How America’s Obsession with DEI Is Sabotaging Our Medical Schools

Again you have a real life experiment going on with MD’s and DO’s. An MD averages about 88% on MCATS. A DO averages about 67%. I have not heard any evidence that DO’s are unqualified physicians.

MD vs. DO: The Biggest Differences (And Which is Better) — Shemmassian Academic Consulting.

What is a Top 10% MCAT Score?

Practically speaking, however, it is more difficult to get into an MD program vs. a DO program. During the 2021–2022 academic year, the average MCAT and GPA for students entering U.S. MD programs were 511.9 and 3.74, respectively. Yet, in 2020, the averages for individuals matriculating into DO programs were 504.3 and 3.54. These data clearly suggest that students must aim to achieve at a higher level academically to be competitive for MD program admissions.

 

The Republicans on the Supreme Court are about to rule that affirmative action is unconstitutional. That's almost certainly a reason that universities are considering dropping standardized testing requirements.

Better qualified in what way? And do those qualifications reflect what makes a good/great doctor? We'll go back to the numbers. A Black student has a 3.81 GPA and a 511 on the MCAT. A white student has a 3.91 GPA and a 515 on the MCAT. They are vying for the last spot. Black people are badly underrepresented at the medical school.

Why is it societally beneficial to admit the white student? We know that the shortage of Black doctors is causing harm. This Black student appears to have worked hard, is clearly a smart person, and seems like the sort of student who will do well in medical school. What makes this Black student unsuited to attend that medical school?

Let's now add to the hypothetical. The white student is from an affluent family, didn't have to work during college or grad school, and had tutors to help prepare for the MCAT. The Black student is from an impoverished family, had to work through college and grad school while also taking care of their younger siblings, and did not have a tutor to help prepare for the MCAT.

How does that affect your perspective on who deserves the spot more? People make arbitrary decisions about what does and doesn't constitute "merit." I don't think things are as simple as some of y'all want to believe.

I'm not sure what "this" is. If you mean affirmative action, that is nothing new. If you mean not requiring the MCAT, my response is that we have had a lot "accepted standards" in this country that we've rethought and changed.

 

One of the reasons I think this conversation is so absurd is that I've worked with attorneys who benefitted from affirmative action. (In fact, I still am working with them on cases.) They are some of the best and brightest people in the business. I have never once looked at them and thought, "You know, if only I had a white co-counsel who had a superior college GPA and LSAT score."

When people are complaining about affirmative action at elite schools or in elite programs, they're not talking about candidates who lack intelligence, work ethic, or ability getting in. They're talking about minimal differences in arbitrary measurements. And merit is not nearly as simple as those folks want it to be.

This idea that we're getting lesser doctors or lawyers is just absurd to me. Our systems work better when they are diverse. When we have people from different backgrounds who offer different perspectives. Data shows this. More diversity in the medical field reduces health disparities. And that doesn't happen if these diverse doctors are incompetent and unqualified.

 

I’d love to assume that but I’m reminded every day. Lowered standards whether it be education or military are inherently racist. They are lowered because other groups think they can’t cut it. I for one think there is no difference and the ones that can cut it will find a way. I don’t want to live in a system that ignores merit based on skin color, sex or sexuality.

 

White students are proportionately represented in medical schools, if not somewhat underrepresented. So I still don't know why you keep framing this as white vs. black. It's not the overrepresentation of rich white people that is holding down minority enrollment.

You seem to making an argument for economic affirmative action. But you wouldn't like the result of that either, which is why no one is proposing it.

In the scenario you highlight, the Black kid is most likely getting in even without affirmative action. Affirmative action means admitting students who wouldn't be competitive candidates to the school, period. That is what the debate is over. This is why Harvard contends affirmative action would slash Black enrollment to about 4% as opposed to 1%, where it would be with no preferences whatsoever.

I think you make a good point regarding whether a very high IQ (e.g, high test scoress) is required to be a Doctor or a Lawyer. I really don't know the answer to that. Maybe it really doesn't matter above a certain threshold. That is the frank conversation we should be having.

 

Actually, I'm all for "economic affirmative action." We should absolutely consider that as part of the holistic analysis. Some people have higher hurdles to surmount than others. I think we need to take that into account when evaluating "merit." That includes race/ethnicity. It also includes socioeconomic status, sexual orientation, gender identity, etc. These things all matter.

That's not all what affirmative action is or means. In the scenario I highlighted, the white student has a better GPA and MCAT. The Black student getting a boost for his race and background, despite having competitive numbers, would be an example of affirmative action. Do you really think all the Black students getting admitted to elite programs/universities don't have great credentials?

If you actually got rid of preferences, the Black student in my hypothetical would lose the spot to the white student. That's undeniable.

 

It's always amusing to watch Republicans turn racism on its head and claim that trying to give people who have been discriminated against for basically the entire existence of our nation a shot at working towards the equality of opportunity we denied them is "inherently racist." Let's be clear, we're not lowering standards through affirmative action. A Black student gaining entry to Harvard isn't lowering expectations for them. You want to characterize it that way because you think it's taking something from you and your kids.

Merit is a funny thing. You bragged about being wealthy. If your child, who has numerous advantages, scores a little better on the SAT and has a slightly better GPA than a kid who comes from abject poverty, does your child deserve better opportunities? Is that really "merit"? Who has actually accomplished more?

 

There doesn’t need to be different admission standards, but the weight that the MCAT is given possibly should be reduced. A kid from the hood with a single working mom who doesn’t get to go to pre-school and goes to inferior schools thereafter who is tremendously bright but doesn’t get a real high MCAT score could turn out to be a wonderful doctor. We don’t need admission tests that are going to yield high scores to kids who were born with a silver spoon in their mouths to be the primary admission criterion.

 

The main thing that determines success is who your parents are. How you level that field, I don’t know.

Affirmative action to me was always in case of a tie, you go with the minority candidate. No one could manage or decide what was equal, so we got quotas and the bastardization of a noteworthy principle.

 

I don't think we even need to fully level that field. But if we're serious about economic mobility, it's something we need to take into account.

 

You mean like calling everyone communists?

 

Don’t disagree, but possibly using poverty and economic indicators vs ethnicity

 

Both are relevant and merit consideration.

 

So… how is this different than the 1920-1955 anti-semitism, followed by quotes for Jewish admissions into medical school from 1955-1970?

 

I have no clue how you could extrapolate that statement from anything I wrote unless you are intentionally trying to make me look narrow.

I think all but a small percentage of the African Americans who attend Harvard, or
any elite school, would be admitted if they pretended to be white, and it would be next to zero if they pretended to be Asian. And that is obvious from the data.

Asian-American Harvard Admits Earned Highest Average SAT Score of Any Racial Group From 1995 to 2013 | News | The Harvard Crimson

And it's not "undeniable" in your scenario that the Black student would lose the spot to the white student. Ending affirmative action means schools can't discriminate as blatantly against Asians and non-clouted Whites. Not that they can't use race as a tie breaker between genuinely closely matched students. They can and will.

 

Let's be clear on this. When Republican SCOTUS "ends" affirmative action, the schools are going to pivot to a holistic approach that still gives those preferences but is savvier about it. When I talk about ending affirmative action, I mean actually ending it. And if you're advocating for that, you're advocating for race to be not used as a tie breaker. Is that your argument? Or are you arguing for affirmative action with less teeth?

 

It’s not amusing to me that democrats think new racism fixes old racism. It just creates more racists. You guys don’t think racism applies to anyone but whites but I assure you there are devils on both sides.

 

I'm not arguing for anything other than looking at the situation honestly. If it were up to me, I would probably do socioeconomic based affirmative action only, but with a certain number of those slots reserved for underrepresented minorities.

 

Yeah, programs designed to repair the damage done by racism are "racism." Suuuuuuuuuure.

 

Okay. What you're advocating for is affirmative action. So we're on the same page that affirmative action is good policy. At most, we differ on the extent to use it.