Criticism of Josh Gordon and race relations

[Farm Boy]

Of course the last sentence is true.

But perniciously high rates of rural generation over generation poverty(black and white) outstripping the rate at which the urban remain destitute is also true. It's simply a cause. But a vicious once since it's just. so. shallow.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Of course the last sentence is true.

But perniciously high rates of rural generation over generation poverty(black and white) outstripping the rate at which the urban remain destitute is also true. It's simply a cause. But a vicious once since it's just. so. shallow.

Agreed.

There may be a factor of proximity in play also that I hadn't considered. The rural poor do have to leave all they know to escape the cycle, because the rural economy is more distinctly stratified. They don't have the local access to a slightly better off position, or a somewhat better off position, or a notably better off position, they have to make the leap to a markedly better off position in one step, because the local economy doesn't have any space for those intermediate positions. Since making that all in one step is practically impossible their options are to stay where and how they are, or accept that relocation is their only access to the slightly better off position.

 

[Archbob]

This depends on the academic setting.

In medical school, I can't see how ethnic diversity would contribute anything to the results. Ditto for any other vocational training program.

And there's the thing, look at the acceptance rates separated by race for med school, its done for racial diversity.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

And there's the thing, look at the acceptance rates separated by race for med school, its done for racial diversity.

Nicely done. I mention med school as an academic setting where what you said was applicable in academic settings generally is in fact true...and you disregard that I went on to illustrate that there are academic settings where it is certainly not true.

Your initial premise that "ethnic diversity in academic settings makes no difference" is fatally flawed, and using one specific academic setting to support the claim is misleading. Continuing to use it after it has been pointed out as an individual case not representative of the general condition is intentionally misleading, if not outright fraudulent.

 

[Farm Boy]

Building ethnic diversity in medical schools is probably not done for the enrichment of the medical schools themselves. It is done for the enrichment of society at large. Having MDs that are more likely to be willing to practice in Bumferkville, Montana has value for society. Having MDs that are more likely to be willing to serve in specific urban environments is of value to society. Having MD role models in all communities, not just specific ones, is also of value to society. It would make sense for society to incentivize such people when they are available and seem to be willing.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Building ethnic diversity in medical schools is probably not done for the enrichment of the medical schools themselves. It is done for the enrichment of society at large. Having MDs that are more likely to be willing to practice in Bumferkville, Montana has value for society. Having MDs that are more likely to be willing to serve in specific urban environments is of value to society. Having MD role models in all communities, not just specific ones, is also of value to society. It would make sense for society to incentivize such people when they are available and seem to be willing.

Game, set, match.

 

[Archbob]

Building ethnic diversity in medical schools is probably not done for the enrichment of the medical schools themselves. It is done for the enrichment of society at large. Having MDs that are more likely to be willing to practice in Bumferkville, Montana has value for society. Having MDs that are more likely to be willing to serve in specific urban environments is of value to society. Having MD role models in all communities, not just specific ones, is also of value to society. It would make sense for society to incentivize such people when they are available and seem to be willing.

Where is the research that says MD's from ethnic diverse background are more willing to go to Bumferkville, Montana? Those places usually pay really high for doctors because no one wants to go. The money is what draws them, not ethnically diverse doctors.

And I disagree, especially in the case of medicine that ethnic diveristy "enriches" society. I want to best doctors that made the highest grades and test scores both getting into med school and coming out of med school operating on me when I go under the knife not someone that was helped by any ethnic diversity standard when getting into Med School. I want the "A" doctor in all circumstances, not the "C" doctor. I could care less about your ethnic diversity enrichment goals when people are having surgery.

Nicely done. I mention med school as an academic setting where what you said was applicable in academic settings generally is in fact true...and you disregard that I went on to illustrate that there are academic settings where it is certainly not true.

I would say outside of social sciences, its true for most academic majors. I could care less about your race in Medical School, Law School, Engineering School, Biological Sciences, and a plethora of other fields.

 

[Sommerswerd]

And I disagree, especially in the case of medicine that ethnic diveristy "enriches" society. I want to best doctors that made the highest grades and test scores both getting into med school and coming out of med school operating on me when I go under the knife not someone that was helped by any ethnic diversity standard when getting into Med School. I want the "A" doctor in all circumstances, not the "C" doctor. I could care less about your ethnic diversity enrichment goals when people are having surgery.

Well I want the experienced doctor, not the A doctor. When I choose a physician, I do not ask them what their GPA was. Its irrelevant. I ask them about their experience with whatever condition or treatment they are recommending. I want a surgeon with a steady hands and substantial experience in dealing with complications. I want someone with great empathy and bedside manner, who will put me or my family members at ease. I want someone with impeccable ethics who will not upsell me or suggest treatments and add-ons just to make more money. I want someone who has excellent rapport with the medical team around them, who will be able to deliver highly efficient care, because they are a likeable leader with the support and confidence of the staff. GPA doesn't tell me a d@mn thing about how good a doctor is. At best high GPA tells me a person might be a library drone, with no bedside manner, and no experience dealing with people, or high pressure flesh and blood situations.

I would guess, in fact IIRC you have commented, that you feel that GPA and test scores (SAT, LSAT, MCAT, GMAT) should be the only relevant factors in college admissions. You have also praised what you have described as the "Asian method" (or something similar) of prioritizing great GPA and high test scores.

So I would suggest that the "I want the A doctor" in your case is a perfect example of the self-serving ideology. Self-serving in the sense that it reinforces your pro-Asian pre-conceptions about who is "qualified" to attend University. You overvalue GPA and test scores because you have embraced an ideology that tells you to prioritize them over everything else.

I would say outside of social sciences, its true for most academic majors. I could care less about your race in Medical School, Law School, Engineering School, Biological Sciences, and a plethora of other fields.

If I am a white police officer accused of wrongfully shooting a Hispanic teen in front of a jury with numerous Hispanic jurors. I want a Hispanic lawyer defending me. My wife (who is a physician) has told me numerous times that she has gotten new patients because they were impressed that she was from a similar cultural/ethnic background and spoke their native language. The owner of one of my favourite local restaurants told me a few weeks ago that although she had a condition that fits within my wife's specialty, she was reluctant to switch over to my wife because "my doctor is Chinese, I'm Chinese... you know, so I like her." Your point is just way off base. Diversity can matter in many contexts.

 

[Farm Boy]

Where is the research that says MD's from ethnic diverse background are more willing to go to Bumferkville, Montana? Those places usually pay really high for doctors because no one wants to go. The money is what draws them, not ethnically diverse doctors.

Actually, the rural poor don't pay doctors that well. They're the rural poor. There are government programs that offer, often borderline admits(often white) medical school tuition reimbursement if they sign a contract obligating them to practice for a span of years in rural areas. I know somebody that did this. She's amazing.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I would say outside of social sciences, its true for most academic majors. I could care less about your race in Medical School, Law School, Engineering School, Biological Sciences, and a plethora of other fields.

"Ethnic diversity does not improve academic settings."

"Well, it does improve those academic settings, but they don't count so I'm still right."

Hilarious. Your continued support of your position casually disregards that your original point has been shown to be demonstrably and now self-admittedly false.

I conceded medical school and other vocational training programs initially, but Sommerswerd has convinced me through reasonable argument that I was incorrect.

Your point is just way off base. Diversity can matter in many contexts.

I was willing to argue that vocational training programs do not properly qualify as 'academic settings', but I like this much better.

 

[Archbob]

"Ethnic diversity does not improve academic settings."

"Well, it does improve those academic settings, but they don't count so I'm still right."

Hilarious. Your continued support of your position casually disregards that your original point has been shown to be demonstrably and now self-admittedly false.

I was originally talking about graduation rates and achievement metrics such as how they do in college and if/how many people graduate and not drop out. Ethnic diversity doesn't help those things.

Yes, for certain programs you might want ethnic diversity, but for many, or most, its not critical to the study. Medical school(for one example) acceptance should based more on relevent things like how you did in anatomy or biology course.

 

[JollyRoger]

Given how doctors claim to be struggling to make ends meet, maybe medical school acceptance should be based on how one did in their economics coursework.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I was originally talking about graduation rates and achievement metrics such as how they do in college and if/how many people graduate and not drop out. Ethnic diversity doesn't help those things.

You originally said that students don't achieve better in ethnically diverse environments. There is a whole lot more to 'students achieving' than graduation rates.

So just as you did with 'academic environments' you are now narrowing the scope of your general case statement down to the specific areas where it has not been thrown in your face that your general case statement does not apply. You rely on a pretense that the specific cases where your position has not yet been demonstrated to be false were the only cases you meant in the first place in order to avoid acknowledging that your opening premise was flat out false as a general case statement.

By all indications you will continue to make such false general case statements as long as they can be supported by any slice of specifics, no matter how narrow. Is there any particular reason you should not be met with total skepticism?

 

[Farm Boy]

I don't know. I think the process of narrowing itself has value.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I don't know. I think the process of narrowing itself has value.

Narrowing, yes, repetition, less so. If I thought there was any chance that Archbob won't be saying the same erroneous general statement next week I would be more enthused.

 

[Archbob]

You originally said that students don't achieve better in ethnically diverse environments. There is a whole lot more to 'students achieving' than graduation rates.

So just as you did with 'academic environments' you are now narrowing the scope of your general case statement down to the specific areas where it has not been thrown in your face that your general case statement does not apply. You rely on a pretense that the specific cases where your position has not yet been demonstrated to be false were the only cases you meant in the first place in order to avoid acknowledging that your opening premise was flat out false as a general case statement.

By all indications you will continue to make such false general case statements as long as they can be supported by any slice of specifics, no matter how narrow. Is there any particular reason you should not be met with total skepticism?

Well, now, you can't actually become a doctor without graduating, now can you?
Achievement in school is measured by if you graduate and how well you do in classes. Those are the only two objective measurements. All you talk about are subjective things that really can't be measured and honestly none of you have actually shown any objective measurement for your argument.

Just because a patient would prefer a doctor because of race doesn't mean that doctor is more qualified than the other whereas a doctor who knows anatomy or human biology better usually is a more qualified doctor.

So I would suggest that the "I want the A doctor" in your case is a perfect example of the self-serving ideology. Self-serving in the sense that it reinforces your pro-Asian pre-conceptions about who is "qualified" to attend University. You overvalue GPA and test scores because you have embraced an ideology that tells you to prioritize them over everything else.

Universites are primarily academic institutions, are they not? Why should they not use primarily academic merits to determine who gets in? Also other "involvement" is extremely subjective. A Harvard study actually found very little difference in "community involvement" or "extracurricular activities" between ethnic groups. Its just that different ethnic groups prefer different sports. Asians generally prefer Tennis or other raquet sports in High School while African Americans prefer Basketball/Football. Unless your going to argue that playing varsity Basketball/Football is somehow a better indicator of someone who is more qualified than someone who plays Varsity Tennis, your "Holistic View" argument that Harvard itself uses to admit students(which is actually the same justification they used in the 1920 to limit the number of Jewish students) doesn't hold any water.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Just because a patient would prefer a doctor because of race doesn't mean that doctor is more qualified than the other

Again, more qualified than who? To do what? Be my doctor? Who gets to decide what the relevant qualifications are? Archbob, or the patient choosing their doctor? If it is the latter then how can you possibly say who is "more qualified" or even presume to pretend to know what the relevant qualifications are? Try to imagine that a person might consider any board-certified candidates acceptable choices to be their doctor, and then to narrow their choice down they determine that the "relevant qualification" is that person speak their first language, Spanish for example. So the "most qualified" for that particular person would have to be Spanish-speaking and in this case a the most proficient spanish-speaking doctor would be the "most qualified" to that particular person. A fluent spanish-speaker may have not ever taken a college course in Spanish, and yet be far more proficient than a non-native speaker who got an "A" in Spanish.

You are just fixated on the idea that grades = qualification because as I have said, this is self serving given your preferred ideology.

whereas a doctor who knows anatomy or human biology better usually is a more qualified doctor.

False. I could care less what grade my psychiatrist, cardiologist, otolaryngologist, or ophthalmologist got in anatomy, its totally irrelevant. What are you basing this conclusion on? You seem to be presuming that "qualification" is the same thing as "relevant medical knowledge" which of course it is not. You also seem to be presuming that human anatomy covers all relevant medical knowledge, which it does not.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Achievement in school is measured by if you graduate and how well you do in classes. Those are the only two objective measurements. All you talk about are subjective things that really can't be measured and honestly none of you have actually shown any objective measurement for your argument.

First off, why do we keep circling back to med school as if it were the only academic environment. You keep harping on it as if the one example, if you could only actually make it work, would prove the general case that you have already acknowledged as false.

So, back to this current bit...things that can be measured objectively are not all that exists. They are not the total extent of 'student achievements'. In the actual academic environment there is plenty of stuff that is measured subjectively, if at all, by faculty advisers and the rare good professor...as well as the rest of the student body, which will reject pathogens fairly decisively in most cases.

I'm interested in having students come out of college (graduated or not) as better humans far more than I am in producing doctors.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Universites are primarily academic institutions, are they not?

Universities are academic. They are also businesses. Their "primary" goals, priorities, admission criteria are up to the institutions themselves. Not you or any John Q public saying what their priorities "should" be. I would be skeptical of a claim that academics at Ohio State University are more important than the athletics, particularly football.

A Harvard study actually found very little difference in "community involvement" or "extracurricular activities" between ethnic groups.

Right but you are talking about already admitted students who are already attending Harvard, not applicants for admission to the school, right?

Of course all the admitted kids had relatively equal participation in extracurriculars, because Harvard weeded out all the library-drones in the admission process. By focusing on admitting well rounded students, as opposed to just taking whoever has the highest test score, the University acheives a student body where all the kids, regardless of ethnicity, are active participants in campus life. So this study you are referencing just proves my point, Thanks Also, I (briefly) looked for the study you mention without success.

your "Holistic View" argument that Harvard itself uses to admit students...doesn't hold any water.

Wait so Harvard University is not qualified to decide how to determine who they should admit... but you are... because... you say so? Why? Because the empirical evidence does not support the principle that Harvard knows what they're doing in this whole "higher education" business?

What exactly are you trying to convince me of? That I am wrong about the criteria Universities use because Harvard agrees with me? Or that you admit that I am right about the criteria but its a silly, faulty system... because Harvard uses it? ... Wait what?

 

[Arwon]

Acrually, there's a pretty decent specific case for diversity in medical degree entry as well. People from disadvantaged or diverse backgrounds are more likely to want to go back and practice in those communities, both improving the standard of healthcare availability in those areas and providing role models for the next generation.

'Sides which, medicine is a bit of a cartel. There's a lot more people who would be able to do it, than ever get in and earn that degree. The idea that unqualified applicants are getting medical degrees is a pretty big furphy. In such a situation of superabundance of qualified candidates it's entirely reasonable to give thought to having the most socially beneficial possible cohort, and consider things like diversity and likely social returns.