MCATs, Affirmative Action, and DEI, Oh My

[Patooka]

I agree a lower threshold will help to reduce the cost of health care in the US today. Because recruiting more people into medical school will increase the number of doctors and decrease their wages making healthcare affordable again. Doctors will make far less money, won't work as many hours but hopefully work enough to remain current in their profession. Far more medical personal means they will all get more sleep and have happier marriages too. Just the fact that they get more sleep and have better lives might actually compensate for letting less talented people into the program.

But going for a lower test threshold still needs to be color blind and non discriminating. That is where I part company with the liberal people on this board.

Yeah, that's the real obstacle for Americans to get affordable health care.

 

[Toni]

It is very possible to be an excellent test taker —and a less talented professional in any field you care to name.

You're not joking. I know I'm a bit biased... but some of the absolute worst practicing acturaries I've know breezed through exams like they were nothing. Great test takers, really crappy at doing the job. Some are good at both.

Doing well on tests doesn't guarantee success post exams. On the other hand... doing poorly on tests rarely results in success at the other end.

Exactly.

However, there is ZERO evidence that medical schools are admitting ANY students who do not meet their thresholds for admissions.

You somehow still believe that they do.

And that is where we seem to differ.

The problem is the evidence suggests they lowered the threshold so as to permit the admissions. Fox/henhouse!

Unless you can reasonably demonstrate that a lowered threshold has resulting in 1) poorer quality doctors in the real world and/or 2) no increase in the number of medical students entering school... then I don't think it matters one bit.

A lower threshold is not necessarily a bad thing. As long as the threshold is sufficient to serve as a reasonable assurance of likelihood to be a good doctor, I don't see a problem. And I rather strongly suspect that we have more total admissions to medical school now than we did 40 years ago.

If a car dealer only gives loans to people with a credit score of 800 or higher, that's really going to limit how many cars they can sell. If they lower that threshold to 750 without materially impacting the likelihood of repayment, that's not a bad thing to do. If they can do that while also selling more cars, then it's good for the dealership as well as for the people with scores of 775.

I agree a lower threshold will help to reduce the cost of health care in the US today. Because recruiting more people into medical school will increase the number of doctors and decrease their wages making healthcare affordable again. Doctors will make far less money, won't work as many hours but hopefully work enough to remain current in their profession. Far more medical personal means they will all get more sleep and have happier marriages too. Just the fact that they get more sleep and have better lives might actually compensate for letting less talented people into the program.

But going for a lower test threshold still needs to be color blind and non discriminating. That is where I part company with the liberal people on this board.

The ways that 'they' are going to lower the costs of healthcare is by hiring more PAs and more NPs who can assume many of the responsibilities of patient care that physicians do now, only at a lower price. They are doing that now. So if you are worried that 'unqualified' black people are becoming physicians and your healthcare is going to go down the tubes, you are worrying about the wrong thing.

I don't mean this as a knock on PAs or NPs--not at all. I've had wonderful experiences with PAs and to a lesser extent, NPs (highly dependent upon which practice they are attached to). But these medical professionals are actually less qualified than physicians and they are paid less. It's been going on for years and it will only become more like this.

Here's the thing: Your healthcare costs are not going to go down because insurance companies and investors in hospitals and clinics need bigger profits. So, they will cut costs and not pass the savings along to you.

 

[thebeave]

That is not how discrimination works, and that has been explained to you already.
Blacks are 14% of the population, but vast majority of NBA players are black. If NBA wanted to make the league more diverse instituted a DEI policy to sign on more white and Asian players to make the league more diverse, and the black percentage dropped to 50%, that does not mean that black players seeking to play in the NBA weren't discriminated against.

NBA Diversity And Inclusion

OUR PHILOSOPHY​

At the NBA, we celebrate our common love of the game, building connections that enable us to leverage our differences. Basketball transcends all dimensions of diversity – those you can see, and those you can’t. It’s a game that anyone, anywhere, can participate in and follow. While our players, employees, and fans hail from every corner of the world, they come together through the common languages of sports and are united by their love of basketball.

Diversity and inclusion are central to our game, and we believe that they are catalysts for innovation. We know that our business is stronger when we leverage our differences to generate more and better ideas, sparking innovation that further connects us to our fans and our communities.

It's almost as if your idea of DEI programs is not what is actually happening.

The NBA management, employees and (especially) the fans are diverse. The players? Not so much. This is the team in my area:




Did you ever notice that nobody here complains about or demands DEI changes to the team players, despite the team demographics (73% black) being way, way out of whack compared to the country's demographic makeup (13%)? Why do you think that is?

 

[RVonse]

It is very possible to be an excellent test taker —and a less talented professional in any field you care to name.

You're not joking. I know I'm a bit biased... but some of the absolute worst practicing acturaries I've know breezed through exams like they were nothing. Great test takers, really crappy at doing the job. Some are good at both.

Doing well on tests doesn't guarantee success post exams. On the other hand... doing poorly on tests rarely results in success at the other end.

Exactly.

However, there is ZERO evidence that medical schools are admitting ANY students who do not meet their thresholds for admissions.

You somehow still believe that they do.

And that is where we seem to differ.

The problem is the evidence suggests they lowered the threshold so as to permit the admissions. Fox/henhouse!

Unless you can reasonably demonstrate that a lowered threshold has resulting in 1) poorer quality doctors in the real world and/or 2) no increase in the number of medical students entering school... then I don't think it matters one bit.

A lower threshold is not necessarily a bad thing. As long as the threshold is sufficient to serve as a reasonable assurance of likelihood to be a good doctor, I don't see a problem. And I rather strongly suspect that we have more total admissions to medical school now than we did 40 years ago.

If a car dealer only gives loans to people with a credit score of 800 or higher, that's really going to limit how many cars they can sell. If they lower that threshold to 750 without materially impacting the likelihood of repayment, that's not a bad thing to do. If they can do that while also selling more cars, then it's good for the dealership as well as for the people with scores of 775.

I agree a lower threshold will help to reduce the cost of health care in the US today. Because recruiting more people into medical school will increase the number of doctors and decrease their wages making healthcare affordable again. Doctors will make far less money, won't work as many hours but hopefully work enough to remain current in their profession. Far more medical personal means they will all get more sleep and have happier marriages too. Just the fact that they get more sleep and have better lives might actually compensate for letting less talented people into the program.

But going for a lower test threshold still needs to be color blind and non discriminating. That is where I part company with the liberal people on this board.

The ways that 'they' are going to lower the costs of healthcare is by hiring more PAs and more NPs who can assume many of the responsibilities of patient care that physicians do now, only at a lower price. They are doing that now. So if you are worried that 'unqualified' black people are becoming physicians and your healthcare is going to go down the tubes, you are worrying about the wrong thing.

I don't mean this as a knock on PAs or NPs--not at all. I've had wonderful experiences with PAs and to a lesser extent, NPs (highly dependent upon which practice they are attached to). But these medical professionals are actually less qualified than physicians and they are paid less. It's been going on for years and it will only become more like this.

Here's the thing: Your healthcare costs are not going to go down because insurance companies and investors in hospitals and clinics need bigger profits. So, they will cut costs and not pass the savings along to you.

Just to be clear my concern is not so much that unqualified physicians are being admitted. My concern is that there appears quotas in admissions today which should instead be color blind and non discriminatory. There should not even be the appearance of discrimination in admissions that there is today. Because that alone will cause the good doctors of color to earn a bad name with the public. If it were up to me admissions would be fully transparent to the public and completely color blind based fully on metrics alone.

On the subject of simply reducing healthcare costs, I'm all for it! If more PAs and NPs are hired to reduce healthcare costs, thats a step in right direction. But that still leaves the problem we see of too few doctors who (IMO) appear over educated (with too much debt), over worked, and over paid. No I'm not saying we should reduce standards too much and kill more people, but we surely need a lot more doctors so there might need to be a compromise getting there. The main focus being more doctors making less money. One way or the other.

 

[Toni]

It is very possible to be an excellent test taker —and a less talented professional in any field you care to name.

You're not joking. I know I'm a bit biased... but some of the absolute worst practicing acturaries I've know breezed through exams like they were nothing. Great test takers, really crappy at doing the job. Some are good at both.

Doing well on tests doesn't guarantee success post exams. On the other hand... doing poorly on tests rarely results in success at the other end.

Exactly.

However, there is ZERO evidence that medical schools are admitting ANY students who do not meet their thresholds for admissions.

You somehow still believe that they do.

And that is where we seem to differ.

The problem is the evidence suggests they lowered the threshold so as to permit the admissions. Fox/henhouse!

Unless you can reasonably demonstrate that a lowered threshold has resulting in 1) poorer quality doctors in the real world and/or 2) no increase in the number of medical students entering school... then I don't think it matters one bit.

A lower threshold is not necessarily a bad thing. As long as the threshold is sufficient to serve as a reasonable assurance of likelihood to be a good doctor, I don't see a problem. And I rather strongly suspect that we have more total admissions to medical school now than we did 40 years ago.

If a car dealer only gives loans to people with a credit score of 800 or higher, that's really going to limit how many cars they can sell. If they lower that threshold to 750 without materially impacting the likelihood of repayment, that's not a bad thing to do. If they can do that while also selling more cars, then it's good for the dealership as well as for the people with scores of 775.

I agree a lower threshold will help to reduce the cost of health care in the US today. Because recruiting more people into medical school will increase the number of doctors and decrease their wages making healthcare affordable again. Doctors will make far less money, won't work as many hours but hopefully work enough to remain current in their profession. Far more medical personal means they will all get more sleep and have happier marriages too. Just the fact that they get more sleep and have better lives might actually compensate for letting less talented people into the program.

But going for a lower test threshold still needs to be color blind and non discriminating. That is where I part company with the liberal people on this board.

The ways that 'they' are going to lower the costs of healthcare is by hiring more PAs and more NPs who can assume many of the responsibilities of patient care that physicians do now, only at a lower price. They are doing that now. So if you are worried that 'unqualified' black people are becoming physicians and your healthcare is going to go down the tubes, you are worrying about the wrong thing.

I don't mean this as a knock on PAs or NPs--not at all. I've had wonderful experiences with PAs and to a lesser extent, NPs (highly dependent upon which practice they are attached to). But these medical professionals are actually less qualified than physicians and they are paid less. It's been going on for years and it will only become more like this.

Here's the thing: Your healthcare costs are not going to go down because insurance companies and investors in hospitals and clinics need bigger profits. So, they will cut costs and not pass the savings along to you.

Just to be clear my concern is not so much that unqualified physicians are being admitted. My concern is that there appears quotas in admissions today which should instead be color blind and non discriminatory. There should not even be the appearance of discrimination in admissions that there is today. Because that alone will cause the good doctors of color to earn a bad name with the public. If it were up to me admissions would be fully transparent to the public and completely color blind based fully on metrics alone.

On the subject of simply reducing healthcare costs, I'm all for it! If more PAs and NPs are hired to reduce healthcare costs, thats a step in right direction. But that still leaves the problem we see of too few doctors who (IMO) appear over educated (with too much debt), over worked, and over paid. No I'm not saying we should reduce standards too much and kill more people, but we surely need a lot more doctors so there might need to be a compromise getting there. The main focus being more doctors making less money. One way or the other.

I think that ‘quotas’ are seen by those who believe the only way to reject the best candidates are MCAT scores and GPAs and that race/ethnicity very much does matter to them.

I very much agree that too many doctors —and anyone else who goes to college or university or even trade school graduates with too much debt. Public universities used to be funded more fully than they are now and one result is driving up the cost of higher education and student debt.

I agree that we need more doctors.

I disagree that anyone is over-educated

You don’t need to worry much about doctors making too much money. It’s less lucrative than it used to be. The big issue is the amount of money that goes to filing insurance claims—and how much of a discount insurance companies insist on while charging customers enormous premiums .