Jump to content
Premed 101 Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About yesandno

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

428 profile views
  1. burnerboy Thank you for these statistics although it does not provide the full picture. For example, we don't know how many of them are actually qualified with a high GPA. Yes, from this document the acceptance rate does not seem to be 90%, but it is twice as higher than that of on-black premeds, so the chances of being accepted for a black premed is two times higher compared to a non-black premed. Interestingly, the American data shows the breakdown of GPAs and MCAT scores, from which we can see that the chances of being admitted if you are black and with a high GPA is 90%+ That’s what I was referring to. If you take a non-black premed and a black premed with the equal GPAs and MCAT scores, who will get accepted faster?
  2. “Try again with Canadian statistics”. I use the US data because it is the only one available. Unfortunately, Canadian schools do not gather the data (or simply do not release). The absence of data should not be a STOP sign to discuss the issue. The American data is very applicable to us because we have a somewhat similar admission and licensing processes. We also have a very similar culture. Canadian schools begin implementing affirmative action and it is very reasonable to employ the American data for this discussion (including predictions) because Canadian data simply does not exist yet (or not published). “...unsupported and almost assuredly wrong” can you actually argue that it is wrong, not just state it? I argued that having a 93% chance of admission (which is supported by the AAMC data) is so high that it can be called a “straight ticket”. What are your arguments that 93% chance is not a “straight ticket”? “My attempt to ask you to support your positions with objective, Canadian, data”. Please check your previous post, you asked for “statistics” (not mentioning “Canadian”). I gave you an official AAMC statistics, and now you are narrowing your request to “Canadian”. When Canadian schools start gathering and releasing the data, I will gladly give it to you. FYI and if I’m not mistaken, AAMC releases an average acceptance rate for 3 years, so they should release new stats soon (I assume, don’t quote me on that). But it’s not the point, you have the stats at hand, you just don’t like it. “with a class size of 259, and 24 BSAP matriculants, you get an acceptance rate of... 9.2%”, you are confusing the “class demographics” with the “acceptance rate”. The acceptance is rate is simply a portion of “accepted” out of “applied”. So, unfortunately, we don’t have the premed data and I acknowledged that in my previous post. I would be very interested to see how many black premeds applied, their stats and how many were accepted. If we apply the data from the US med schools, which have a history of affirmative action, can we reasonably infer that the acceptance rate for black premeds is extraordinary (in the range of 90%)? You have cited my initial post, which was exactly about that. I am glad that after 20+ posts we got to it. Now, the heart of the issue, if you take two average applicants (white and black), with equal GPAs and MCAT scores, the chances for admission will be 40.3% and 86.9% respectively. Is it not fair to say that the second number is inflated (for whatever reason, reasons are not my concern now)? I understand that you want to steer the conversation into the realm of social justice and convince me that the inflated acceptance rate for black premeds (inferred based on the US data and history of affirmative action) is a good thing. Well, I disagree. My position is that there should not be affirmative action based on race, and the wide range of SES of students is more productive and brings more diversity, including racial, gender, country of origin, language, and global awareness. For me, these factors enrich the student community much better than only one factor of race.
  3. Thank you, Ian. I hope people will continue a calm discussion without the abusing behavior.
  4. MedicineLCS, all my numbers were taken from documents that were provided by med schools or AAMC. So, here is the AAMC table that shows GPA and MCAT score distribution and acceptance rate among the racial groups. So, with an average GPA, black applicants were almost 4 times more likely to be accepted to medical schools than Asians (81.2% vs. 20.6%), and 2.8 times more likely than white applicants (81.2% vs. 29.0%). If you see the above-average GPA and MCAT, the rate of acceptance for a black applicant is 93%, which is virtually a “straight ticket” to a medical school. For me, these data suggest that medial schools favour black premeds. Even you admit that in the 2016 year there was only 1 black admitted premed, and after the implementation of the BSAP, the admission rate rose at least 1500%. Can you argue that race has nothing to do with it? Can you honestly argue that?
  5. “I'm not sure if you're consciously trying to troll or genuine, but stating it's not nice to accuse people of being bitter/racist/jealous and to stop doing this, and then almost immediately say someone is prejudiced/disdainful/intolerant is a self-defeating line of thought”. This was in response to her “assessment” of me. But I don’t want to dwell on this, so don’t bother reacting to this particular point. “being black is a "Straight ticket to Medical school", I'd like to see evidence of this”, the dramatic increase in admission of black students specifically after the introduction of the BSAP. If we assume that in previous years the number of black premeds did not vary much, then after the new stream was introduced the number went up 2400%, this tells me the racial identity is a deciding factor here. And it is literally in the name of the stream. Just a side-note, Obama got 96% of black votes because every one supports their in-group. And it's normal. You can't argue with that. So, inviting a black interviewer for a BSAP premed actually introduces this new variable -the in-group bias- which is not accounted for in the selection process. But it is a separate discussion. “There is no need to argue that "SES diversity is better than racial diversity", since the schools are on the bandwagon of increasing diversity we all are involved in this conversation regardless of whether we want this or not. If you think this is none of your business and you don’t want to participate in this important conversation, please don’t, there are people who want to be a part of the solution. “...underrepresentation of Black people in the medical profession? It can't be purely moderated by SES”, I argue that there is an underrepresentation of people in medicine in general. It is hard to get in. Period. If only 6% of premeds are getting in, that percentage also includes black premeds. According to Canada stats, the black population represents only 3.5% of all Canadians, it’s not a lot, to be honest. So, how many of this 3.5% are permeds? A couple of hundreds? How many are qualified? How many get accepted in the end? Probably around 6%. So, you see that saying “underrepresented” does not mean “unfair”. I would be interested to see the race stats on premeds. Let’s say there are 200 black premeds in all of Canada, it means that on average only 12 are accepted which is a normal portion. With new separate streams, there will be an inflation of acceptance (20%, 30% - the USA data is very clear, and, if I am not mistaken, a black premed with the GPA 3.7 has an 87% chance of being accepted in the USA). And it will not be fair to other premeds. “SES is absolutely also important and we should be supporting low SES applicants as well - but that does not directly address systemic racism, which is in fact still alive and well in Canada”. SES is the biggest (if not the only significant) driver of inequality in Canada. There is street-level prejudice that black people experience, but the system of laws, rules and social norms is not against black people. I repeat, there is no system designed to methodically disadvantage the black population. So I can’t agree that there is systematic discrimination against black people in Canada in 21th century. Again, rich black people are very privileged as all rich people are. Poor white people are powerless and unprivileged as all poor people are. I argue that a white doctor who came out of a low SES background can connect with a black low SES patient way better than a black rich doctor can. The black rich doctor can’t understand the hardship of living paycheck to paycheck, of finding affordable housing and so on. Hell, I argue that a rich black doctor could live a safe suburb life and never experience street-level prejudice as he/she never mingled with commons on the street, goes to private schools and never take a sub. I do realize this is debatable and I might be incorrect on the level of street-level prejudice that a rich black person encounters. But overall, being rich is better than being poor REGARDLESS of race.
  6. FingersCrossedPls, I am just going to react to your comments this one time. You are making judgements about my perceived behaviour, and are stating how bitter, racist and jealous I am. This is not generally nice (although it doesn't bother me) and is wasting everyone's time (which bothers me). I am actually shocked that you chose a career of serving people while having such a high level of prejudice, disdain and intolerance to people. As a doctor, you are not going to meet only nice and agreeable people. So, maybe consider switching careers. Again, if you are going to assess my behaviour and my character (falsely), please stop.
  7. “This example is a microcosm of reality, and showcases how GPA does not always represent "skill." I undusted your argument completely. By skill I mean an “existence of knowledge”, which is binary, you either have or you don’t and the GPA shows that. Again, it is a completely different issue what prevented someone from getting the knowledge, in the end, the GPA tells me yes or no in terms of knowledge. “If someone with a high SES got the same GPA as someone with lower one I would say the one with the lower SES has a high likelihood of having the superior potential” absolutely, I don’t think we disagree here. My concern is more about med schools including a phenotypic trait as a section criterion, which is not fair because it prevents someone from participating because of his/her wrong race. In modern society being poor is much more damning than being black, and being an immigrant (refugee) is even worse (but it does not mean there should be a separate stream for Syrian refugees). There are far better tools to bring in diversity into the school, I argue that SES diversity is better than racial diversity. Before you try to argue that race is not a criterion for selection, look at the UofT, they admitted 24 black premeds, I think, up from 1 premed last year. Is it good or bad? I can’t say that it is good. What prevented UofT from admitting black premeds last year? Racism? No. Adding an additional identity check mark made it possible to admit more black premed. It is as simple as that. And people denying this simple fact are dishonest. My last point, I never implied that newly admitted black premeds are less qualified or less competitive. I don’t care that they have a 3.9+ GPA, so do all other premeds, their high GPA is not a valid argument to justify their admission, it’s not what got them admitted. A simple example, two premeds have 3.9, one has great EC, the other does not. The first one got admitted and his/her great EC got him/her admitted. Same with race.
  8. You are stating something as facts when they are not: “one is running carrying a backpack full of rocks”, “by not considering that one pathway is harder than the other”, “without pairing it with the matching huge(?) disadvantage”. No, no, and no. Black students in 2020 in Canada are not systemically disadvantaged in any way (except maybe common street-level prejudice). Poor and low SES students are way more disadvantaged than the middle class and rich black students. Addressing low SES in the admission process brings way more diversity in the student body. "The same effort and skill as a higher one in the other stream" this is where you are wrong. The GPA is an objective (more or less) mark of skill. The less skill, the lower the GPA. A completely different question is what influences getting the skill, what stands in a way to show the skill. But GPA does measure the skill. Are you questioning the capability of grades to signify the existence or lack of knowledge in a student? If so, then we should abolish grades. It’s like equalizing people's height. The height of a person is the skill, the number describing the height is the GPA. So if someone is shorter (less skill), they will be described in lower numbers. Just because they have a genetic disorder (for example) preventing them from growing tall, does not mean that their height should be equated to the height of a taller person or their height be corrected, e.g. describe someone who is 5'0 as 6'0. P.S.: rmorelan, thank you for your mature tone and patience, I really appreciate it. It shows a stark contrast with the inputs of other members here.
  9. “Applicants offered admission through BSAP pass every checkpoint that everybody else does”, as it should be! Never did I suggest that the opposite. However, if there are two applicants with an identical above average GPA and MCAT score, the black and indigenous applicants will have a huge advantage. This is supported by the data, simply saying these facts is not racist. “Any argument taking away their merit or achievements due to their race is bananas”. Let’s just agree that all serious premeds of all races have a decent GPA and MCAT score. Nobody takes away anything from their achievements. Now, when the numbers do not add any additional selective value, med schools would rather give a seat to a racialized premed. But in reality, even med school web sites explicitly say that certain races need to meet a much lower GPA requirement, which is also supported by their admission statistics.
  10. Psyrmorelan, if there is an application stream for black applicants and a percentage of seats is reserved only for black applicants, it is only logical to say that a person who gets that seat, got it because she/he is black, this is a “cut off” criterion that prevents members of other races from applying. No? There is nothing wrong with admitting it, and I don’t understand why people are so madly defensive and aggressive because of it. I am not against levelling-off the field, however, I think there is a better criterion, it is the economic status of the applicant, not a race. Let’s say there is a rich black person A and a poor white person B. A went to a private school, got tutors, a good university, did not have to work, ended up with a decent competitive GPA. Person B went to a public school, an average university, worked part-time, got the same competitive GPA. Because of race-based equity measures, person A is way likely to be accepted. In reality, how is this fairer? “Equity measures to correct for unfairness”, I would agree with AA (affirmative action) in the USA in the 60s, but it’s the 21st century, there is no system of oppression of black people in Canada. It’s all about SES right now, and how much money a family has. Regardless of race, poor people are the ones who disadvantaged. Why not use family income as really objective and measurable criteria of disadvantageness? “when you get them you end up where you should have anyway”, the problem is that by knowing ONLY the race of the person is not possible to say whether they are disadvantaged. In modern reality, with strong anti-discrimination laws, public shaming, and sky-high level of social tolerance and acceptance, just being black does not mean you are automatically disadvantaged. The USA provides very rich statistical data on this matter.
  11. "It's well correlated with MMI performance" I read a study about CASPER called "Extending the interview to all medical school candidates--Computer-Based Multiple Sample Evaluation of Noncognitive Skills (CMSENS)", so they found that the correlation b/w CASPER results and MMI performance is 0.51 (an article calls it a 'mild correlation'). Also, CASPEr can be a predictor of future test results and not on-the-job behaviour. These are actually very reasonable findings because if someone is lying on CASPer, he/she will lie on MMI too. I can't imagine a situation when CASPer results drastically differ from MMI results.
  12. "Black applicants (even those who are privileged in other ways, e.g. by way of gender or socioeconomic status) face systemic barriers to academic success such that actually, a lower GPA does not represent less intelligence or less suitability for a career in medicine but rather the impact of systemic marginalization and racism. Therefore from an equity versus equality standpoint, accepting a lower GPA makes sense and is not actually indicative of accepting someone less qualified" This is not about accepting less or more qualified, the GPA above 3.7 means the person is pretty smart, so the problem is not about qualification. How can't you see that this is about fairness in the admission? A group of people are given an advantage because of a phenotypic trait only. We are not in the 50s or 60s where being black resulted in discrimination. It's 21st century, Canada, you are not systemically discriminated against because of your skin colour. It's worse being poor now than being black. Rich black people are more privileged than poor white people. So, blindly lowering acceptable GPA for black students is unfair to people of other races.
  13. FingersCrossedPls, just looked at your previous posts. You are scolding people left and right. Who made you the thought and the speech police here? Just move on, seriously.
  14. I don’t understand why people deny that being black or indigenous with an above-average GPA is a straight ticket to med school. The objective statistics data overwhelmingly support this. Besides, many cheer when med schools implement ‘equity’ measures to help disadvantaged. But at the same time, the same people keep denying that race is a huge positive factor in the admission process. You can’t play both ways. You want equity measures, then own it, agree that your race is what got you accepted.
  15. I listened to the Sam Harris podcast with a guy (white) who graduated from Harvard. He was admitted before the affirmative action (AA), which was introduced while he was a students. So, in the podcast he says that before the AA when he saw a black student in Harvard, he (and everyone else) thought "this guy must be much smarter than me", but after the AA was implemented, he (and everyone else) thought "this guy got in because of his race". This stigma stuck with the following generations of black students. The only beneficiary of these moves are the med schools and their directors, who think of themselves as Lincolns, not less.
  • Create New...