Med. School at UC-Davis Now Ranks Applicants by Disadvantages They Have Faced
“Mostly rich kids get to go to medical school”
This is one of the ways that school will get around the end of Affirmative Action, as predicted.
The New York Times reports:
With End of Affirmative Action, a Push for a New Tool: Adversity Scores
For the head of admissions at a medical school, Dr. Mark Henderson is pretty blunt when sizing up the profession.
“Mostly rich kids get to go to medical school,” he said.
In his role at the medical school at the University of California, Davis, Dr. Henderson has tried to change that, developing an unorthodox tool to evaluate applicants: the socioeconomic disadvantage scale, or S.E.D.
The scale rates every applicant from zero to 99, taking into account their life circumstances, such as family income and parental education. Admissions decisions are based on that score, combined with the usual portfolio of grades, test scores, recommendations, essays and interviews.
The disadvantage scale has helped turn U.C. Davis into one of the most diverse medical schools in the country — notable in a state that voted in 1996 to ban affirmative action.
With the Supreme Court’s ruling last week against race-conscious admissions, the medical school offers a glimpse of how selective schools across the country might overhaul their admissions policies, as they look for alternative ways to achieve diversity without running afoul of the new law.
Last week, President Biden called adversity scores a “new standard” for achieving diversity.
Word has gotten out about the U.C. Davis scale. Dr. Henderson said that about 20 schools had recently requested more information. And there are other socioeconomic measurements, including Landscape, released in 2019 from the College Board, the nonprofit that administers the SATs. That tool allows undergraduate admissions offices to assess the socioeconomic backgrounds of individual students.
But skeptics question whether such rankings — or any kind of socioeconomic affirmative action — will be enough to replace race-conscious affirmative action. And schools that use adversity scales may also find themselves wandering into legal quagmires, with conservative groups promising to fight programs that are simply stand-ins for race.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
And the medical establishment* wonders why they have no credibility…
* “Profession” not used deliberately. To be a professional requires standards…
So much for medical “professionals”: https://instapundit.com/595409/
Update/correction: The incident referenced above is a year old, as is the linked article. Doesn’t change anything, though.
So long as they treat whites and minorities equally in this regard, no worries.
Of course, there is the presumption that white=rich.
Is it true they’re changing their mascot and will now be known as the “UC Davis Hoboes?”
Gone are the days when students were admitted to college based on their academic qualification.
“I grew up in a family that had nothing, believed in working very hard for what we got and not taking handouts (including grades I did not deserve in school). The huge disadvantage I faced was dealing with the all the abuse and bullying I got every day for working hard in school, not being on welfare and not just taking all the stuff I want in stores.”
Will I get a good score?
All other things being equal, it seems reasonable to use socioeconomic advantage vs disadvantage as a tiebreaker. When used in this way it is likely to predict which student would do better if socioeconomic status were equalized.
The problem is that it won’t just be used as a tiebreaker but as a proxy for skin color, and far less qualified applicants will be accepted in the name of “diversity.””
I expect that soft, undocumented and unsubstantiated markers will be prominent and numerous frauds and charlatans (like Elizabeth Warren) will be trained to save your family. God help us.
Woe to any who DARE to highlight any deceptions for they will be destroyed.
Cassandra has spoken.