Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sounds like the professor was simply concerned and wanted to brainstorm with a colleague about how to help her black students do better. Now she's branded a "reprehensible" racist, her career ruined permanently.
Purposefully let in students that don't have the academic merit due to their race getting preferential treatment (systemic racism?). The woke left then accuses the school of racism when the group underperforms academically. Point out that that group is more likely to struggle as a group average and get cancelled.
The woke left is a cancer tearing down both standards and accountability. There is a leftist push to remove grades and percentages because of racial equity. Apparently your percent on a math test doesn't measure your true contributions to the class and skills.
Yes and in the future, we have a bunch of babbling idiots entering the workforce.
Asian women are even more discriminated against in university admissions due to their high scores and over-representation.
I hate dividing people by race and passing out benefits based on your skin tone....whatever happened to merit only?
Race-blind merit is no longer used as an admissions parameter because certain demographic groups have shockingly low merit levels. I've posted this before...
NAEP - Percent of 12th grade students of each race/ethnicity who are proficient or above, by race/ethnicity group:
Colleges and universities can't get a student body profile that matches that of the general US population unless they lower admissions standards, significantly, for certain demographic groups. Naturally, those are the students who struggle the most.
What you are saying is dumb down the grading criteria? Sounds racists to me as in essence you are saying blacks can't make the grade.
As far as this professor's intention, the video is too short to get the context.
Some can't and are being artificially propped up. So in the future, they will be in jobs they aren't qualified for and it is not fair to them. Do you want a doctor that is a product of this treating/operating on you?
You see the same in residencies. Our program used to only look at the applications of residents who scored over a certain score on the Step 1 exam. A couple of years ago, our hospital decided that our residency program wasn't "diverse enough". The only way we could make it diverse enough, was to lower that minimum score, in order to match more diverse people. There is a notable difference in the quality of residents between a few years ago, and now.
BTW, I dont know if you knew this, but the Step 1 exam is being changed to pass/fail so that residency programs can't use test scores in the decision making process anymore. In the not to distant future, we are all going to have cardiac surgeons and neurosurgeons that now, would have only qualified to be internists or pediatricians. It's pretty scary.
Amazing.
Yep- I knew about Step 1. My daughter got a 261 (going into ortho-wants to do pediatric ortho spine at a university) and was glad that she was the last of those getting a "number" so she could distinguish herself from the herd. When I took the boards, NO ONE wanted to know my scores when I interviewed for residencies. They were more concerned about being AOA and research. The board scores are an objective means of selecting those best able to retain information.
One of my buddies is chairman of neurosurg at an Ivy League program. He said they would cut off any applicants below 250 (I think that is like 86th percentile). Now it will be difficult for them to separate the wheat from the chaff. Why the hell ANYONE would want to be a neurosurgeon is beyond me- it is far too hard and the good cases for them are being siphoned off by adult ortho spine guys, who add nothing to a medical community.
I was going to go back and teach at my alma mater, but the program is now headed by a dyke who hates my guts. There is no way I could survive in a PC environment, as I am far from PC. The problem is that fellows in my specialty are not being taught the techniques they need to survive in private practice. Most programs are "inbred" and the staff are doing cases, rather than having the residents and fellows do them. In short, they suck.
Given the quotas, one can be assured that any minority physician you go to is most likely from the bottom of their class. There are, of course, exceptions. One of my new partners is black and he is exceptional (better than I was coming out of fellowship). He had all the "numbers" on his own and did not need a quota.
You see the same in residencies. Our program used to only look at the applications of residents who scored over a certain score on the Step 1 exam. A couple of years ago, our hospital decided that our residency program wasn't "diverse enough". The only way we could make it diverse enough, was to lower that minimum score, in order to match more diverse people. There is a notable difference in the quality of residents between a few years ago, and now.
BTW, I dont know if you knew this, but the Step 1 exam is being changed to pass/fail so that residency programs can't use test scores in the decision making process anymore. In the not to distant future, we are all going to have cardiac surgeons and neurosurgeons that now, would have only qualified to be internists or pediatricians. It's pretty scary.
And it's very easy to pass, right? I think I remember reading that there's a 96% pass rate among med school students taking it for the first time?
Yep- I knew about Step 1. My daughter got a 261 (going into ortho-wants to do pediatric ortho spine at a university) and was glad that she was the last of those getting a "number" so she could distinguish herself from the herd. When I took the boards, NO ONE wanted to know my scores when I interviewed for residencies. They were more concerned about being AOA and research. The board scores are an objective means of selecting those best able to retain information.
One of my buddies is chairman of neurosurg at an Ivy League program. He said they would cut off any applicants below 250 (I think that is like 86th percentile). Now it will be difficult for them to separate the wheat from the chaff. Why the hell ANYONE would want to be a neurosurgeon is beyond me- it is far too hard and the good cases for them are being siphoned off by adult ortho spine guys, who add nothing to a medical community.
I was going to go back and teach at my alma mater, but the program is now headed by a dyke who hates my guts. There is no way I could survive in a PC environment, as I am far from PC. The problem is that fellows in my specialty are not being taught the techniques they need to survive in private practice. Most programs are "inbred" and the staff are doing cases, rather than having the residents and fellows do them. In short, they suck.
Given the quotas, one can be assured that any minority physician you go to is most likely from the bottom of their class. There are, of course, exceptions. One of my new partners is black and he is exceptional (better than I was coming out of fellowship). He had all the "numbers" on his own and did not need a quota.
No, one can not be “assured” of anything. That’s slanderous talk.
I can take 10 million people that are all essentially identical, and assign them numbers 1-10 so one million of each group.
I then declare that everyone with the number 4 cannot attend school beyond the 5th grade.
Let the civilization run for a few hundred years and then come back and remove the restriction.
Not surprisingly, the number 4's are as a group are poorer and with less family history and involvement in education.
Additionally, let's say that the number system is completely abolished and nobody harbors any biases towards any other number group.
Decades later have the number 4's caught back up to the wealth, education etc. of the others?
This is where you are arguing a different point than what I made in the previous post.
You feel that there is no lingering damage or disadvantage if bias has been eliminated from the present and I am making the point that there is still disadvantage.
I mean holy crap, you think Al Gore is where he is today with a nobel prize, emmy, former vice president on his great abilities rather than where his father and grandfather positioned themselves in society and thus handed him an easy path to the top?
Let me get this right, you're saying artificially propping them up is the right thing to do? What happens when they enter the workforce and aren't qualified for the job they are hired for (and I have seen it happen). Why not educate people in the field they are qualified for.
Asians were severely disadvantaged in the US for over a century and still scored highly throughout in spite of being segregated, kept out of jobs, etc.
Rich black people's kids score about the same as generationally poor whites' kids who have been disadvantaged to some extent too.
Perhaps it is time you look at culture and single parent homes instead of 100% buying into the culture of victimhood.
Perhaps look at IQ in general!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
