in med school and in hospitals may view these well qualified applicants the same as their affirmative action classmates.

That may be YOUR point. That was not his point.
Go back and read the post where he said that Black kids of Physicians have lower stats. And maybe he is right? I doubt it. I am waiting on the stats/research to show this though.

 

[Test Boy]

Why the surprise?

I dunno if it was just for that particular year, but mcat scores for Asians were significantly higher than for whites. 3 points higher on that old scale is a big deal.

 

[makemoney2024]

I dunno if it was just for that particular year, but mcat scores for Asians were significantly higher than for whites. 3 points higher on that old scale is a big deal.

This is not the norm?

 

[Test Boy]

This is not the norm?

I have seen Asian matriculants consistently having slightly higher overall MCAT scores than whites but not this much higher.

 

[Gern Blansten]

I think Asians, on average, have scored higher on everything for many years. I don’t think that’s controversial. I think part of the issue on why Asians face discrimination in admission policies is that, if admission was purely merit based, most med school classes would be heavily slanted to Asian applicants.

 

[Dr. Anonymouss]

So why is your assumption that rich Black Africans had lower stats? African student tend to be very studious and competitive and can our score Caucasians. Why this assumption? If they have access to wealth and tutoring and good schools they are likely as qualified as Caucasians.

I never implied that rich black africans had lower stats. I was stating that rich black africans are not disadvantaged as opposed to anyone who is poor. My statement was simply referring to how we base admissions process more in favor of race than socioeconomic status which a far better predictor of who was disadvantaged compared to their peers.

But to follow up on your post, blacks and hispanics do in fact have lower scores than their peers accepted to medical school. This is not an assumption. There is clear data. Whites and Asians must work harder than hispanics and blacks to get into medical school.

Below is the most recent GPA and MCAT data for those accepted to medical school by race.

 

[Dr. Anonymouss]

I think Asians, on average, have scored higher on everything for many years. I don’t think that’s controversial. I think part of the issue on why Asians face discrimination in admission policies is that, if admission was purely merit based, most med school classes would be heavily slanted to Asian applicants.

but don't we want a society that rewards hard work? I wouldn't love to see one demographic representing any one particular thing, but if asians worked harder than everyone else then don't they deserve it? It's a sick game we are playing where we divide our people up into race buckets and we take the smartest from each bucket rather than simply putting everyone into one bucket where we merely look at merit and take the smartest and most deserving individuals. For those who are disadvantaged the time to stop lowering the bar (in my opinion) is after college. College has enough resources available that anyone who has the drive and desire can become successful. If you disagree with this statement then you are essentially just saying that no matter what we do or offer these individuals will always need the bar lowered for them. I just don't and can't agree with this.

I have not had an easy path to medicine despite the fact that I am white. I come from a lower-middle class family and attended a poor high school. I worked 20+ hours every week during my 4 years of college. I attended community college my first two years and then transfered to a state school on a scholarship. I will always be a "Pull yourself up by the bootstraps" kind of person because I believe that is the only way you can truly better your own life. None of us are born in the same position and some will have to work harder than others to get out of the rat race, that's just life. In my mind there are only two options for those in this stuck in this situation; Shut up and work hard or complain, blame others, and give up.

 

[makemoney2024]

I never implied that rich black africans had lower stats. I was stating that rich black africans are not disadvantaged as opposed to anyone who is poor. My statement was simply referring to how we base admissions process more in favor of race than socioeconomic status which a far better predictor of who was disadvantaged compared to their peers.

But to follow up on your post, blacks and hispanics do in fact have lower scores than their peers accepted to medical school. This is not an assumption. There is clear data. Whites and Asians must work harder than hispanics and blacks to get into medical school.

Below is the most recent GPA and MCAT data for those accepted to medical school by race.

I know this already. I know the overall stats. I was being specific to the rich Black kids.

 

[Dantrolene FC]

No matter the scores as long as URM finish training, they are going to provide better care to minority patients. If the goal is to improve population health, then color does matter because that's what patients see apparently. Per studies linked from below, Black patients are more satisfied and adherent to care when it is from a Black physician - doesn't matter if the Black physician is a West African immigrant or someone from the top 1%.

Do Black patients fare better with Black doctors?

Research shows that racial concordance can improve communication, trust, and adherence to medical advice. That has implications for health care providers.

www.aamc.org

When you make the assignments for the day, do you intentionally assign black anesthesiologists to black patients, etc?

 

[aneftp]

FYI. It’s no secret either. I know it’s a dirty taboo subject. But male ob gyn have better patient satisfaction scores than their female ob gyn counterparts.

In study, female OB/GYNs less likely than males to receive top patient satisfaction scores

Share Gender bias can rear its head in unexpected ways. In a new study from Stanford researchers, female OB/GYNs were 47 percent less likely to …

scopeblog.stanford.edu

So should more women only go to male ob gyn? Should be have more of a 50/50 split and get more men into ob gyn. lol. I love taking. About this.

It’s true.

But if anyone ever reads that posted article. There is a reason why.

And it’s a super DEI consequence subject no one really wants to discuss in the surgery world. Ob gyn is part surgery and part office base. Absolutely taboo. But male surgeons tend to just be better because it’s a technical skill and some of it is inherent nature. Again. Don’t shoot the messenger. These are things many male surgeon colleagues say.

 

[mmag]

When you make the assignments for the day, do you intentionally assign black anesthesiologists to black patients, etc?

If I only knew the race of the patients when I make assignments, I would. Increased patient satisfaction and better physician patient connection -makes logical sense. If I could prevent one malpractice lawsuit (with our group policy) due to better connection/communication then it's a no brainer.

 

[NightyNight]

I just hope those who matched come out to a decent work world in 4 years. Hope it’s not to be a firefighter. Get more AAs but control the narrative this time around.