Texas Medical School will not use Race in Admissions

I heard Asians were being discriminated against because too many Asians were being accepted into high-level schools and that was screwing with their diversity standards.

I may be wrong but I heard the Asians were the most discriminated against in high-level Academia in terms of diversity programming.

a reply to: blueman12

They are.

originally posted by: Edumakated

People aren't picked just based on skin color. It can be a factor, but hardly is what drives admission alone.

I think you need to go back and read my post again. No where did I say that and no one in this thread is saying that. In I fact I said the very opposite of that. I will make it easy for you and simply repost what I said.

If two people grow up next door to each other, go to the same school, engage in the same activities, work just as hard as each other, the one that is Black will get picked over the one who is White or Asian simply because of skin color. So the fact there are other considerations than test scores is not relevant to whether that is wrong.

a reply to: VegHead

One thing I've learned over the years is that if you can find a doctor from Asia or India, they make the best. I found a doctor who came from India to be my child;s pediatrician. She's very disciplined and doesn't let us slide with anything. I'm talking, by the book from A to Z, but at the same time is extremely friendly, jokes with you, and loves all of her patients. Her husband, who is also from India, is a brain surgeon.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Yea i think asians are just blowing every other race out of the water in academics.

If you've got the money, test scores, race, nothing matters. You can buy your way into even top notch universities.
Even get a athletic scholarship and never even having played the sport.

this pay to play is just the tip of the iceberg.

www.cnn.com...

originally posted by: olaru12
If you've got the money, test scores, race, nothing matters. You can buy your way into even top notch universities.
Even get a athletic scholarship and never even having played the sport.

this pay to play is just the tip of the iceberg.

www.cnn.com...

Hopefully those involved have been made an example of. Although with millions in the bank, they tend to feel bulletproof.

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: olaru12
If you've got the money, test scores, race, nothing matters. You can buy your way into even top notch universities.
Even get a athletic scholarship and never even having played the sport.

this pay to play is just the tip of the iceberg.

www.cnn.com...

Hopefully those involved have been made an example of. Although with millions in the bank, they tend to feel bulletproof.

So far, it seems, those who took the plea deal will get off with a relatively light punishment.

Aunt Becky, however, is fighting it, and will pay the price.

Kids of politicians can get in ivy league schools just because of who their father is.

a reply to: JAGStorm

I understand where you're coming from, but I don't think the story reflects what's actually happening behind the scenes about University and Medical School admissions. They don't have to use "race" to balance the "social" checkbook. They've figured out better ways to do it.

BTW, I spent an entire afternoon looking at College/Uni demographics and after digging behind the stories, it became apparent that they've realized that the problem meeting their "diversity" goals is that they simply got way too many white people applying and attending their schools. To fix that, they first, set aside a certain number of entrance slots for foreign students, and I'm not talking for white European foreign students, I'm talking Asian/African and South American. Some of these schools, like UCLA, set aside as much as 1/3 of the entrance slots for foreign students.

That severely limits the number of "whites" because 1/3 of the entrance slots are gone to begin with.

Next they do a bizaare calculus using factors such as SSAT/ACT, and family income to garner 1/3 or more of POC. Then they look at the straight A kids with high STEM performance (typically Asian) to fill out the remaining 1/3. From what I've been reading they have even reduced the percentage of slots for "legacy" (read rich white Alumni kids) from as high as 20% to new lows of 10%.

Voila! Diversity at your UNI.

a reply to: Edumakated

People aren't picked just based on skin color. It can be a factor, but hardly is what drives admission alone.

This is exactly what the whole Harvard admission scandal is about. I think we are going to find out if your statement is true or not. Right now, neither of us really know, we can guess and give our opinions. Facts on papers don't lie.

originally posted by: JAGStorm
a reply to: Edumakated

People aren't picked just based on skin color. It can be a factor, but hardly is what drives admission alone.

This is exactly what the whole Harvard admission scandal is about. I think we are going to find out if your statement is true or not. Right now, neither of us really know, we can guess and give our opinions. Facts on papers don't lie.

I can speak on it having been through the application process, graduated, and worked in admissions at an elite school. There is a lot of nuance, subtlety, and statistics manipulation that have to be considered when discussing this topic.

Admissions to these schools HAS NEVER been solely about test scores and GPA. This cannot be repeated enough. While those factors are important, they are hardly the only factors that are considered.

The demand to attend these schools is so high that they could literally create a class of nothing but 4.0 GPAs / Perfect SAT scores and they still could not accommodate all the applicants with 4.0 GPAs / Perfect SAT scores. The same people who get rejected now, would still get rejected. This is a statistical fact because there simply aren't enough seats to go around. You could remove every black student from Harvard (there aren't that many) and at best the chance of admission might go up say 1%.

The bigger unspoken issue is that admissions to certain schools is seen as a door to almost certain success and certain social status. This is why on the other end of the spectrum, you have the case with rich parents paying more than it cost to even attend the schools just so they can have bragging rights that their kid went to XYZ school.

You have limited spots for admissions and everyone wants to find a reason their little snowflake wasn't accepted.

Yes, Asians face a sort of reverse discrimination. Everyone knows this. The reality is that Asians with high test scores / GPA are a dime a dozen due to a culture that in a way overemphasizes conformity and test taking. Remember the book, Tiger Mom? Schools don't want one dimensional students. Ask any parent or kid who is applying to top schools and they will tell you that you need a "hook" and it isn't just your test scores / GPA. Asian kids who get high SAT/ perfect GPA want to study STEM have no hook because damn near every Asian kid is like that... because culturally, Asians and Indians often put a lot of emphasis on becoming Doctors (even to the degree the kids are miserable) on the other hand, if you are Asian who wants to study Shakespeare or something else, schools might actually trip over themselves to admit that kid. Yes, it is stereotyping, but the schools know this to be true to some degree.

On the flip side, you have black students who are quite frankly in short supply at a certain level academically. As a result, top schools compete fiercely to attract those students. This is why you see stories about black kids (in particular, Nigerians who have a similar culture to Asians) who get accepted at all the Ivy League schools. Even black kids who come from wealthy families often times still have a "black experience" that schools are looking for in shaping their student bodies each year.

The problem boils down to simple mathematics. You have a limited number of seats and exponentially more applicants, all of whom are more than qualified to be at the school. There is no way to objectively admit everyone.

As much as I dislike Obama as a politician, Harvard Law seems to have made the right choice in his acceptance. He became President of the United States. He obviously exhibited some leadership quality / skills that the adcom saw. Regardless of his LSAT scores, GPAs, etc he clearly did ok at HLS and went on to be successful politically. I'd argue he was a better choice for the school than yet another wanna be partner at a corporate BigLaw firm drone.

a reply to: Edumakated

Yes, Asians face a sort of reverse discrimination. Everyone knows this. The reality is that Asians with high test scores / GPA are a dime a dozen due to a culture that in a way overemphasizes conformity and test taking. Schools don't want one dimensional students. Ask any parent or kid who is applying to top schools and they will tell you that you need a "hook" and it isn't just your test scores / GPA.

Who is to say that Asians are "one dimensional". Many Asians have artistic gifts, musical gifts and are just as creative as anyone else. The one thing they aren't is black. If they were, they would get that limited "seat". The hook is a lie, and so is what they call "personality score" schools have just been using that as an excuse to be openly racist.

I've read what you have said on this post and on some others but I still don't agree. Obviously this medical school doesn't agree either. I hope more schools follow suit.

There is no way to objectively admit everyone.

Sure there is, it's called test scores, and grades. You score high you get in, you score low you don't. The color of your skin is not required.



studentsforfairadmissions.org...

The result was a change in admissions criteria to reward “leadership,” and “well-rounded” candidates — a thin disguise for “WASPs” — and, following closely on, actual quotas for Jewish students, so that no matter how many applied, their numbers on campus would stay just about the same. After several decades, this came to be seen as racist and unfair, and the quotas were dropped. (Though by then, conveniently enough, the Ivy League was able to find Jewish applicants with plenty of money, polish and governing-class connections without too much trouble). But while the quotas for Jews are gone, the Ivy League now, by all accounts, has quotas for Asian students. They are seen as people who study too hard, boring grinds who aren’t much fun — and, of course, their parents aren’t as rich and connected. And though the numbers of highly qualified Asian applicants have grown dramatically, the number of Asians admitted stays pretty much the same every year.

a reply to: JAGStorm

Sure there is, it's called test scores, and grades. You score high you get in, you score low you don't. The color of your skin is not required.

To some degree that is what they do... there is a minimum criteria that they know is required to be successful at the school. Even students who might get in with less than average scores, are still more than capable of doing well at the school. Remember, we are talking averages (some have lower scores, some have higher scores).

The schools know that any kid that gets say a 1300 or whatever on their SATs is smart enough to attend the school. However, their typical admit might have score 1500. There is marginal difference between the two students.

Practically, you cannot just accept based on test scores / GPA alone because mathematically even if you did that there still aren't enough seats.

Harvard undergrad received 42,000 applications last year for roughly 2000 spots.... I'd wager that 10,000 of those applicants had 4.0 GPAs and perfect or near perfect test scores.... so even if test scores and gpa were the only metric looked at, the vast majority are still getting rejected.

The only way this would work is you literally would have to say X is the cut off and then anyone above X is put into a lottery system and randomly selected to attend.

The problem with that method is that you still have to worry about "yield management" which is the percentage of acceptances that opt to attend the school. Since applicants apply to multiple schools, schools admissions committees try to select applicants who are likely to attend. This is often soemthign that gets left out too and why I said there is a lot of nuance. Particularly as you go down the line of school prestige. Schools like Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Princeton tend to have very high yields... probably in the upper 90%.... meaning 90% of those accepted actually attend. As you start moving away from those schools, the yield goes down.

Some schools may actually reject higher qualified applicants because they are afraid they will lose that student to a more prestigious school. For example, Duke might reject an applicant that Harvard accepts because Duke admissions committee realizes that student may have a shot at a higher ranked school and they rather give that spot to a student who is more likely to attend.

Just to clarify, are they still going to consider gender?

Before everybody leaps up and down about meritocracy, this could simply be a way of getting rid of more males regardless of race, while a gender bias towards females remains, and is probably reinforced.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
I didn't even study and got over a 1320, the idea Black people are so dumb they can't do better than 1300 is insulting.

Were you living in a broken home where your neighbors were drug dealers, violent crime was rampant, your dad abandoned your family, your single mother was living entirely off of government assistance, and your school was so bad that it didn't even teach geometry as a high school level math?

Intelligence isn't based on what you know, it's based on your capacity to learn. Highly intelligent people should have the opportunity to learn how to get into good careers. However, standardized tests mostly measure a persons current academic ability rather than their potential. Mostly because intelligence itself is nearly impossible to measure, in part because there's not an actual definition for it.

originally posted by: Mach2
The biggest difference between success, and failure, academically, it the structure, and focus of the family unit.

No. The biggest difference between success and failure has absolutely nothing to do with the individual. It primarily has to do with the connections your friends and family have access to. This is why "merit" based systems mostly reward the already successful. Those who are already well networked, maintain those connections over generations, and therefore maintain their position in society. Actual merit has nothing to do with it.

There is not enough room to admit everyone who is qualified to these schools. In most of them, you cannot even admit 5% of those who are qualified. Thus, the schools will shape their student body a bit to add diversity, so that demographics more in need of some additional help see some people from their groups attend.

Academic talent is necessary, but academic talent alone does not get you into a good school. It's just like getting a job once you graduate. Sure, having a degree is nice but it's really not a qualification because every single person who will be seriously considered for a job, also has a degree. What matters is what else you can bring to the table beyond the bare minimum which is academic qualifications. And even then, after that it is still a (weighted) random chance.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
So there you are, about to get your coconut opened up for some really precise surgery and the doctor says, 'Hey! You! Guess what? I got into medical school due to a merit point increase and not because I was as qualified as everyone else. Nurse, bone saw.'

Did they graduate medical school due passing the content?
Did they get licensed as a doctor due to completing the necessary training?

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: JAGStorm

So let me ask you a question.

Let's say that this happens and they only accept students based on merit. And it just so happens that the only people that get in are chinese.

Would you be ok with that?

I literally cannot believe that you asked this question. Do I want the Chinese person who got in merit or the affirmative action douche canoe who got in because "under-represented?" Clearly it's not a question for anyone with an IQ over 75, give me the Chinese person.

a reply to: JAGStorm

One down, so many to go! This is how it should be, and money shouldn't decide, either. Meaning, if someone can't qualify, they should not be able to buy their way in. Nice to see this starting to happen!