Race policies at universities questioned

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

i often think of this as an example for how some of our liberal minded think:

someone who is a minority gets into medical school due to this diversity appeal some love so much, then passes with average grades and goes on to be in all likelihood a mediocre brain surgeon.

someone who gets into medical school based on merit, with race and sex not playing a part at all, and odds are, goes on to have excellent grades and has a stellar reputation as a brain surgeon.

furthermore, both charge the exact same amount for every procedure. which person do you think the liberal minded would choose when if and when they should need brain surgery? it's not the first one listed.......

I wonder if there is any specific proof that this is the case - firstly that diversity programme are that widespread, secondly that school/college/university places are awarded largely, if not solely according to race; and thirdly, that "diversity" applicants amount to less skilled professional workers.

I think all of those assumptions are distortive over-generalisations.

perhaps, but it can happen. so which one would you pick?

Most medical decisions amount to pot-luck I thought, in the private system. Assuming you have the luxury of choosing your neurologist, you have nothing substantive to attest to his/her performance. I'll throw the question back on you - how would you realistically make that determination?

nice dodge. but i'd choose the one that is the most qualified, regardless of race or sex. i'm just wondering if you are that sincere in your desire for affirmative action that you'd choose a lesser qualified surgeon. my thoughts are that you'd not.

Of course I wouldn't - but how would I choose the "more qualified surgeon", and what are you basing the assumption on that the minority candidate is "less qualified"?

easily - by asking questions. they do allow you to ask questions about your surgeon's track record even in the uk, don't they? i'm not basing anything on race, i'd be asking questions of the person's peers to see who has a better record. who has more respect among their peers. and that's easy to do, btw.

you've still dodged the question. are your convictions so strong that you'd bypass a more qualified surgeon for a mediocre minority in this case?

As I said above, of course I wouldn't. But again you keep assuming that the minority candidate is somehow the less qualified - which of course relies on an equally shaky assumption that race is the primary determining factor when it comes to awarding college places. What is this based on? We've already had one former/current admissions counsellor on here saying that that isn't the case....

Moreover, nowhere in the OP article does it says that the universities cited are guilty of "race preference".

[Ban Hammer 13,677]

i often think of this as an example for how some of our liberal minded think:

someone who is a minority gets into medical school due to this diversity appeal some love so much, then passes with average grades and goes on to be in all likelihood a mediocre brain surgeon.

someone who gets into medical school based on merit, with race and sex not playing a part at all, and odds are, goes on to have excellent grades and has a stellar reputation as a brain surgeon.

furthermore, both charge the exact same amount for every procedure. which person do you think the liberal minded would choose when if and when they should need brain surgery? it's not the first one listed.......

I wonder if there is any specific proof that this is the case - firstly that diversity programme are that widespread, secondly that school/college/university places are awarded largely, if not solely according to race; and thirdly, that "diversity" applicants amount to less skilled professional workers.

I think all of those assumptions are distortive over-generalisations.

perhaps, but it can happen. so which one would you pick?

Most medical decisions amount to pot-luck I thought, in the private system. Assuming you have the luxury of choosing your neurologist, you have nothing substantive to attest to his/her performance. I'll throw the question back on you - how would you realistically make that determination?

nice dodge. but i'd choose the one that is the most qualified, regardless of race or sex. i'm just wondering if you are that sincere in your desire for affirmative action that you'd choose a lesser qualified surgeon. my thoughts are that you'd not.

Of course I wouldn't - but how would I choose the "more qualified surgeon", and what are you basing the assumption on that the minority candidate is "less qualified"?

easily - by asking questions. they do allow you to ask questions about your surgeon's track record even in the uk, don't they? i'm not basing anything on race, i'd be asking questions of the person's peers to see who has a better record. who has more respect among their peers. and that's easy to do, btw.

you've still dodged the question. are your convictions so strong that you'd bypass a more qualified surgeon for a mediocre minority in this case?

As I said above, of course I wouldn't. But again you keep assuming that the minority candidate is somehow the less qualified - which of course relies on an equally shaky assumption that race is the primary determining factor when it comes to awarding college places. What is this based on? We've already had one former/current admissions counsellor on here saying that that isn't the case....

Moreover, nowhere in the OP article does it says that the universities cited are guilty of "race preference".

i'm not assuming anything about the minority being less qualified. in the above scenario i flat stated the minority was in this case. want to make an issue out of it, feel free. the above was an excellent example of how some of these feel good laws and regulations can often lead to less than desired results. so the next time you feel like championing the cause of something, consider the flip side of it.

[DeadPoolX 9]

Most medical decisions amount to pot-luck I thought, in the private system. Assuming you have the luxury of choosing your neurologist, you have nothing substantive to attest to his/her performance. I'll throw the question back on you - how would you realistically make that determination?

Depending on your insurance provider, you might have the option to choose your specialist from a list of physicians. Usually, the better the provider, the greater in quality the list is and the better the quality the doctors are on the list. Not always, of course, but usually. For instance, a PPO will have far greater options available to the patient than an HMO. I know some physicians won't even see patients in their offices if they have HMO's due to all the hassles that surround them.

As for judging their performance, there are websites out there that rate doctors. Two that I know about are RateMDs and DrScore. I'm sure there are other websites as well. The people who rate the doctors are patients, so apart from viewing some impartial review board's testimony, this is probably the best patients have to date.

It's not treating someone better than another. Take for example if you are a parent to a son and daughter. As a fair and loving parent you love them equally, yes? Does that mean that whatever you do for your son, you must also do for your daughter? No. Their needs are going to be different. Even if you have two sons, they each have their individual needs. You can't just do exactly the same things with one as to the other to ensure equality - that's a very myopic understanding of equality.

Okay, I think I'm beginning to see what you mean. What's appropriate for a little boy is not necessarily appropriate for a little girl and vice-versa -- despite what some pop-psychologists would have us believe in today's society.

It doesn't apply easily to medical school admissions. Nor law school, generally. Nor Ph.D. If someone is grossly underqualified, they wash out or fail to pass the bar.

That's true; however, if they fail or wash out, then the fact they got in due to Affirmative Action means they pushed someone else out who was probably more academically suited for the spot in the first place. The only reason the minority student got in is because of the Affirmative-Action, which in of itself is rather insulting. At least it would be to me if someone were to say, "Hey, you're going to college just because you're Jewish!" I'd be pretty ticked off at that, seeing as how they'd feel I couldn't stand on my own two feet.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

i'm not assuming anything about the minority being less qualified. in the above scenario i flat stated the minority was in this case. want to make an issue out of it, feel free. the above was an excellent example of how some of these feel good laws and regulations can often lead to less than desired results. so the next time you feel like championing the cause of something, consider the flip side of it.

The flip side of this, is that race doesn't appear to play as big a role in assigning places at educational institutions as some people seem to think it does. There is more to diversity than ethnicity...

[Ban Hammer 13,677]

i'm not assuming anything about the minority being less qualified. in the above scenario i flat stated the minority was in this case. want to make an issue out of it, feel free. the above was an excellent example of how some of these feel good laws and regulations can often lead to less than desired results. so the next time you feel like championing the cause of something, consider the flip side of it.

The flip side of this, is that race doesn't appear to play as big a role in assigning places at educational institutions as some people seem to think it does. There is more to diversity than ethnicity...

sure remember that next time you see a doctor.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

i'm not assuming anything about the minority being less qualified. in the above scenario i flat stated the minority was in this case. want to make an issue out of it, feel free. the above was an excellent example of how some of these feel good laws and regulations can often lead to less than desired results. so the next time you feel like championing the cause of something, consider the flip side of it.

The flip side of this, is that race doesn't appear to play as big a role in assigning places at educational institutions as some people seem to think it does. There is more to diversity than ethnicity...

sure remember that next time you see a doctor.

I'm still not sure how you can justify classifying ethnic minority professionals as "sub-standard". What specifically are you basing this on?

Had a bad experience with a black doctor?

[Fandango 1,440]

Getting accepted to something based on something other than your own merits is a cop out, and is charity. And to fully empower someone, you shouldn't 'make exceptions' because of it.

Oh come on. Read CarolineM's post. To whom the merit? The kid whose parents paid for SAT prep and Choate and the guidance counselor who knew people on the board at Harvard? How on earth is that more meritorious?

What about legacy admits? Or the requirements that you're well-rounded? Being well-rounded, of course, means your parents bought you ballet lessons and tae kwon do and you spent your summers in Honduras doing something noble. Are any of these merit? So far the argument seems to be "You're meritorious if your parents buy you things."

Steven isn't racist; he's saying that if you take a poor kid and put him in a shitty school, even if he does his best, he's going to have a hard time competing against mommy-bought-me-a-pony types. To give him equality of opportunity -- black, white, rural, whatever -- is going to require allowing that different background to count as much as a mommy-paid-for-my-important-life-experience-in-london.

I don't think I'd have a problem with some kind of economic aa....but when it's based on purely skin color it's wrong.

Oh, and I'm not the one who equates minorities with the physically handicapped without a ramp. You may not find that racist, but I most certainly do.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Getting accepted to something based on something other than your own merits is a cop out, and is charity. And to fully empower someone, you shouldn't 'make exceptions' because of it.

Oh come on. Read CarolineM's post. To whom the merit? The kid whose parents paid for SAT prep and Choate and the guidance counselor who knew people on the board at Harvard? How on earth is that more meritorious?

What about legacy admits? Or the requirements that you're well-rounded? Being well-rounded, of course, means your parents bought you ballet lessons and tae kwon do and you spent your summers in Honduras doing something noble. Are any of these merit? So far the argument seems to be "You're meritorious if your parents buy you things."

Steven isn't racist; he's saying that if you take a poor kid and put him in a shitty school, even if he does his best, he's going to have a hard time competing against mommy-bought-me-a-pony types. To give him equality of opportunity -- black, white, rural, whatever -- is going to require allowing that different background to count as much as a mommy-paid-for-my-important-life-experience-in-london.

I don't think I'd have a problem with some kind of economic aa....but when it's based on purely skin color it's wrong.

Oh, and I'm not the one who equates minorities with the physically handicapped without a ramp. You may not find that racist, but I most certainly do.

Why do you keep fixating on specific analogies when the point that was being made was subsequently clarified?

It's not treating someone better than another. Take for example if you are a parent to a son and daughter. As a fair and loving parent you love them equally, yes? Does that mean that whatever you do for your son, you must also do for your daughter? No. Their needs are going to be different. Even if you have two sons, they each have their individual needs. You can't just do exactly the same things with one as to the other to ensure equality - that's a very myopic understanding of equality

[Heracles 417]

I don't think I'd have a problem with some kind of economic aa....but when it's based on purely skin color it's wrong.

Oh, and I'm not the one who equates minorities with the physically handicapped without a ramp. You may not find that racist, but I most certainly do.

I sounds like whoever is equating someone physically handicapped to being the same as a minority is suggesting the minority is someone how challenged...

When you truly think about it, the only people who deserve a special hand are people who are physically or mentally challenged. Someone who is Autistic or has down syndrome etc should most definitely be able to apply for special consideration. Heck I would donate to such a noble cause..

This current affirmative action, for one race, is a slap in the face to every other immigrant who came to the United States with nothing. To every immigrant who is struggling to make ends meet and is working twice as hard as any minority ever has to build a better life for their family.. I have the greatest respect for those immigrants..

[Caladan 19]

That's true; however, if they fail or wash out, then the fact they got in due to Affirmative Action means they pushed someone else out who was probably more academically suited for the spot in the first place. The only reason the minority student got in is because of the Affirmative-Action, which in of itself is rather insulting. At least it would be to me if someone were to say, "Hey, you're going to college just because you're Jewish!" I'd be pretty ticked off at that, seeing as how they'd feel I couldn't stand on my own two feet.

Not necessarily. Completion rate in the top Ph.D. programs is about 50% across the boards; and everyone is qualified when they walk in the door. (Ph.D.'s are not like undergrad at all.) If they don't owe everyone else an apology for dropping out, neither do the minority students.

And by the way -- Yale seems to count Jewish ancestry favorably. Counts legacies, athletics, region of the country (easier for a kid from Wyoming than a kids from New York), interesting hobbies, life experiences and general interviewing skills. Oh yeah, and your GPA, your school, and your SAT score.

Honestly, people are acting like a) there's a quota and B) that's it's taking C level students and sending them to Harvard. Neither of those things are true. One of the most challenging things for admissions officers is finding *qualified* minority and poor students to apply; the schools in the inner city are just too bad. Contrary to popular belief, being a minority just isn't a free ticket. It's not "just because" you're any color. It's a boost about as meaningful as your SAT prep program, and THE POOR RURAL WHITE KID GETS THAT BOOST TOO. His boost isn't called affirmative action. It's called regional diversity.

charles, if you're assuming that a black doctor who has been admitted to neurosurgery, one of the most competitive and prestigious programs (done with internal competition in med school), successfully completed four years of training in medical school, four years of surgical residency, and three years of fellowships and specialization is unqualified because he is black and he might have had an easier time getting into undergrad, I just don't know what to tell you. I don't think you're saying that, but I'm not sure what on earth you're arguing otherwise. That accepting affirmative action means accepting stupid arguments?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

This current affirmative action, for one race, is a slap in the face to every other immigrant who came to the United States with nothing. To every immigrant who is struggling to make ends meet and is working twice as hard as any minority ever has to build a better life for their family.. I have the greatest respect for those immigrants..

Again... Where is this happening - can we actually start talking qualifiable specifics here?

[Heracles 417]

This current affirmative action, for one race, is a slap in the face to every other immigrant who came to the United States with nothing. To every immigrant who is struggling to make ends meet and is working twice as hard as any minority ever has to build a better life for their family.. I have the greatest respect for those immigrants..

Again... Where is this happening - can we actually start talking qualifiable specifics here?

I see the angle your taking... Well if it's not happening anywhere, then you should not have a problem with scrapping it. As doing so would not affect anyone right...

[Fandango 1,440]

Getting accepted to something based on something other than your own merits is a cop out, and is charity. And to fully empower someone, you shouldn't 'make exceptions' because of it.

Oh come on. Read CarolineM's post. To whom the merit? The kid whose parents paid for SAT prep and Choate and the guidance counselor who knew people on the board at Harvard? How on earth is that more meritorious?

What about legacy admits? Or the requirements that you're well-rounded? Being well-rounded, of course, means your parents bought you ballet lessons and tae kwon do and you spent your summers in Honduras doing something noble. Are any of these merit? So far the argument seems to be "You're meritorious if your parents buy you things."

Steven isn't racist; he's saying that if you take a poor kid and put him in a shitty school, even if he does his best, he's going to have a hard time competing against mommy-bought-me-a-pony types. To give him equality of opportunity -- black, white, rural, whatever -- is going to require allowing that different background to count as much as a mommy-paid-for-my-important-life-experience-in-london.

I don't think I'd have a problem with some kind of economic aa....but when it's based on purely skin color it's wrong.

Oh, and I'm not the one who equates minorities with the physically handicapped without a ramp. You may not find that racist, but I most certainly do.

Why do you keep fixating on specific analogies when the point that was being made was subsequently clarified?

It's not treating someone better than another. Take for example if you are a parent to a son and daughter. As a fair and loving parent you love them equally, yes? Does that mean that whatever you do for your son, you must also do for your daughter? No. Their needs are going to be different. Even if you have two sons, they each have their individual needs. You can't just do exactly the same things with one as to the other to ensure equality - that's a very myopic understanding of equality

I find it offensive in its logic...to suggest they could benefit from help is one thing...to draw a parallel which essentially equates them as being impotent without help is simply wrong, and says a lot more than I think most of you realize.

Minority + college admission = wheelchair bound person + stairs

?????

Seriously?

and not to mention the 'daughter and son' analogy is just classic nanny-state mentality, althought that one is not so much offensive as it is entertaining.

You don't have to agree...I'm sure you won't. But don't sit here and tell me how I'm supposed to digest a post, when to me, the meaning was cquite clear....AND it's not even the first time this analogy or my interpretation of such as racist has been raised. So agree, disagree, whatever...but my opinion stands

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

This current affirmative action, for one race, is a slap in the face to every other immigrant who came to the United States with nothing. To every immigrant who is struggling to make ends meet and is working twice as hard as any minority ever has to build a better life for their family.. I have the greatest respect for those immigrants..

Again... Where is this happening - can we actually start talking qualifiable specifics here?

I see the angle your taking... Well if it's not happening anywhere, then you should not have a problem with scrapping it. As doing so would not affect anyone right...

I'm not taking any angle other than asking where specifically ethnic "affirmative action" is currently being applied and where specifically it is causing a tangible problem.

I don't support that kind of "affirmative action" as I said a few pages ago, but neither do I think that it is anything like as prevalent as it is being presented.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Getting accepted to something based on something other than your own merits is a cop out, and is charity. And to fully empower someone, you shouldn't 'make exceptions' because of it.

Oh come on. Read CarolineM's post. To whom the merit? The kid whose parents paid for SAT prep and Choate and the guidance counselor who knew people on the board at Harvard? How on earth is that more meritorious?

What about legacy admits? Or the requirements that you're well-rounded? Being well-rounded, of course, means your parents bought you ballet lessons and tae kwon do and you spent your summers in Honduras doing something noble. Are any of these merit? So far the argument seems to be "You're meritorious if your parents buy you things."

Steven isn't racist; he's saying that if you take a poor kid and put him in a shitty school, even if he does his best, he's going to have a hard time competing against mommy-bought-me-a-pony types. To give him equality of opportunity -- black, white, rural, whatever -- is going to require allowing that different background to count as much as a mommy-paid-for-my-important-life-experience-in-london.

I don't think I'd have a problem with some kind of economic aa....but when it's based on purely skin color it's wrong.

Oh, and I'm not the one who equates minorities with the physically handicapped without a ramp. You may not find that racist, but I most certainly do.

Why do you keep fixating on specific analogies when the point that was being made was subsequently clarified?

It's not treating someone better than another. Take for example if you are a parent to a son and daughter. As a fair and loving parent you love them equally, yes? Does that mean that whatever you do for your son, you must also do for your daughter? No. Their needs are going to be different. Even if you have two sons, they each have their individual needs. You can't just do exactly the same things with one as to the other to ensure equality - that's a very myopic understanding of equality

I find it offensive in its logic...to suggest they could benefit from help is one thing...to draw a parallel which essentially equates them as being impotent without help is simply wrong, and says a lot more than I think most of you realize.

Minority + college admission = wheelchair bound person + stairs

?????

Seriously?

and not to mention the 'daughter and son' analogy is just classic nanny-state mentality, althought that one is not so much offensive as it is entertaining.

You don't have to agree...I'm sure you won't. But don't sit here and tell me how I'm supposed to digest a post, when to me, the meaning was cquite clear....AND it's not even the first time this analogy or my interpretation of such as racist has been raised. So agree, disagree, whatever...but my opinion stands

I didn't mention it, but the implication on the last page that seemed to suggest ethic minority neurologists were "substandard" seemed a tad more offensive to me, and Charles didn't even clarify that one. It wasn't even an analogy.. There is no justifiable basis for assuming that ethnic minority professionals are of a poorer standard than their white counterparts.