General News Mindy Kaling's brother pretended to be black to get into med school

Idk but I have to say she is a funny lady.

 

Honestly, he now says he did it in protest, but I wonder how much of it was more of an honest effort to get into medical school as a "mediocre" applicant. Now that he changed carreers and is into exploiting these issues he wants to appear as a moderator of race issues and such, but I feel he was honestly hair a conniving medical school applicant (aren't they all :lol. He should feel ashamed.

I do believe in affirmative action, but when it comes to education I feel socioeconomic factors should have greater weight in admissions to create a diverse (medical) school class.

 

Isn't affirmative action illegal right now? I'm pretty sure it is, at least in California. I think it should be. The way to boost minorities into higher education is not lower the standards for them... I don't want an incompetent doctor operating on me for ANY reason.

 

Vijay applied to dozens of campuses low and high. I would never shame someone pursuing higher education, but lets not speak as though he made it into Yale. College admissions across the country has been known to unpredictable and even unforgiving at times. The notion that he must have been accepted because of Affirmative Action after being rejected by countless other institutions is genuinely laughable.

On the subject of the ethics behind Affirmative Action, I made a post about it only a couple days ago and it is still applicable.

Vast differences in the amount of funding that is distributed to regions of this country with high Hispanic and African American populations is the only injustice here. Affirmative Action is not some golden ticket. Affirmative Action establishes a need for qoutas. Instead of zero people of color in reputable universities there is now a hefty 8-10%.

It is interesting how instilling demographic requirements and bestowing rights towards minorities, whether they be racial or sexual, is always seen as something that the majority is "sacrificing" for them. African Americans, Native Americans, and Hispanics consistent of a minute fraction of the amount of students accepted in higher education every year and we are still viewing the acceptances that they received as being stolen. Its remarkable really.

No need. I am African American and Native American. I am both of the ethnicities that AA is meant to benefit. I was top of my class in high school, achieved competitive SAT scores, was president of two clubs, and applied with over 1000+ of community service. I was rejected to my three top choices. I suppose my black get into college free card had expired; however, I didn't launch a campaign against the world. I attended my first choice, maintain a high GPA and reapplied as a transfer as any sensible person would.

---------- Post added 7th Apr 2015 at 12:49 AM ----------

Thousands of competent students are rejected from universities around the world every year. It must take a profound academic history or a lack of experience applying to an institution that is even somewhat competitive to believe that modern university acceptance or rejection is an even moderately sufficient means to determine intellectual or occupational competence.

Affirmative Action does not lower acceptance requirements. It states that a certain amount of racial minorities and women must be considered. Applicants among those groups compete for those spots. It is through the assumption that the male and white demographics are inherently more competitive that the idea that minorities and women have to meet lower standards is born. This is obviously illogical when considering the fact that minorities are competing for a fraction of the spots.

 

^I don't see how that is not lowering standards, since you say a certain amount MUST be considered, even if they are not more competitive than other students applying. Nobody is assuming white males are inherently more competent except those promoting affirmative action. They claim racial minorities need help to get into colleges [since they have other issues affecting them that may have lowered their performance (as you say in yor quote)].

I also disagree with your assumption that all universities have a plethora of competitive applicants to choose from -- so many, in fact, that they randomly take a pick from equally competitive students. If that is what you're saying. There is always going to be people who are more competitive.

I don't get why people want affirmative action; it seems a better solution would be to erase race from any portion of the application (maybe even hiding names from the admissions staff). Would that make too much sense though?

 

The problem is less a part of the application as it is the circumstances of certain groups that lead up to it. For example, rural and (disproportionately rural anyway) indigenous Australians get bonus points to compensate for the fact that they have had both less access to academic resources and social conditions that impeded their education. Without that, they might be unable to enter into an environment such as a good university where they can make up for that disadvantage. On a personal level, they can quickly excel after being accepted, now having all the resources they could need to catch up to their civic and non-indigenous peers. In a broader sense, it means rectifying the conditions that lead to poorly educated people from those groups, which can be a vicious circle without intervention.

The issue lies less in the fear of racist reviews of applications (not that it isn't a problem in some cases), but in that it's necessary to prop some groups up due to unfortunate social realities so that they needn't be propped up in the future.

 

I can agree with some of that. Still, using race is not a fair or completely accurate criteria in that case. Clumping a diverse group of people into one entity isn't accurate. Not every minority is disadvantaged educationally. I don't think I'll ever be able to see it as Fair. By definition, it's inherently unfair, even if the outcomes are positive or beneficial. A more fair solution is to rectify the conditions that make this even necessary to begin with.

In addition, we are talking about a medical school in this case. Even if affirmative was acceptable for 4-year colleges, since as you say, it gives them a chance to excel, if they still cannnot excel, they shouldn't be considered based on their race.

 

I'm not sure exactly how it works in the US and I still haven't quite come to understand America's distinction between colleges and universities, so we may not be on exactly the same page. The advantage here is only by a few points, which is still going to be impossible for most in the target areas. For example, Australia's leading law school's required entry is 99.50 (out of 99.95), but a few disadvantaged applicants get in with a 97 (not fixed, but that was this year's intake), because it's understood that they will be able to perform well, but would have had no chance to enter without that advantage given the immensely higher quality of urban schools. The difference between a good score and a brilliant entry score might mean very little at university, but until they get into that environment, lowering the score gives them an otherwise unobtainable chance. In having gotten grades to enter as such, they prove some level of excellence. I understand that the US has somewhat looser standards in some ways when it comes to affirmative action, but that doesn't mean that affirmative action, in some form or another, doesn't have a place in providing fairer opportunities.

 

I need to get to bed so not gonna debate anymore but to address one quick point... I use college and university interchangeably to refer to a 4-year college which earns you your bachelor's degree. I think most people do. I'm not sure there is a clear distinction in America.

 

Gen and Aussie summed up most of what I wanted to say, and so I don't have much to add. However, I do want to emphasize one point and push back on a false assumption.

Affirmative Action does not let in bad students. This is not how it works. Every student that walks through the doors has to meet roughly the same standard as everyone else. This means those students earned their right to be there, and they were not given their opportunity simply because they are black. They are academically and intellectually on par with the other white students at the school, and in many cases may even exceed them.

Why does Affirmative Action exist in higher education? Because there are always, especially at the best colleges, a huge number of qualified applicants of all races. Only a small number can get in. History and other similar selection processes (example: job hiring) tells us that white students have an intrinsic advantage in getting access to such opportunities, not because they are better students, but simply because they are white. There is already a de facto Affirmative Action system in place for white people, particularly white men, and it applies to everything in our society. Affirmative Action exists to correct that imbalance, and to give everyone equal access to the same opportunities.

Here is an article on a study conducted just last year that proves my point.

 

So: Gen and Aldrick say it doesn't lower the standards; Aussie gives a direct example where it does. Aussie says it isn't about being afraid of racist college admissions staff; Aldrick does.

 

Certainly is an influencing factor. Here, ethnic minorities are usually considerably worse off economically, and that often results in lower test scores and fewer university admissions. As far as I'm aware, we don't have anything like Affirmative Action here, but we do have racial discrimination laws, but no specific quota saying x amount of ethnic minorities need to attend universities, or whatever.

Number one priority should be about lowering poverty levels amongst ethnic minorities, and increasing education standards. The two usually go hand in hand.

You also make another good point regarding Asians in the US. Indians here do very well academically and are also well-off in economic terms, only slightly poorer than the white population.

 

This is exactly what Affirmative Action was introduced to do. Asian are ethnically considered people of color in America; however, Asians don't tend to benefit from Affirmative Action and similar policies. Asian Americans faced severe oppression in the United States, especially in the 20th century, but the aftermath of that oppression is primarily sociological not economical. Asians face racism and disrespect on a social level, but tend to be rarely uninhibited economically.

The oppression of African Americans, Native Americans, and Hispanics (particularly in terms of immigrants) was economically motivated. Slavery was the basis of economic growth in the U.S. America is literally built on the destruction of Native American civilization. Women were kept oppressed throughout history through the exclusion of educational opportunity. Immigrants in this country are still exploited as cheap labor for the American market.

Affirmative Action is not about social racism. It is not about giving people who face prejudice a token of appreciation. It is about correcting a workforce and academic world in which certain demographics are generally absent given the fact that it was built on their oppression. You cannot oppress people for centuries, give them a few rights, and expect a dramatic economic shift towards equality. It just doesn't happen.

There are always more competent applicants than admitted students. AA does not offer racial minorities or women with 2.0's receive spots over Caucasian males 4.0. It simply states that if we have this pool of 4.0 students, or whatever standard a university expects applicants to meet, at least one of the twenty admitted should be African American, Native A., Hispanic, female, etc. Believe it or not there are people of all of those demographics who are actually intelligent and academically competitive.

First, please cite the origin of these numbers. "60% at many UCs" is quite different from any statistics that I have found.

Secondly, those who aren't native to California might not be aware, but UCs are extremely research and science oriented. Asian Americans are more likely to pursue jobs in the medical field than any other field combined. Asian American presence at arts and humanity schools is abysmal. This point doesn't really apply to here.

 

^1. How did Asian Americans overcome economic oppression if they are socially oppressed? They go hand in hand usually. Black people haven't been slaves in forever (though segregation was fairly recent) and Native American land was stolen centuries ago.

2. No, they don't just have a bunch of equally competitive students, and they pick random ones. They don't just base it on GPA (though it is heavily). You don't even need a 4.0 to get into some of the UC schools. They pick the best from available applicants. Can you cite information about them having only 4.0 students all equally competitive and Basically RANDOMLY picking who gets accepted? I don't think it's random...

3. California Postsecondary Education Commission -- Student Snapshots
Doesn't appear to be quite 60%, but Asians alone (and sometimes Asians and Pacific Islanders combined at least) are often the majority. So because asians typically go to science fields it's okay that they are over represented?

 

It's my understanding that the kind of affirmative action that mandates that X number or percent of slots are reserved for minorities is not usually practiced in the US, and was actually made illegal by SCOTUS in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke and Gratz v. Bollinger.

I think that the type of affirmative action practiced by most universities is mostly meant to correct for the fact that the GPA of different people aren't always comparable. Like you said, someone who maintains a 4.0 GPA in spite of having disadvantages in life is much more likely to succeed when given the same opportunity as someone else who had the same GPA.

 

This is true and that should have been phrased better. I wasn't referencing the literal meeting of quotas. I was references the unspoken expectation that some percentage of X social group will be represented in the admitted pool. The description that you shared of the policy is the exact description that I was described in my original post so we seem to have the same understanding. Thank you for point that out.

Asian Americans have historically faced plenty of racism in America; however, they were not exploited nearly to the degree of African Americans and Native Americans.

Centuries are not millennia. They consist of a mere handful of generations. Native American civilization was physically destroyed. Western invasion reduced populations of hundreds of millions to thousands in a matter of decades. Millions of living African Americans that are still alive lived through segregation and lack of all access to higher education; which barred them out of holding high positions, living in middle class suburban housing, and attending local schools. The Emancipation Proclamation was introduced only 150 years ago. Millions of African American slaves didn't even die until the mid 1900s.

Are we really having this conversation? Are we really asking how centuries worth of genocide and literal enslavement has not corrected itself in less than two more? Are we really entertaining the belief that slavery and the planting of European flags marked the end of the subjugation of these groups even slightly?

1. Not quite 60%?

Not only were there fewer Asian Americans total on those campuses, but that estimation overshot the reality by 2x. You posted a link with three charts and only one show a higher percentage of Asian Americans than White, which isn't even the chart that represents the total of all students enrolled.

2. Yes, the fact that Asian Americans typically study sciences is relevant to their prevalence as science and research driven schools...

3. The bolded line says everything. Asian Americans statistically outperform the majority in maths and sciences, are extremely likely to study research and sciences, and California has the highest Asian population in the nation. Yet when we talk about a policy that they don't even truly benefit from and their presence at campuses that cater to studies that they are statistically more likely to choose and excel at, it is an issue and they are being "over-represented"? Don't feel obligated to respond to this post nor anymore that I might make on this subject. The language alone that is being used here tells me that it would not be productive.