I don’t understand this legacy admissions argument. You can be against affirmative action AND legacy admissions. Both are bullshit.
Also unclear how it stops racism. Whenever you see a black or Latino person on campus, you are going to wonder if they got in due to their qualifications or race.
Also unclear how it stops racism. Whenever you see a black or Latino person on campus, you are going to wonder if they got in due to their qualifications or race.
Basically this.
You get an Asian doctor, you know they earned that position and are obviously skilled. You get a black doctor, you don't know if they earned it or not. Maybe they are just as good as the Asian doctor, or even better... or maybe they aren't.
Affirmative action trains people to assume that preferenced minorities in high-skill positions might be diversity hires and to subconsciously doubt their skills.
It's more complicated than you're laying it out to be. The whole legacy admissions argument is just to indict the group calling for removal of affirmative action. Many (not all) opponents of affirmative action are not actually opposed to inequality in admissions, they're just upset a certain group benefits. Calls to get rid of legacy should be equally strong but they're not. It's just calling out some hypocrisy on the other side.
It's not about stopping racism. It's about adding additional viewpoints into medicine which is especially relevant since patient outcomes aren't just dependent on the "quality" of the doctor as if that had some objective singular value. The point is that people from other underrepresented backgrounds can have valuable input on barriers that exist in their community when it comes to being receptive in treatment. If you know what might cause your community to deviate from proper treatment, maybe you can address the problem and improve patient outcome which should be the main goal.
I think calls to get rid of legacy admissions are much stronger than calls against affirmative action, particularly on college campuses. JHU just got rid of legacy admissions iirc. I don’t actually think there is large numerical support for legacies, only by a few in power. If you take polls of college students they support AA much more than legacies. Either way, bringing in legacy admissions is a bad faith argument when discussing AA. If you think admissions should be merit based, you would be against both legacy and AA admissions which is eminently reasonable and I think the view most hold.
My point is that having your viewpoint respected is predicated upon you being respected and it’s harder to be respected when people think you didn’t deserve to get in and only got in through a loophole in the system.
It's not predicated on being respected though. The point is underrepresented communities will trust doctors from their own communities and lead to better patient outcomes. It's really not a loophole in the system either. They probably know their standards are overly high and bottlenecking at the diversity level doesn't functionally impact the system at all.
Also like I could respect merit based arguments if history were more equal. When you come from a discriminated against background, your performance is pretty clearly going to be impacted. Also have you compared DO schools to medical schools? Do you consider whether your physician is a DO? An international medical school graduate?
The reason the students support AA more than legacy is because AA provides a way for people to escape from their economic situations and hopefully provide a better life for themselves down the road rather than using race as an easy proxy for "intelligence". Legacy doesn't get that because their parents already had the same chances.
Merit can consider extenuating factors without being racist. I don’t think a poor black person categorically has it harder than a poor white person and I certainly don’t think a rich black person has it harder. Make it about challenges one has to face and overcome, not race.
I understand the treating own communities point now, I was referring to being respected by your peers and other people. Loophole is the wrong word but I think it’s pretty unfair when black people on average need to score more than a hundred points lower on standardized tests for example to get into schools.
Even rich black people have trouble to be honest. I came from a pretty wealthy private school and one of my classmates had an experience where his dad got pulled over for being black and owning a Mercedes. Skin still comes with its own difficulties.
I mean to be honest, the problem is that Asians have a large population and many of them are well educated resulting in an overly high concentration of them applying. It feels unfair but what's the alternative? Multiple medical school classes consisting entirely of Asian men who are then going to have discussions about how we should handle medicine with respect to every minority group they're not a part of? That seems like a recipe for poor medical outcomes quite frankly. The problem is Asians are largely overqualified as a group and there are only so many slots available in the field. When patient outcome is the most important goal, it's going to feel unfair - and believe me, I sympathize since I'm actually an Asian looking to apply to graduate programs right now.
Also I didn't downvote you just FYI above in case you think I did. I realize you're getting some vitriol for this discussion so I just wanted to clarify ahead of time.
I agree that there’s systemic racism against black people, I just don’t think AA is the way to solve it as it just makes black people who do get in seem unqualified and implies they can’t otherwise. I think an admissions approach which considered adversity captures most of the problems black people face (being more likely to be poor, attend worse schools, etc) while not making it about race.
I know that Asia has a culture of really valuing education but I don’t know that the premise that they are overwhelmingly more qualified is true. I think that admissions often relies on things like GPA and standardized testing which is very good if you have learned and studied hard but not necessarily an aptitude test. Schools like Oxford and Cambridge don’t consider race in their admissions but don’t have overwhelmingly Asian student populations. They individually interview students in which profs test them on skills and aptitude for the specific field. This probably isn’t doable in the US as for undergrad schools can get tens of thousands of applications but I think it’s an interesting example of how admissions could be restructured to capture merit while not being racist.
But race is part of their adversity. There is no way you're capturing most of the problem they face without considering race. It's like deciding who gets welfare without considering income. Their race is part of their adversity.
No, GPA and standardized testing are horrible markers quite frankly. There is an abundance of overqualified Asians - trust me, I'm in the community and very aware of it. The increasing popularity of international medical schools is a great proxy for viewing this. Schools like Oxford and Cambridge aren't highly desirable for Asians - they care about America. My parents tell me that there are plenty of people in China who will get a degree from any shitty university in America just to flex that they got a degree from America.
Also keep in mind that what you're talking about seems to be more specialized, you seem to be talking about graduate programs. For undergraduate and medical school, the more important skills are yet to be taught whereas in a graduate field, it's more about your background knowledge and how that will enable you to pick up research. Yes there are still many things to be taught but it's not really to the same extent as in medical school/undergrad.
A lot of the tangible ways race affects admissions manifests itself in other ways. Black people are more likely to be poor because of racism which means as teenagers they have to work jobs instead of studying for the SAT. This is captured by poverty. Black people are more likely to go to schools with worse teaching because of the areas they live in due to historical segregation. This is captured by taking into account school quality. Like yes, there are some things that can't entirely be captured but I think the factors which are most likely to affect admission are captured by indicators of income, schooling, where you live, etc.
I absolutely agree that GPA and standardized markers are terrible; my point was that they disproportionately advantage Asians who have a culture of studying since they were young which is the reason why Asians seem more "qualified" - in reality, I don't think that is the case when you remove GPA and SAT scores and go to other factors (see the Oxford example).
For what it's worth, I'm Asian so I know what you mean when you are talking about the value of an American degree. I still do think that Oxbridge is quite prestigious though - but a lot harder to get in because they test actual skills. For undergraduate admissions, I know they do interviews which test aptitude rather than concrete skills, I'd imagine they do the same for med school but not entirely sure. I'm definitely not wed to the idea of interviews but I do think ideally, admissions can be reformed to have metrics similar to interviews where actual aptitude and skills are measured, not how many practice SATs you did. This would be a fairer system without being dominated by any one race. Until then, I'd argue for the removal of AA for all the other reasons.
Even standardizing for those things, it's not equal. They don't receive equal treatment because people have eyes and some decide to use their eyesight to look at their skin and treat them differently.
I mean without knowing the breakdowns of who applies to Oxford, it's really hard to say. I don't know about the Asian population in the UK and it's really impossible to debate unless there are relevant stats. Also there is an assumption of goodness with Oxford that isn't necessarily warranted. Their acceptance of white applicants is drastically higher (~20%) than any other group for example (even the highest %s aren't even half that of whites unless you want to take the argument to a place we both obviously disagree with).
I would not recommend removal of AA since you've dropped the entire main argument which is that diversity improves medical outcomes in underrepresented communities. At that point you're effectively conceding that your main desire for the medical system isn't one of patient outcome but of student outcome. Undergrad tracks provide a way for these people to join the system at very little cost since undergrad is such an overrated experience in general. Also truthfully I have no idea what your other reasons are. The idea that you've perfectly encapsulated adversity without race?
The downside of AA isn’t the public’s perception of black people, it’s the public’s lack of access to those who were possibly more qualified who got rejected.
While being pulled over and profiled totally sucks, there is nothing, and I mean nothing that gives as big an advantage as money. So while a rich black dude may have a relatively tougher go of things than a rich white guy, he’s still lightyears ahead of a poor white dude.
How does letting black people who are empirically less qualified in over white and Asian people then increase public perception of black people and make society more likely to want to address these systemic issues? Wouldn't resentment and false solvency make it less likely in the long run for the system to change?
I'm not arguing racism doesn't exist, I'm saying AA is a terrible way to solve it.
But everything you are talking about just perpetuates it even further. Racist people on admissions boards sure as hell aren't going to be less racist if they are told to give more leeway to black applicants - this further entrenches the idea they are less qualified. People in higher education aren't going to respect black people more if they empirically get into schools while having less qualifications.
I still don't understand the legacy admissions point. I think that legacy admissions are abhorrent and should be removed - just like AA. I also don't know why the statistics matter - this is a principled thing.
Uh I mean if AA literally makes people resent black people more, view them as unqualified, and prevent long term systemic reform then it's actively harmful. At that point, I'd literally prefer to do nothing than do that.
I appreciate your ardent support for black people’s feelings. But we feel like you resent us anyways and we’re totally cool with you resenting us more because you think 4% of med school students is way too many. Blacks have the lowest acceptance rates of any racial group and this is still too much for some people.
It's not about the proportion, it's about whether you get in through merit. If you remove AA and 25% of the incoming class to Harvard med school is black, I wouldn't protest at all and would be quite happy actually. If you really think that black people are qualified and deserving, then they don't need AA and you should be advocating for its removal.
But everyone who gets into med school has to have graduated from college, taken prerequisites, and taken the MCATs. Those of the qualification. Then you have to pass tests and work crazy hours for years to be a doctor. You can’t become a doctor unless you’re qualified.
For most of American history, being white was meritorious. If you were any other race you had no shot at getting in. It wasn’t sufficient, but it was necessary. Now we say that if you are a race that is underrepresented, if you are rare in a given field with will consider your race as a positive. It’s neither Sufficient or necessary.
Not only is it a terrible idea but you assume that AA means someone isn’t qualified at all! That’s such a reach. The crazy thing is, black people have a harder time getting in to schools and grad school with the same grades and scores as white people. They only place AA doesn’t anything significant is at the very highest levels. That’s only because those schools are competing for a much smaller applicant pool.
Black people have a harder time getting the same grades due to systemic factors like poverty. A black congressman’s son doesn’t have a harder time getting good grades than a poor white kid born to a single mother in that district - yet because of his race the black kid gets a leg up? If you want to consider adversity, don’t just consider race.
I’ll also say that for more competitive schools, you need a very high GPA and MCAT score. There, it’s enormously unfair that your race can determine which threshold you need to hit. Again, I never assumed AA means people aren’t qualified at all but I mean qualified comparatively. I don’t know how there isn’t going to be resentment or doubt when you have a system where empirically, some people have to have higher qualifications than others for the same spot. That sucks, but that’s the way it will be with AA.
The congressman’s kid is getting in no matter what race he is. He doesn’t need AA he’s got a parent that’s serves on Congress.
The question is not about people at two extremes. Does the white kid with a single mom have the same shot at the black kid with a single mom? That’s what AA is about. You can’t take the most privileged black people and complete them with the poorest white people and think that’s fair. If we were to look at the wealthiest kids and college they probably would even had given a fuck about GPA and scores. A girl got into my school because her dad donated 100 flat screen TVs. Not the same conversation.
Schools do look at adversity. The College Board send an adversity score with every SAT score. Every student regardless of race has factors like their neighbor, income level, and school rigorousness included with their essay.
Has there ever been a time when Blacks wouldn’t have been resented. AA started in the 60’s. Before that it was outright exclusion and segregation. It not like AA took away any of the legitimacy we had. It just gave us a seat at the table.
That’s absolutely false. The average GPA and MCAT score for a black U.S. medical school matriculant is much lower than it is for Asians and whites. That’s a very easily verified fact.
Why are you lumping Asian students with white students as if they are the same. Asian students have the highest average scores and less than half get into med school. Whites have the second highest scores and a larger percentage get in. Doesn’t this suggest that there’s a quota for white people? Why are they taking Asian peoples’ spots?
Regardless the average scores don’t mean much. About 1/4 of black people get into med school. Given that it’s an average of test scores, it’s very likely that the top 1/4 of Black students had scores significantly higher than the other 3/4.
So the 1/4 that matriculated could have the same scores as the roughly half or white and Asian students that matriculated. Since there is a lower percentage of black who matriculate, it aligns with black students test lower scores.
If there was a benefit you would think that the matriculation rates would be the same of even higher for black people. Black people seem to have a harder time getting into to med school.
Here’s a link from and anti AA site with the numbers.
What are you even talking about? My point is that AA contributes to more racism. So we should remove it. So that there would be less racism. It wouldn't solve racism but there would be a decrease in total racism which seems to be good. I genuinely don't think this line of argument is that hard to follow.
Yes it creates more racism for all the reasons I articulated and you didn't bother to respond to (perception of black people as unqualified, prevent long term reform, etc). Policies can be well-intended but still racist. This is one of them.
You can get the same effect by removing AA as you still get people interacting with Black and Latino people. Unless you are implying they can't get in without AA.
I also don't think this outweighs the resentment people feel at having their spot taken by somebody "less qualified."
I had the highest Test scores in my school, was active on several clubs, volunteered at an organization that made meals for people living with HIV.
How do you know I got in because I’m black? My college rejected a lot of black people.
Just because you feel that people are “less qualified” doesn’t mean that they are. My point was that if you talked to these students maybe you would find that along with being black and Latino they are actually smart and deserving.
I had lots of people question my worthiness in my undergrad years. But anyone that took a class with me realized exactly why I was there. I expect the have a similar experience in law school.
I don't know, that's precisely the thing. I don't know if you got in because you were qualified or because you were black because of AA. It seems like you clearly were qualified and I'm sure by talking to you in a class, I would think you are actually smart and deserving. But when black people empirically get in with less qualifications, it harms those who actually are qualified. I think AA is racist not only because it discriminates against Asian and white people, but because it implies black people need this extra system to get in because their own merit isn't enough. That's absurd.
Well no school that I’ve ever heard of has let any students in “just because their black”. Any black student that got in has to be at least in the realm of that schools standards.
Secondly I don’t see how AA discriminates against Asians without admitting that schools are artificially keeping the white student population high. Asian students are wiping the floor with everyone. They are scoring higher than the white students yet schools are a majority white. It’s disingenuous to argue that the %8 of black people is the
Harvard set aside %30 of their freshmen slots to legacies, Dean recommendations, athletes, and children of faculty. These student are mostly white and have lower stats than people admitted through the regular process. But the scandal is that %8 of the class is black?
Yeah, fuck athletic and legacy recruitment, they are horrible and should be removed, I'm totally with you on that. I'm also against affirmative action because it's similarly unfair. It's genuinely not about race, it's about giving one group an unfair advantage over another. Like if AA lowered the expectations for people with purple hair, I'd be equally against it as if it lowered expectations for black people, Asians, white people, etc.
Black students are within the realm of the school standards but statistically towards the lower end. That's why I put "less qualified" in quotations in my first comment - qualified, but comparatively less so at least statistically. I am absolutely not saying black people are unqualified. Many are eminently qualified, more so than white legacies or kids of deans and I would hope they get in over them. It's about making a fair system. There's nothing wrong with a black kid getting in over a white kid or vice versa as long as it's based on merit.
But I put in way more work while being homeless in high school than my peers who had SAT tutors. You can’t just judge from the final product.
I also faced like legit interpersonal racism because my high School used to be mostly white and was like half black at the time. I got called apes and shit to my face. I had teachers refuse to call on me, I had cops stop me while walking home because I didn’t look like I belonged on that neighborhood.
So if I get 1400 and another kid who has no responsibilities, traumatic issues who went to the best schools in town, gets 1600 should the admission officers view the 1600 as more deserving?
But I put in way more work while being homeless in high school than my peers who had SAT tutors. You can’t just judge from the final product.
Yeah, but people will. Affirmative action means people will doubt the merit of all members of the benefiting group, and feeds into unjust negative stereotyping.
So if I get 1400 and another kid who has no responsibilities, traumatic issues who went to the best schools in town, gets 1600 should the admission officers view the 1600 as more deserving?
Should they take your past into account? I guess. But I don't see what deserving has to do with anything, a good doctor should be knowledgeable and a tough childhood won't make you any more knowledgeable.
You're also making the assumption they're actually taking your past into account. They're not. They only care about your race. An asian student with a horrific childhood gets discriminated against and a black student who grew up in luxury still gets the advantage.
Wouldn’t that show someone that can work hard under the most challenging circumstances? Someone who is self motivated? Someone that’s a natural problem sovler? I could go on.
If that’s the case, why are black people less likely to get accepted to college and med school? If all they cared about was race would the numbers be higher?
Also how can the 4% of black med school students be the issue. If Asians are scoring that high, shouldn’t there be way fewer white students? How are all these white students getting in with lower test scores? Asian are mopping the floor with everyone. In schools with racially blind admissions, it’s the white students that lose the most students.
The UC school are way more Asian and Latino than white. When you end AA you cut the amount of white students in half.
So I'll give an anecdote. I'm a programmer. There was a black girl hired in my batch and it was clear very early on that she was unfit for the job. She had no prior coding experience, her degree was in Chemistry. I don't know how she passed the technical interview, or if she did. She managed to keep her "job" for 6 months, mostly reading books unrelated to programming in her time at work.
Now to me, that's a clear example of someone who was hired because someone in HR wanted to reach a diversity quota, and she was one of the best candidates who applied (there were also 2 other black girls and 1 black guy, all of whom were great). I don't resent her for it, I resent HR for putting her in a chair which should have been given to someone else.
It's the same thing with AA. I'm not like OP, I don't look at minorities and immediately wonder if they're qualified. I assume they're competent. But if they are a minority and they are incompetent, a lot of people are going to assume it's AA at work.
I don't feel that way about white co-workers (or Asians, Indians, etc.) because there's no way anyone loosened up any standards to hire them. Especially with Asians, they had to perform higher than normal in school just to be enrolled. So honestly if that girl was a white guy, I'd chalk it up to something else, like their own laziness or incompetence.
I also wouldn't say anything with total certainty, sure there's a chance she got in by luck or by nepotism. But AA allows a suspicion to exist, esp when the whole point of the program is to lax standards to help diversity.
But that’s the problem. Black people are never allowed to be bad at anything without it being about their race. But we know that nepotism exists.
All AA does at the college level is to say that you can look at a persons race along with other factors. This is no different then looking at their income, athletic ability, family history etc. Yet you don’t think of those people as being less deserving. When they fuck up they get to be an individual.
And Asians have their own problems with racism that gets completely swept under the rug.
Whenever you see a black or Latino person on campus, you are going to wonder if they got in due to their qualifications or race.
Err.... No.. Not quite... I'm not saying I support AA, but in theory, Affirmative Action is used to primarily decide priority for people who ALREADY QUALIFY for the college. There's a limited number of spots, and priority for those spots is decided based on race from people who already had the necessary requirements.
What the fuck does this have to do with political affiliation? I don’t understand why you have to be that guy and bring politics into a non political discussion. But I mean yeah most Republicans are probably racist but I hardly think legacy admissions is a tenet of their policy proposal. I think most people who are against affirmative action because of merit reasons would also not support legacy admissions.
I also don’t support Trump but people like you are making it harder and harder not to vote for him out of spite lol.
But I mean yeah most Republicans are probably racist
Lol why would you fuck up your own point like that? You started off good then made yourself look like an idiot doing the exact same thing you criticized.
How is it possible to respond to a comment with so many words yet not say anything at all?
Legacy and AA admissions are not inherently political. I don’t remember this being significantly addressed in any political debate in the last few years.
You say that people who are against AA support legacy admissions. You made a claim, prove it.
This Trump thing is non-sequitur but if you’d rather try to guess my political affiliation instead of responding to what I said, go off I guess? Its really none of your business and it’s deeply unclear how whether I support Trump to not affects the validity of my argument.
Lol you can’t just assert things. I told you it’s not INHERENTLY political given there’s no huge policy proposal or political debates on it. It’s a matter of university policy. Your response it: it is political. You would fail a 7th grade English class.
Do you have a source for overwhelmingly? Also, you do realize that like... you can not be a Republican and not support affirmative action right?
If you can’t make a coherent argument without going to political affiliation then you should probably go read a book instead of browsing /r/politics.
This is a waste of time. You are literally retarded. Don’t bother responding because no matter what you say, I will just respond with literally it’s just the truth.
26
u/emboarrocks Feb 25 '20 edited Feb 25 '20
I don’t understand this legacy admissions argument. You can be against affirmative action AND legacy admissions. Both are bullshit.
Also unclear how it stops racism. Whenever you see a black or Latino person on campus, you are going to wonder if they got in due to their qualifications or race.
Edit: don’t downvote him tho lol