DEI is literally the definition of racism. Disney being sued by Elon Musk

[NotJoeBiden]

Hiring someone with more diverse background between two equally qualified applicants isn’t illegal. It isn’t discrimination. That is the purpose of DEI: increasing the diversity in the workforce while taking into account the reduced opportunities underrepresented groups have faced.

Here is a question to think about it: Why do you think only 7% of doctors identify as black while 14% of the US population identifies as black?

Again, there are some nice free education resources out there to learn about this rather than listening to Elon’s unhinged ramblings.

[MichaelGates]

Hiring someone with more diverse background between two equally qualified applicants isn’t illegal. It isn’t discrimination. That is the purpose of DEI: increasing the diversity in the workforce while taking into account the reduced opportunities underrepresented groups have faced.

Garbage. If they are equally qualified, then you didn't have a reduced reduced opportunities person. People almost never are equally qualified as they have different backgrounds. This is about pushing the less qualified over the more qualified based on skin color. It is discrimination. It is illegal. It is a violation of the Civil Rights Act. Saying we need diveristy in order to have more of a certain skin color, is insulting to everyone. People are more than the color of their skin and don't need to be treated as tokens in a silly bean counting game.

[NotJoeBiden]

Hiring someone with more diverse background between two equally qualified applicants isn’t illegal. It isn’t discrimination. That is the purpose of DEI: increasing the diversity in the workforce while taking into account the reduced opportunities underrepresented groups have faced.

Garbage. If they are equally qualified, then you didn't have a reduced reduced opportunities person. People almost never are equally qualified as they have different backgrounds. This is about pushing the less qualified over the more qualified based on skin color. It is discrimination. It is illegal. It is a violation of the Civil Rights Act. Saying we need diveristy in order to have more of a certain skin color, is insulting to everyone. People are more than the color of their skin and don't need to be treated as tokens in a silly bean counting game.

I agree race shouldn’t be a factor, which is why DEI exists. It is an imperfect process to counterbalance discriminatory hiring practices.

I will reiterate my question: why are there proportionally less black people in medicine than in the general population? If race was not a factor, wouldn’t you expect there to be proportionally the same number of black doctors as the general population?

Again, there are free courses and certificates on this issue if you want to learn more.


-
Joe

[Ares]

Hiring someone with more diverse background between two equally qualified applicants isn’t illegal. It isn’t discrimination. That is the purpose of DEI: increasing the diversity in the workforce while taking into account the reduced opportunities underrepresented groups have faced.

Garbage. If they are equally qualified, then you didn't have a reduced reduced opportunities person. People almost never are equally qualified as they have different backgrounds. This is about pushing the less qualified over the more qualified based on skin color. It is discrimination. It is illegal. It is a violation of the Civil Rights Act. Saying we need diveristy in order to have more of a certain skin color, is insulting to everyone. People are more than the color of their skin and don't need to be treated as tokens in a silly bean counting game.

I agree race shouldn’t be a factor, which is why DEI exists. It is an imperfect process to counterbalance discriminatory hiring practices.  

I will reiterate my question: why are there proportionally less black people in medicine than in the general population? If race was not a factor, wouldn’t you expect there to be proportionally the same number of black doctors as the general population?

1. Do you believe people with lower MCAT and GPA scores should be put into medical school ahead of those with higher MCAT and GPA scores?
2. If you are having life saving surgery do you want the person who did the best in medical school to operate on you or do you care more about their race?
3. If you are a passenger on an airline do you want the pilot to be the best person who graduated flight school or do you care more about their race?

[MichaelGates]

Again, there are free courses and certificates on this issue if you want to learn more.
-
Joe

No, I would not expect there to be a proportunionally the same number of black doctors as the general piopulation. It  may be bean  counting comments posted online that will push even more away from pursuing certain careers. I don't need free courses and certificates on the issue as I have degrees in this area.

[Jonathan Whatley]

1. Do you believe people with lower MCAT and GPA scores should be put into medical school ahead of those with higher MCAT and GPA scores?

Yes. Medical schools should consider aspects of applicants' background other than only MCAT and GPA scores.

2. If you are having life saving surgery do you want the person who did the best in medical school to operate on you or do you care more about their race?

That's a false dilemma. I want someone who successfully completed medical school, attained and completed a residency in the relevant surgical specialty, and continues professional development. Within the range of competent, scores on medical school shelf exams and such isn't likely to be all that material to their competence in my surgery many years later.

There's a large population of people who would become competent physicians if they received seats in medical school and residency, but they don't not because of an incapability intrinsic to them, but because of the high competition for a limited number of seats.

[Ares]

1. Do you believe people with lower MCAT and GPA scores should be put into medical school ahead of those with higher MCAT and GPA scores?

Yes. Medical schools should consider aspects of applicants' background other than only MCAT and GPA scores.

What "aspects of applicants' background other than only MCAT and GPA scores" should be considered?

2. If you are having life saving surgery do you want the person who did the best in medical school to operate on you or do you care more about their race?

That's a false dilemma. I want someone who successfully completed medical school, attained and completed a residency in the relevant surgical specialty, and continues professional development. Within the range of competent, scores on medical school shelf exams and such isn't likely to be all that material to their competence in my surgery many years later.

Gibberish.

If you are getting life saving surgery do you want the person who graduated at the top of their class in medical school or someone less qualified who got in based on their race?

There's a large population of people who would become competent physicians if they received seats in medical school and residency, but they don't not because of an incapability intrinsic to them, but because of the high competition for a limited number of seats.

More gibberish. They didn't get into medical school because their IQ was lower than the ones who did.

Do you think it is better for doctors to have a higher or lower IQ?

[Jonathan Whatley]

Yes. Medical schools should consider aspects of applicants' background other than only MCAT and GPA scores.

What "aspects of applicants' background other than only MCAT and GPA scores" should be considered?

Here are some off the top of my head. I was head of a pre-health students' association. I've spent more time than average talking with pre-meds, and medical academics, and thinking about these things.

• Interviews. Probably especially structured and validated measures such as a Multiple Mini Interview.
  
• Brief written statements.
  
• Reasons for studying medicine and career plans and interests within medicine. Including how well-reasoned, insightful, and realistic these are, and how congruent they are with the medical school. For example, some medical schools emphasize producing specialized physician-researchers, others emphasize producing primary-care generalists, and others seek to produce a diverse mix. Many medical schools have always had missions specific to populations their graduates will serve. It's reasonable that a state university in Alabama will admit some applicants with lower MCAT/GPAs but greater connections to Alabama and reasonably estimated likelihood of practicing in Alabama. Much the same, it's reasonable that they'll give preference to some candidates with greater connections to and reasonably estimated likelihood of practicing in positions in Alabama that are challenging to recruit for in the general market, such as both rural primary care and inner-city primary care.
  
• Letters of recommendation.
  
• Work experience.
  
• Volunteer experience.
  
• Research experience, publications, and related.
  
• Mitigating hardships. For example, if a student took a GPA hit during a period their mother died or the student themselves fought cancer, that GPA should not be considered a good predictor of their academic performance in more normal circumstances.
  
• Subjects and natures of undergraduate courses taken and undergraduate alma maters. For example, a research-oriented medical school might reasonably admit a 3.7 in biology from Yale over a 4.0 in psychology from an everyday local college, even if both candidates had performed equally in science prerequisite courses and MCAT. Conversely, a primary-care-oriented medical school in that same local area might admit a 3.7 in psychology from the everyday local college over a 4.0 in biology from Yale with the same other factors held constant.
  
• Additional education. For example a master's in biomedical science, a master's in public health, etc.
  

If you are getting life saving surgery do you want the person who graduated at the top of their class in medical school or someone less qualified who got in based on their race?

I answered your loaded and artificial question in good faith by describing important attributes I do want in the doctor performing life-saving surgery.

Your question is a false dilemma because those are not the only two choices. There are not only two types of doctor, doctors who graduated at the top of their class or doctors who got in based on race.

The large majority of doctors are neither.

Describing someone getting into medical school "based on their race" is also potentially misleading phrasing. No one is admitted to medical school in the US based on their race to the exclusion of any other factor. Every time race is used as one criteria in allocating a seat, the medical school also uses GPA, MCAT, and other common criteria to choose a candidate likely to succeed in medical school and practice. "based in some part on their race" is more precise.

Further, it's very possible for the same doctor to be in BOTH the subsets "doctors who got in based [in some part] on their race" and "person who graduated at the top of their class."

The only doctor I've ever had as a patient who there's much evidence available to me that they achieved high academic rank among doctors was also a visible minority. Might he have had some advantage getting a competitive seat somewhere along the line because of affirmative action? Maybe? So what. It doesn't bother me (and I'm a white man). He also held very high merit.

It isn't uncommon for a medical student whose pre-med statistics are at the top to regress down towards and sometimes below the mean during med school. The four years of med school, especially the last two years in clinical rotations, are very unlike pre-med college.

It's similarly not uncommon for students who start lower in the pack to move to the top.

They didn't get into medical school because their IQ was lower than the ones who did.

Do you think it is better for doctors to have a higher or lower IQ?

These statements reflect enormous misunderstanding of the topics they name.

GPA is a terrible proxy for IQ, MCAT is a terrible proxy for IQ, and other criteria medical schools use are also terrible proxies for IQ.

I got a high IQ score by answering logical puzzles.

It's almost a coincidence that I have a high GPA. The GPA was based on several contributors including subject knowledge, writing performance, and meeting deadlines. Logical thinking is in the mix but in a very different way than in the IQ test. It's not uncommon to have a high IQ but low GPA. Low IQ but high GPA isn't unheard of.

And like most people with a high IQ and/or GPA, if I took the MCAT today my score would be terrible. MCAT score depends on extensive subject knowledge of natural sciences. (I only completed some pre-health coursework.)

[MichaelGates]

National MS Society. Did anyone read how the National MS Society just used its DEI program to kick out and exclude a 90 year old disabled woman, who had been a volunteer for 60 years, in the name of being inclusive?

[NotJoeBiden]

Just to add to Jonathan’s great point (clearly he would easily get his DEI certificate easily), IQ tests and most standardized testing is racially biased. IQ tests were widely adopted by eugenicists to show superiority and discriminate against underrepresented groups. This is part of the reason schools use a wholistic approach, and now why some schools are dropping standardized testing in general.

-
Joe