creppeln

quote:

---

None of this affects the school’s ability to teach medicine. Accreditation should never have been in question because of allegations of racism, or even actual racism.

---

It does when it affects the learning of those individuals affected. Some of the complaints had to do with the treatment of residents too.
Plus, if you got racist people teaching medicine, then are likely teaching their ways even if it’s subtle. And it definitely would affect the way you treat patients. Let’s say a racist doctor was teaching residents “what to look for”, but it was based on racist things.

quote:

---

Many still would probably be more understanding if some was to account for the lack of opportunities within certain communities if you are talking about admission to college initially and help within the framework of your studies while an undergrad. Even financial assistance in grad school would seem OK, I would think The issue is the admission of people into fields that require more than competency in order to protect safety, health, and life. That should solely be based on merit with affirmative action only applied as a tie breaker.

---

Many times that is how it is applied. Or it could just trigger an automatic review of their file more deeply, to see if it suggests they actually would have score better if it weren’t for XYZ Like working, etc. After all, we are talking about just 2% of med students who are Black. It’s not acceptance en masse. Plenty qualified individuals are out there— score usually just don’t reflect their intelligence. Most do very well. You have individuals who’s test scores more correlate with their abilities because they had all resources available and you have those who’s scores don’t correlate with abilities because of lack of resources. That’s why you can accept those who you have data to support that if given the same resources they’d do just as well as the person who tested higher.

quote:

---

Correct, by admitting a minority with lower scores, they are essentially taking the position away from someone else who has higher scores and "earned" their position. It's horse shite.

---

Higher scores don’t equate better doctor… they equate better test taker. Especially since the MCAT and tests like that don’t really test on content you learn or expected to directly apply in med school.
In fact some people who score very high are TERRIBLE at relating to actual people.

Some people are bad test takers, but very brilliant, and if they have evidence to support giving students with interesting backgrounds a second look to see why scores might be low despite seeing intelligent, then they should. Sure, some may be a gamble or struggle to find support they need because they may have other drama in their lives, but the more diverse a group is the more likely the scenario will be beneficial than harmful.
Plenty of people get into schools for different reasons. You’ve seen the BS with the rich kids getting into schools by lying, and by donations. But if a kid fails out, they fail out.

quote:

---

I do not want a doctor anywhere near me because he/she simply fit the criteria for a diverse student body in med school. That's bullshite. I think the whole thing is bullshite, but when it comes to medicine you don't play around like that.

---

I’m not sure that’s even possible.
Even if someone got in that turned out to be less competent, they’d still have to pass the examinations in medical school and residency and become board certified. You can’t do that without knowing what you’re doing. You definitely don’t get faculty positions as a minority without competency.

quote:

---

Again, in an overwhelming number of cases, there are black people and a Political Party that claims to want to help black people, running those Districts.....

---

So how would things be different if the district were run by non-blacks and non democrats?
Do you ever think that the people who most often end up running those distracts are also the people who mostly show an interest an engage in the communities to begin with? If you want to run things, engage with the community in a way that'll make a difference. Be a part of the community...

quote:

---

White Conservatives (which let's be honest, black people have been brainwashed into hating) are NOT holding you down.

---

People use black people as pawns the way white conservatives use poor whites as pawns.
And if they're not holding anyone down, then what specifically are they doing to help the situation? Since clearly if affects everyone.

And for the record. The rich white who have obtained most of the power in the country have been trying to divide poor whites and blacks since the beginning. This was an attempt to not allow the two groups to combine together and overthrow their power because it was way more of them. That's why Black codes were enacted after Bacon's rebellion, to mitigate the threat against the ruling class. They purposely did things to set apart poor whites to cause them to focus on differences between them and blacks rather than commonalities.
Unfortunately, you can see this worked and is still working there's a whole group of people willing to vote "conservative republican" even if financially it doesn't benefit them as much as it benefits the ruling class. Much in the same way there are Black who will vote democrat by default without vetting the candidates. But I digress...

quote:

---

says she is quad. Jamaican,

---

So a lot of people who's families are form the Caribbean or countries in Africa legit come in with PLANS and how to work the system. They are very successful because their culture is different than black Americans. We have a culture that offers little guidance on how to work this "system" in our favor, plus in general, little support from friends and family. So there's that...
Not really trying to make an excuse, but to offer a contrast that is greatly overlooked because she is black. Yes, she is black, but being black from an immigrant family is completely different.

quote:

---

BTW, Trump as so far, by EVERY measurable metric, been a better President than Obumbles....I know that bothers you....

---

Oh really? and what metrics are those? Last I checked, we have a Russian puppet who is about to give them exactly what they want, to start a nuclear arms race. About to get us into war with multiple countries. Literally the president is outwardly breaking laws, paying off people with hush money. We had the government shut down for the longest period of time EVER, costing the US $11B dollars, $3B of which will likely never be recovered, and with no resolution. Over a wall that isn't gonna stop any drugs from coming in, when we got high functioning ships and tunnels fully equipped to smuggle the most dangerous things in. The national debt is the most it has EVER been-- what is it like $4TRILLION? He ran on being a "negotiator" yet, he has blown almost every negotiation and treaty he has been involved with. Health insurance is even WORSE than it was with Obama. They took away these incentives, and made it more expensive to administer health plans that offer even less health coverage. Then his dumb self is still issuing the tax credits, so it isn't even costing people more in order to drive people away from buying like he wanted, but only served to make it more expensive for the government since they now have to issue even larger credits for more expensive plans-- just dumb.
The audacity of you to call Barack (which you incorrectly spelled in case you were wondering) Obama, "Obumbles" when Trump is literally the least articulate president we have had in recent history. He can't even pronounce reasonable words, or spell them correctly, but yet he wants to represent the country. But y'all let all of that slide because why?
We've had some great republican presidents who have done their job well, regardless of if I agreed with all of their policies, but Trump isn't even remotely close to being one of them. If Obama had even been accused of ANY ONE of the things Trump is accused of, he would have been out of office by now. It's a double standard, and in particular of all the democrat presidents, Obama is the one that triggers you the most. I think you should check your motives for that...
I don't even know why I even spent the time saying this because we know the reason why you have a particular problem with Obama. The things you even could say about him is "affirmative action" and racist remarks with no factual basis. We also know that you don't REALLY believe Trump is a good president, but you can't admit it. You can't admit that you judge Trump by separate standards than you did Obama. In fact the only way people like you speak about Trump isn't by saying that he is a good president by his own merits, they immediately just try and compare their opinion of Trump to their opinion of Obama with nothing to back it up.

quote:

---

Don't weep. I made that post over a year ago, but this thread was bumped by an idiot newb.

---

This idiot newb saw this post incidentally while searching for something different, and came across these racist, ignorant posts. Regardless of whether or not someone bumped the post, doesn't mean that y'all had to engage. That is your decision.

And as I have said before, your level of education is not equivalent to your ability to contribute to society. Not every vocation requires a lot of formal education, while others may. Every person has the ability to acquire skills that will enable to contribute to society in varying areas. Everyone has the responsiblity to contribute and produce, and shame on you if you choose not to be a contributing member of society regardless of what race you are.
I reject the notion that someone should be considered superior to another based on the level of education achieved. However, this stat does show that there is an increased level of pursuing higher education than there has been previously, and also shows that perhaps more black women are pursuing higher education than previously thought.
Of course, instead of just taking these facts as they are, people are posting trying to dismiss this as saying that this influx doesn't count because they are probably getting "pointless" degrees that they "didn't earn". The audacity for someone to assume that a whole group of people didn't work hard to achieve their level of education in order to better themselves financially, or to pursue their dreams. This is unacceptable, and the fact that people allow each other to just say the most ridiculous, racially charged things that they wouldn't dare say to someone's face is just sickening.
And for the record, it doesn't matter where you are there will ALWAYS be people who obtained a degree that they probably didn't earn. There will always be people who had favors called for them or connections whatever it may be. For the most part, if someone didn't deserve to be in a school then they will fail, and weed themselves out. It doesn't mean that someone shouldn't be given a chance because they might not do well, if you have reason to believe that they will do well. People should be given the opportunity to do well without things like standardized tests being such heavy determinants on whether they should be given an opportunity. There are people who had to bust their behinds, just to get things that are handed to other people and they still come up short. There's nothing wrong with giving someone the chance to demonstrate their abilities. In fact, anyone can learn most things. It's the ability to be resourceful, have a stable enough life outside of school, and work hard consistently that gets people through rigorous programs. It also helps if you have positive reinforcement and role models to interact with to help you toward that end goal, and see what steps are taken to achieve.
The problem is, black people are expected to "prove" that they belong in universities, while white students are assumed that they are. The very fact that it is assumed that a seat was "taken" from a white person baffles me. Who's to say it was their seat to begin with? Also, if anyone gets seats taken from them, it is Asians. They consistently have higher scores and yet don't get every seat in colleges.
There is nothing wrong with a school believing that representation of the various demographics in their university should reflect the demographics in the country. If a certain group is overrepresented, and another group is underrepresented, then it is fair to ask yourself why that is and if the standards by which people are being judged is inherently fair, especially when you see students perform extremely well despite those perceived "shortcomings".

Everyone has a skillset and a purpose, and everyone deserves to have the opportunity to let that shine. The idea that any one group shines at the expense of an other is really archaic, and maybe even primitive thinking. “When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.”

quote:

---

Some of the most brilliant people in History were educated in places that had no A/C.....

---

Yea, but were their peers? And they had to have had other necessities

quote:

---

You wouldn't prefer a guy who has done it successfully more times, over the guy who has done it successfully less times?

---

It depends, if the guy has done the surgery successfully more times, but is 85 years old. I might be more obliged to go with the guy who has done is successfully but a fewer number of times. As long as he has done them successfully and knows what he is doing. It also depnds on the nature of the procedure. Also, for me, technique is more important. So this doctor may be doing a newer procedure, but he has a very strong knowledge base and can communicate with me more effectively about this, I'm gonna go with him more than likely, than someone who has an antiquated approach, but has done it many times. Or someone who finishes the procedures and it looks ok, versus someone who does the same procedure but with less scarring. Anyway, I'm done... You're not making good points and you really want to make some kind of point that someone is going to agree with but you can't prove your point because you don't have enough knowledge base to continue to effectively use this example.

quote:

---

I am assuming we agree that the discussion is regarding life-saving surgery. . .hence mortality rates.

---

You probably shouldn't speak about this... you sound.... like you don't know what you are talking about, let's just say.

Most of those mortalities are medical errors even in elective surgeries that aren't "life saving".

And your hypothetical about a surgeon never done a surgery before- I get where you're coming from, but you have to do a certain number of surgeries to even pass your boards and get licensure. So unless you getting surgery in another country?