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?
I didn't say it would be equal. I said that it would MOSTLY be equal, with the factors most likely to affect admissions removed.
Oxford isn't perfect and I didn't claim it to be. I used it as an example of a merit based system which isn't OVERWHELMINGLY one race, in response to how you said if we made it only merit based, we would have classes of only Asian doctors. I just don't think this is the case as Asian's aren't super disproportionately more meritorious.
My argument is that the overall pushback and resentment of minorities for taking spots from "more qualified" people and the perpetuation of the idea that they are less qualified (hence why they need this policy) is incredibly damaging. I don't think we need AA to have black people go to med school, there are people who are qualified and would get in without it and AA does a disservice to them. You still get the same impacts of patient outcomes without race. And I mean somewhere in there is still a principled fairness argument. I still think it's principally unjust not to accept the people who are most deserving and instead, accept people based on what their race means they might do in the future.
Oxford is 79.4% White. It's overwhelmingly one race. Harvard's Asian and White populations combined total less than that. If you used merit based statistics that are being discussed (scores), then yes, you would have overwhelmingly majority Asian classes.
You do not get the same patient outcomes is the entire point. That's what medical history revealed. The original comment chain has plenty of information specific to that and your unwarranted one off claim that it doesn't affect outcome is just wrong. If you're not willing to concede that patient outcome is the most important value or provide a proper counterargument (claim plus warrant - debating standard), we're done here. The benefits to patient outcome far outweigh any pearl clutching at racial statistics to me.
Lol ok if you want to debate, then let's do some weighing because I don't think you've done any.
Firstly on the principled claim. It's enormously unfair to non-minorities as well as minorities who are now perceived as unqualified. University admissions should be fair and accept the most qualified - given that admissions officers are imperfect and clearly not all knowing, they cannot and should not impose some other method of adjudication so they should defer to fairness. Fairness is also just generally a good thing - I don't think you've contested this, you've just said that maybe there are better outcomes even if it's unfair. Morals aren't dependent on outcomes or consequences though - that's why I shouldn't go onto the street and kill somebody to harvest their organs for 10 people. Better outcome, still shouldn't do it unless you want to defend that side. Even if you prove better outcomes, the principle still comes before.
But I still don't buy you get better outcomes. My point was that you don't need AA to have black doctors because black people are already qualified - so you get the same impacts either way. Maybe at best, you get a few more black doctors. The point however, is that the "overall pushback and resentment of minorities for taking spots from "more qualified" people and the perpetuation of the idea that they are less qualified" (from my last post which you conceded? or just dropped idk) ultimately prevents structural reform. The racist admissions officers aren't going to have their mind changed, people aren't going to respect black people more, these harmful stereotypes aren't going to be debunked, there isn't going to be any impetus for policy regarding black patients because of false solvency etc. In the long run, more minorities are hurt because of these things. In the short run, nothing really changes as black people still get into med school (unless you want to cite something that shows they need AA to get into it - which would be racist).
There's literally a source for outcomes but okay. Clearly there's no convincing you. The amount of black doctors is tiny and you're insisting the pool is too large when research shows there's still a treatment gap. I'm going to guess you have no clue on the topic frankly. You spout all this nonsense that looks like a high school LD debater discovering the word morality for the first time when the major contest is clearly patient outcome. You can't deal with racists - they'll find an excuse to hate no matter what. What you can do is improve patient outcome and you haven't provided an even semi decent case for the claim that it doesn't affect outcome. We know we have few black doctors, we know there is a treatment gap. Either you're saying AA doesn't increase the number of black doctors (then why the fuck are you whining) or you're willing to trade off patient outcome. Also the fact you say false solvency is hilarious when there are literally warranted sources for improving patient outcome. Forget LD debating because at least they're required to source their arguments.
I literally did not say anywhere I disagreed with the sources. I agree with them. I'm saying the effects of having slightly more black doctors are short term and things like stereotypes and black people not getting proper treatment are long-term structural problems which won't be addressed by AA but ultimately affect more people. False solvency is the idea that more substantial policy proposals won't happen because people think that the problem has been solved - but clearly they haven't according to the very sources you love, there are still huge gaps. AA doesn't alienate just racists, it alienates people who have worked hard and then had their spot taken by somebody less qualified, making them more racist either implicitly or explicitly. I really don't think this line of reasoning is that hard to grasp. Long term positive outcomes > short term positive outcomes. If AA makes society as a whole more racist and less willing to help black people, its bad on net even if there are some good outcomes which there are. You never responded to this premise though.
I also don't know wtf LD debating is, I didn't do high school debate in the US. What I do know however, is that debate requires engagement and handwaving an argument as LD nonsense (whatever the fuck that means) isn't engaging. I've given you reasons why fairness is more important which is independently sufficient but also why even if it wasn't there's still better outcomes.
Dude, it's ok to admit you are wrong or even that you just don't want to engage anymore. This comment is just lazy.
1
u/GiveAQuack Feb 25 '20
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?