An example of institutional racism/discrimination:

[Blackened]

Again, I feel like people are talking past one another because there is not a general agreement on the data itself. And what is clear is this.

1a. Black people apply in far fewer numbers compared to Asians and whites.
1b. Accordingly, even though it is clear that there is favoritism towards black applicants, the proportion of numbers it takes up "unfairly" is small at 5%.
1c. That said, there is significant bonus points for the black candidates as opposed to whites/Asians tell gives them significant advantage.

So in summary, in terms of the individual applicant, there is significant advantage given to the black candidate over white candidate that has nothing to do with the 5% discrimination. However, given that the number of black applicants is small to begin with, the overall effect it has on the student body is small. So basically, there can be four different scenarios here and it is case A.

case A: number of black applicants is small and the favoritism towards a given black applicant is large.
case B: number of black applicants is small and the favoritism towards a given black applicant is small.
case C: number of black applicants is large and the favoritism towards a given black applicant is large.
case D: number of black applicants is large and the favoritism towards a given black applicant is small.

So whether this constitutes a big discrimination or not is pretty much subjective. But let's at least agree on the facts first.

Aside from the bold quote, I'll get behind this. I don't consider 1/20 to be small, especially when you are considering very similar applications. It suggests favoritism.

 

[Blackened]

You remain unconvinced that your unsupported position isn't true. Not a surprise. If you needed data to support your position, you would have gotten it already. 5%. Lost 2x already. Tons of unaccounted data - applicant numbers, where they apply, legacies, donors, family of faculty, etc.

All of which should be addressed if you're trying to legitimately prove racial bias. Standard statistical stuff. Disproving alternative explanations. This is just the basics. It's lazy to claim "racial bias" when you refuse to look at deep numbers.

No, I just haven't seen any evidence to suggest otherwise. If you provide me the data to support you claim (which you admit doesn't exist) then we can talk. It is supported by the evidence I provided.

Your argument is that "there may be evidence to suggest there isn't racial bias but we don't have the data so we can't conclude discrimination". Fine, I'll accept that. But based on what we have (which admittedly may not be enough), I'm inclined to believe otherwise.

 

[panamaican]

Again, I feel like people are talking past one another because there is not a general agreement on the data itself. And what is clear is this.

1a. Black people apply in far fewer numbers compared to Asians and whites.
1b. Accordingly, even though it is clear that there is favoritism towards black applicants, the proportion of numbers it takes up "unfairly" is small at 5%.
1c. That said, there is significant bonus points for the black candidates as opposed to whites/Asians tell gives them significant advantage.

So in summary, in terms of the individual applicant, there is significant advantage given to the black candidate over white candidate that has nothing to do with the 5% discrimination. However, given that the number of black applicants is small to begin with, the overall effect it has on the student body is small. So basically, there can be four different scenarios here and it is case A.

case A: number of black applicants is small and the favoritism towards a given black applicant is large.
case B: number of black applicants is small and the favoritism towards a given black applicant is small.
case C: number of black applicants is large and the favoritism towards a given black applicant is large.
case D: number of black applicants is large and the favoritism towards a given black applicant is small.

So whether this constitutes a big discrimination or not is pretty much subjective. But let's at least agree on the facts first.

You have your facts wrong. Only 1a is a fact. 1b and 1c aren't.

There is no fact that the reason for the 5% is black favoritism. I've listed 4 possible explanations. None of them might be true, all of them might be true. But there isn't a favoritism "fact" until they're addressed.

There's also nothing supporting the idea that there are bonus points being applied anywhere.

How can we agree on facts when you're treating opinion as fact?

 

[Blackened]

Evidence suggest nothing of the kind. Evidence suggests that the differences in acceptance rates don't mean anything since this was unpacked in greater detail 2x already and the argument lost both times.

I don't know enough about the law to speak about the matter. Perhaps the laws on the books are discriminatory as far as I know. Perhaps you're right. I don't know.

You have your facts wrong. Only 1a is a fact. 1b and 1c aren't.

There is no fact that the reason for the 5% is black favoritism. I've listed 4 possible explanations. None of them might be true, all of them might be true. But there isn't a favoritism "fact" until they're addressed.

There's also nothing supporting the idea that there are bonus points being applied anywhere.

How can we agree on facts when you're treating opinion as fact?

Sure, but there is evidence to suggest it.

 

[panamaican]

No, I just haven't seen any evidence to suggest otherwise. If you provide me the data to support you claim (which you admit doesn't exist) then we can talk. It is supported by the evidence I provided.

Your argument is that "there may be evidence to suggest there isn't racial bias but we don't have the data so we can't conclude discrimination". Fine, I'll accept that. But based on what we have (which admittedly may not be enough), I'm inclined to believe otherwise.

You haven't seen any evidence to suggest it either. You're decided that only one explanation fits and so it's most likely true. Yet, when they unpacked the admissions data at the undergrad level they found that it was Jewish students who were disproportionately over represented and taking seats from Asians. Yet the litigants were convinced that it must be the blacks/hispanics.

Like I said some people want a conclusion so badly that they blind themselves to alternatives.

 

[Blackened]

You haven't seen any evidence to suggest it either. You're decided that only one explanation fits and so it's most likely true. Yet, when they unpacked the admissions data at the undergrad level they found that it was Jewish students who were disproportionately over represented and taking seats from Asians. Yet the litigants were convinced that it must be the blacks/hispanics.

Like I said some people want a conclusion so badly that they blind themselves to alternatives.

This isn't going anywhere. The data is here, let people make up their own mind.

 

[panamaican]

I don't know enough about the law to speak about the matter. Perhaps the laws on the books are discriminatory as far as I know. Perhaps you're right. I don't know.


Sure, but there is evidence to suggest it.

He said "fact". If you're going to defend non-facts as facts because you like them then you can see why I'm claiming that people just want to believe something no matter what.

 

[Blackened]

He said "fact". If you're going to defend non-facts as facts because you like them then you can see why I'm claiming that people just want to believe something no matter what.

I think you just like running in circles.

 

[mtron929]

You have your facts wrong. Only 1a is a fact. 1b and 1c aren't.

There is no fact that the reason for the 5% is black favoritism. I've listed 4 possible explanations. None of them might be true, all of them might be true. But there isn't a favoritism "fact" until they're addressed.

There's also nothing supporting the idea that there are bonus points being applied anywhere.

How can we agree on facts when you're treating opinion as fact?

Well, ok. So you agree that 1a is true. If 1a is true, then we are left with two positions, right?

Case A: number of black applicants is small and the favoritism towards a given black applicant is large.
Case C: number of black applicants is small and the favoritism towards a given black applicant is small.

Now, to figure out how much of a favoritism is given to a black candidate, we can refer to the original chart. The chart states that for every ranges of MCAT/SAT score, there is a significant higher likelihood of a black candidate being accepted over Asians and whites. E.g.

MCAT(24-26), GPA(3.20-3.39): 5.9% (Asians) to 56.4% (blacks)
MCAT(27-29), GPA(3.40-3.59): 20.6% (Asians) to 81.2% (blacks)
MCAT(30-32), GPA(3.60-3.79): 57.5% (Asians) to 93.7% (blacks)

Clearly, there is a large discrepancy here.

 

[RIPWarrior]

Exactly. The link talks about Vancouver (and its suburbs) as well. As I said earlier, the sparce European population in many cities is actually quite invisible and residing primarily in hospitals and old age homes.

I noticed that the judge who instituted one of these acts is a Jewess who immigrated in the 50s. I'm usually pro Jew but I am really skeptical as to what is going on with the multicultural push. The one link said by 2031 Canada will be 33% a visible minority country made up largely of Asian (western too - ie Arabic) peoples. With most grouping in cities and cities garnering more seats in the HOC, a quick overthrow of Canada is in the works it feels like.

It's the most disturbing event I have ever seen. The people here are like brainwashed zombies, they celebrate and encourage their own destruction. Canadians in major cities are quickly transforming into scrawny and weak guilt ridden shells of their former self.

It's sad how fast it's happening, it's why I'm saving up now and getting away from any major Canadian city. BLM, social justice, white privilege checks and being as racist as you want to white people is the future for Canadians trapped within the progressive hive cluster (Toronto, GTA).

 

[dontsnitch]

It's the most disturbing event I have ever seen. The people here are like brainwashed zombies, they celebrate and encourage their own destruction. Canadians in major cities are quickly transforming into scrawny and weak guilt ridden shells of their former self.

It's sad how fast it's happening, it's why I'm saving up now and getting away from any major Canadian city. BLM, social justice, white privilege checks and being as racist as you want to white people is the future for Canadians trapped within the progressive hive cluster (Toronto, GTA).

I was on a pier in Oakville yesterday, and someone had scrawled "BLM" on it.

The Russians are coming.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

Because med school is so difficult that it's self selecting only those candidates who think they have a shot. It's like Harvard, no one with a 2.5 and mediocre SAT even bothers applying. So, even with a diversity push, you're just not going to get a lot of underqualified candidates, black or otherwise.

The real problem is one of entitlement. The people who didn't get in can't fathom that maybe they just weren't good enough and so they look for an external explanation. Which is understandable considering that they probably have exceptional credentials in the absolute. But when your entire academic life has been about achieving this one goal and you don't get there...

Plus they're not accounting for where people are applying. There are no bad med schools but I'm sure some get a higher application pool than others. And if a large numbre of high qualified Asian applicants are applying to Harvard, Yale and 1 safety school and the black candidates are applying to mostly safety schools then you get different outcomes.

The conclusion that it's bias and nothing else just isn't supported...which is why this has lost at the undergrad level 2x already.

This is a good point.

This is similar to the stats about blacks and Latinos almost catching up to whites in college enrollment. Hey, inequality is finally smashed! What are the coloreds complaining about??

But they don't show that most of those are enrolled in either community colleges or not very selective state schools. These are the schools that churn out low-level professionals. Grad schools, selective schools and professional schools are almost as white as before and these are the ones that produce high-earners and executives