Fascinating tale about affirmative action

[GMM]

I suppose you could be suspicious of this story because its so close to April 1st. But it appears to be legit. The brother of Mindy Kaling (the actress) faked his race and it helped him get into medical school:



In my junior year of college, I realized that I didn't have the grades or test scores to get into medical school, at least not as an Indian-American.

Still, I was determined to become a doctor and I knew that admission standards for certain minorities under affirmative action were, let's say… less stringent?

So, I shaved my head, trimmed my long Indian eyelashes, and applied to medical school as a black man. My change in appearance was so startling that my own fraternity brother didn't recognize me at first. I even joined the Organization of Black Students and started using my embarrassing middle name that I had hidden from all of my friends since I was a 9 years old.

.........

My plan actually worked. Lucky for you, I never became a doctor.


Almost Black

 

[ecouch]

Your link is listed as suspicious by google and Mcafee.

I'm sure it is awesome content though. Almostblack.com. Posted by a white supremacist.

Come on Gregory, you aren't even trying anymore.

ETA: I guess this a thing. Here is a link that is safe.

ETA2: Wait a minute, this happened in 1997? Hmmm...



This post was edited on 4/3 4:12 PM by ecouch

3.1 and you want to go to med school?

 

[qazplm]

technically

an Indian-American and apparently Mindy Kahling's brother. It ought to be interesting seeing her respond to this.

Anyhoo, even if you assume he's completely telling the truth, and that would be quite an assumption, the idea that one fraudster means a policy or program is, well, anything, is the kind of simplistic thinking you usually get from some folks. Every program, every society, everything ever has free riders and fraudsters. Everything ever has people who don't get a fair shake, the point is not to make it 100% equal or fair but it is to make it roughly so.

 

[GMM]

Yeah, I was suspicious too and I said so in the OP. So what if it happened in 1997? Does that somehow mean its false?

Funny how you claim to be for "equal protection" yet you say nothing about the blatantly different standards for admission. Not just to medical schools but for numerous other schools across the country. I'm not surprised at your hypocrisy.

I'm sure it is awesome content though. Almostblack.com. Posted by a white supremacist.

No, Razib Khan is the "white supremacist", not Vijay Chokal-Ingam. What, do all south asians look alike to you?





This post was edited on 4/3 4:45 PM by GMM

 

[qazplm]

lol you are worried about blatantly different standards?

I thought you were just fine with different standards.

 

[GMM]

No

Originally posted by qazplm:
I thought you were just fine with different standards.

I'm fine with different diverse (there that sounds better, doesn't it?) standards. For example let's get rid of Title IX.

Now, go ask ecouch why he (and you too) is a hypocrite.

 

[ecouch]

Re: lol you are worried about blatantly different standards?

Read this guy's blog and twitter feed.

He is....questionable.

The lady from The Office needs to get far, far away from this guy if he is her brother. This isn't an instance of Gregory stumbling upon a nut, this is being circulated in the racist spheres.

This post was edited on 4/3 10:30 PM by ecouch

 

[GMM]

Beware the racist spheres!

LOL x 100

Don't have much of an argument, do you? So, bring out the "racist" nonsense.

 

[qazplm]

so...it turns out

he tried this "trick" on 20 schools...and only got into one of them.

Boy, that Affirmative Action, 5 percent of the time, it works every time.

 

[GMM]

Re: so...it turns out

And if you're of the many, many people who've been denied acceptance into all kinds of schools because of AA then according to you its only a 5% injustice.

Like I've said many times, most of the people who claim to be for equal treatment are frauds. Most of the people who claim that "race is a social construct" are frauds as well.

 

[qazplm]

yes

the "many, many" people.

Soooo tough to be White in today's society, soooo easy to be a minority and a woman.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Well, I was denied an ROTC scholarship initially because I wasn't the right color. A guy with a worse GPA, no varsity sports, fewer involvements in govt/charity etc, and lower test scores got a full ride likely because he is Filipino. He thought that was why, anyway.

And then I watched at Nuke school as we'd let the white guys fail out without much fight, but if it was a minority - overtime, why can't the instructors get through to him, and yes, even the word "quota" straight from the CO's mouth referring to an Asian student once and a black female (Mechanical Engineer from a "historically black" school) who didn't pass a single one of her first eleven exams another time.

So yeah, there are plenty of people, however you want to classify it, who are equally or even better qualified who relieve unequal treatment thanks to AA.

It's an outdated and discriminatory policy.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[GMM]

Re: yes

You think affirmative action only harms whites? You think all minorities benefit from it?

You reveal your anti-white bias.

 

[qazplm]

first of all

you have no idea if that was why. It could have been because someone just liked him, or his file could have been selected before yours, or yours could have been packaged in between two stronger profiles and his between two weaker ones. JUST like a promotion board where sometimes objectively less qualified people get promoted and objectively more qualified people don't simply because of the vagaries of a board, which I'm sure you've seen. But because he was a minority, it becomes AA.

Second of all, affirmative action is not about quotas, so if someone at Nuke school was using quotas, they were doing their own thing, not affirmative action, which doesn't even apply to the military anyways. You meld AA which is a very specific policy with any policy anyone ever uses in favor of minorities.

And when you compare the vast advantages given to whites in almost every facet of our society, the "plenty of people" is really, really tiny by comparison. Tell you what, when minority schools are funded and staffed just like majority White schools, when all of the studies that show that simply having a more White name, all other things on a resume being equal, makes it more likely that you get interviewed and/or hired, or all of the myriad other things, then I'll start worrying about whether an attempt to give minorities opportunities is a problem.

 

[GMM]

Re: first of all

And when you compare the vast advantages given to whites in almost every facet of our society....

Ah, yes, the "white privilege" canard. Its inconceivable to you that whites earn what they have. BTW, do the same "advantages given" to whites apply to asians as well?

Tell you what, when minority schools are funded and staffed just like majority White schools.....

What about majority asian schools? They must be really, really, really well funded.

But its noteworthy that you think funding is the main reason for the differences in academic performance from school to school. How very marxist of you.

....when all of the studies that show that simply having a more White name.

Which is why asians do so well.

.....then I'll start worrying about whether an attempt to give minorities opportunities is a problem.

No, you'll never start to worry about that.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Technicalities. The spirit of the rules and quotas employed by the Navy is the same, and I disagree with it. Let the best candidates "win".

And I didn't think it was a minority thing right off the bat... HE did.

Of course you're in favor of it: it favors you and your kids/family. Never mind the fact that it is anything but equality in practice. It is advantage.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[qazplm]

equality does not mean same

To spit the same back at you, of course you want a pure meritocracy when you and your kids benefit from being white in hiring decisions, and in how your schools are staffed and funded. When you and your kids don't suffer from generations of second-class (or worse) treatment that continues through today.

This isn't about the "best" candidate. AA doesn't involve the top White candidate losing to the top Black candidate.

And AA isn't about quotas. Never has been. It is about identifying and selecting QUALIFIED minority applicants. It's about recognizing there are pervasive and systematic disadvantages. Now, I'd be much happier as would other minorities, if those pervasive, systematic disadvantages were erased, and we could all start on a level playing field.

But few seem to want to do that. So I find complaints about AA very hollow when it's combined with a refusal to see or admit to the advantages the majority has in this country.

 

[GMM]

Re: equality does not mean same

AA doesn't involve the top White candidate losing to the top Black candidate.

Doesn't have to involve the "top" white candidate but it still happens. White, and south/east Asian, candidates DO lose out to black/hispanic candidates all the time.

It is about identifying and selecting QUALIFIED minority applicants.

What if one candidate is MORE QUALIFIED than the other? Well, it depends on what group they belong to. That is what will decide who gets selected. Sometimes minority candidates count as PC, sometimes they dont.

But the "qualified" mentality sounds a lot like the union mentality. Establish minimum levels of performance and treat anyone above that level as equal. Then, when the results still don't turn out like what you wanted, keep lowering the definition of "qualified".

So I find complaints about AA very hollow when it's combined with a refusal to see or admit to the advantages the majority has in this country.

Which is why Asians do so well.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Re: equality does not mean same

"In contrast to the service and supply affirmative action program, OFCCP, rather than the contractor, establishes goals and specifies affirmative action which must be undertaken by Federal and federally assisted construction contractors. OFCCP issued specific national goals for women. The female goal of 6.9 percent was extended indefinitely in 1980 and remains in effect today. " - DOL

"The numerical goals are established based on the availability of qualified applicants in the job market or qualified candidates in the employer's work force. Executive Order numerical goals do not create set-asides for specific groups, nor are they designed to achieve proportional representation or equal results. Rather, the goal-setting process in affirmative action planning is used to target and measure the effectiveness of affirmative action efforts to eradicate and prevent discrimination." - DOL

What happens if you don't meet those goals? Nothing?

AA is like playing a video game where your qualified minority applicant has a +15% hiring bonus so as not to raise questions from Labor. Yes, I want a meritocracy where the best candidate is selected regardless of race/color/creed/sex/sexual preference/religion. The shame I feel for that.

 

[qazplm]

yep nothing

people fail to meet those goals all the time.They are exactly what they say there are...not set-asides, but goal setting to measure effectiveness.

How would you measure effectiveness of a program that was designed to identify qualified minority hirees if it didn't involve numerical analysis of some sort?

So, IOW I gives a f___ about any systemic disadvantage up to and until the point of hiring decisions.

There are no meritocracies ANYWHERE, not pure ones. People get hired because they told a funny joke during their interview, or because their first name is Steven instead of Raheem, or because the selector thinks they look attractive...taller people do better than shorter, better looking people do better than less attractive people...this is proven time and time again when these things are studied...rich alums get their kids in before better qualified kids without that advantage...

There are all SORTS of advantages the rich, powerful and well-to-do get that dwarf anything a minority gets...are you up in arms about those too?

Somehow AA based on race is a problem but all of the evidence that minorities are actually discriminated against in hiring/selection, as are women to begin with, plus all of the other advantages other groups get are no issue at all.

Like I said, let me know when we actually HAVE a meritocracy anywhere, and I might start getting on board.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Re: yep nothing

Originally posted by qazplm:
people fail to meet those goals all the time.They are exactly what they say there are...not set-asides, but goal setting to measure effectiveness.

How would you measure effectiveness of a program that was designed to identify qualified minority hirees if it didn't involve numerical analysis of some sort?

...

There are no meritocracies ANYWHERE, not pure ones. People get hired because they told a funny joke during their interview, or because their first name is Steven instead of Raheem, or because the selector thinks they look attractive...taller people do better than shorter, better looking people do better than less attractive people...this is proven time and time again when these things are studied...rich alums get their kids in before better qualified kids without that advantage...

There are all SORTS of advantages the rich, powerful and well-to-do get that dwarf anything a minority gets...are you up in arms about those too?

Somehow AA based on race is a problem but all of the evidence that minorities are actually discriminated against in hiring/selection, as are women to begin with, plus all of the other advantages other groups get are no issue at all.

Like I said, let me know when we actually HAVE a meritocracy anywhere, and I might start getting on board.

No, actually I think we should legislate AA for shorter people... and bald people... and people who speak English as a second language... and ugly women... and fat people. Why stop with race? Great logic there.

I don't believe in persecution of the wealthy simply because they are wealthy. By most measures and for my age, I am wealthy. I grew up in a middle class family and started with a negative net worth after college like many Americans. What I have saved and how fortunate I am to be where I am isn't due to an inheritance nor anything other advantage you may perceive. There were minority students in every class I ever took at all of my public schools. So yeah, I have no problem with wealthy people being wealthy, nor should they be persecuted or legislated into disadvantages because you perceive the "system" has intangible "benefits" for the wealthy. Perhaps you should think about the likely reasons why they are wealthy.

In my opinion, it is hypocritical to legislate racism on one hand and bemoan it on the other. At some point, we need to start being blind to race. You're not going to be able to legislate people's free thought away by throwing out, ahem, "goals and MOEs" which have no repercussions if you don't meet them.

(Emphasis added to declare BULLS*&^!)

 

[qazplm]

so me citing

the advantages of the wealthy not tied to merit is "persecution?" Legacy scholarships? Getting a job because of who you know, or who your parents are and not for your qualifications? Those aren't "perceptions." You are the one who said you wanted a meritocracy, or is that only for the little people?

We need to start being blind to race? Great, let me know when folks are blind to race in a way that actually helps minorities, because they sure aren't blind to race in ways that hurt them.

 

[qazplm]

More facts come out

1. His MCAT score was actually above average nationally at the time, and well within the average MCAT score at SLU.
2. His dad was a doctor, which gave an advantage.
3. Several of the schools, he admits on his website, noticed the discrepancy and called him out on it.
4. His MCAT test and undergrad transcripts would have had his real first name, instead of his middle name of "JoJo." Which is probably why some of the schools called him on it. Thus, that casts doubt on whether SLU even selected him because they "thought he was Black."
5. He was a National Merit Scholar and came from a good undergrad school, both of which, along with he above average MCAT score, would have helped him get into SLU. Much like my top 2% LSAT score helped me when my GPA was also in the low 3s.

So, the upshot is, there is little to no evidence he wouldn't have gotten into SLU if he'd put down Indian instead of Black.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Re: so me citing

I drafted a long response, but I'm clearly not as emotionally invested in this as you are. I've stated my opinion; you disagree. I'm not going to waste 2 hours and 10 more posts stating obvious fundamental disagreement.

 

[qazplm]

Re: so me citing

I think that's part of the problem, you aren't emotionally invested because you don't live it and see it.

 

[BoilerJS]

Re: so me citing

Reference the Military and quotas! The Military absolutely has quotas as referenced above. My father who spent 44 years in the Army was a recruiter his last 18. He had a quota to meet every month. One woman, One minority and one prior service. A woman, also fitting one of the above categories, killed two birds with one stone. The 4th person needed each month could be a white male.

 

[qazplm]

they do not officially have quotas

but you cannot control recruiters to a certain extent who do all sorts of things they aren't supposed to do.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Re: they do not officially have quotas

Originally posted by qazplm:
but you cannot control recruiters to a certain extent who do all sorts of things they aren't supposed to do.

This is false. They do have quotas at some stations, as did nuke school... # graduates per year. That we enrolled so few of certain ethnicities and sex combinations was why it was so difficult to remove certain students while others were disenrolled far more easily.

 

[kescwi]

OT from the argument ya'll are in, but a couple of summers ago I took on a project where the wife was Navy and doing something at the nuke school. I dealt with the husband but would see her from time to time, always in uniform.

Anyway, I stopped in on a Saturday for final payment and it was the first time I saw his wife out of her uniform and holy crap what a difference. Kind of a sexy librarian thing I guess.

Sorry, your mention of the school made that pop into my mind, of no use to anyone, like much of what I post but at least I got that off my chest. Ha
Posted from Rivals Mobile