Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Gender-based Admissions to Medical School
Journal Inquirer ^ | 7/21/06 | Gerry Garibaldi

Posted on 07/25/2006 2:05:57 PM PDT by Lovingthis

07/12/2006 Gender-based admissions tailoring needs mending By: Gerry Garibaldi

In its landmark 2003 affirmative action decision, Grutter v. Bollinger, the Supreme Court upheld the use of narrowly tailored race-conscious admission policies to achieve a "critical mass," citing the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body.

But it seems that the definition of narrow tailoring depends on who's holding the scissors.


Should the Grutter decision apply to gender-conscious admissions as well? The tailors at the University of Connecticut School of Medicine appear to think so.

Admissions figures for the entering Class of 2005, obtained in response to a freedom-of-information request, show some surprising things.

Of the 791 white females who applied, 85 (10.7 percent) were given admission. White males didn't fare nearly as well. Of the 709 white male applicants, only 50 (7 percent) made the grade.

Though women had a slight edge in overall grade-point average in college (3.71 vs. 3.68), men markedly outscored them in the demanding MCAT tests, which gauge an applicant's aptitude and potential in the medical field. Of a possible 15-point total in each area, in verbal reasoning men bested women 9.00 to 8.86; in physical science 9.75 to 8.78; and in biological science 9.99 to 9.35. In fact, with the exception of Asian males, white males outpointed every race and gender.

Though their MCAT scores trailed significantly from white females, minority females in simple acceptance percentage terms turned in an impressive performance (429 applied and 45 were accepted, or 10.5 percent). Indeed, in a state population that is roughly 73 percent white, members of racial minorities now outnumber the total number of white males accepted by 66-50.

Overall male acceptance rates at UConn's medical school have now reached a historical low, with 135 women entering and just more than half as many men, 71, winning admittance.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court cautioned that to be constitutional a race-conscious admissions policy would not "unduly harm members of any racial group" or "unduly burden individuals who are not members of the favored racial or ethnic group."

Yet while "unduly" and "compelling" are elastic items, UConn's numbers are not. The burden placed on white males (and males generally) applying to UConn's medical school is plain.

But is UConn's aggressive gender tilt a clear violation of the law?

"Soft variables" were also factors the court addressed in the Grutter case, referring to the personal essays of applicants, in which they are given license to bare their soul and contend hardship, discrimination, or personal struggle. This is a key element in the holistic admission process as Justice Sandra Day O'Connor envisioned it.

The word "soft" indicates that this area of consideration is both inscrutable and, more importantly, unverifiable. As with today's marketplace of enterprising autobiographers, narratives and characters are often found to be cribbed or wholly fictionalized. Indeed, in our climate of lurid sensationalism, a frank and truthful essay that celebrates a stoic, wholesome life could be a costly mistake in any university application.

In defending its policies before the court, the University of Michigan Law School contended that diversity promoted cross-cultural understanding, helped break down racial stereotypes, and made classroom discussion "livelier, more spirited, and simply more enlightened."

This was an artful argument to make with regard to race, but can the University of Connecticut School of Medicine compellingly assert that science is better served when more white females are sitting next to fewer white males in, say, Bio Chem 200? Or that the history of social injustice toward women is reason enough to extend broad preferences to a new generation of women who can't justly claim to have suffered by it?

Clearly UConn thinks that it has such a case. All the university requires is a new gender study or two to salt its reasoning.

It was with a note of irony that Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the dissenting voices in the Grutter case, scorned "critical mass" as too "mystical," and perhaps presciently suggested that students not adequately included in this critical mass might choose to litigate. It may be time for white males to consider this alternative. At UConn the tangibles support their case.

TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: affirmativeaction; education; genderpolitics
I posted something from this writer earlier, went and Googled him, and found this. Again, as the mother of a son, this just makes me smokin' mad. Fair is fair, and this isn't; the University hung itself with its own statistics. Where's the ACLU when you need them?!
1 posted on 07/25/2006 2:06:00 PM PDT by Lovingthis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Lovingthis

Because it was never about attaining racial parity, it was all about a racial spoils system and a "get even" mentality.

This is verified now that the tables have turned there is much less "scrutiny" in areas where men are getting the short stick.

It never was, nor is, about fairness.

2 posted on 07/25/2006 2:15:12 PM PDT by Bob J ( conservative alternative to NPR!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bob J

WASP MALE "need not apply"

3 posted on 07/25/2006 2:18:54 PM PDT by cpdiii (Socialism is popular with the ruling class. It gives legitimacy to tyranny and despotism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Lovingthis
They ought to do other gender-based studies on women docs. They work fewer hours, stay out of medicine when children are small, avoid some of the "rough" surgical specialties...

When you admit more women, you get fewer doctors. (Or, what I might call "doctor-hours")

4 posted on 07/25/2006 2:21:41 PM PDT by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lovingthis

AS a female physician who graduated in 1985 I say no to affirmative action based on race, gender or anything else. You earn your way just like everyone else. I did and so should everyone else.

5 posted on 07/25/2006 2:44:48 PM PDT by therut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle

And you are correct. There are 2 other femcale physicians in my group. Both work half time and split half call. They are near to useless in an office and hospital setting.

6 posted on 07/25/2006 2:47:24 PM PDT by therut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: therut

Thank you for an upright answer.
The Socialist State of CT isn't surprising in this regard. It is run by women.

7 posted on 07/25/2006 2:57:26 PM PDT by Spirited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Lovingthis

It just shows that the notion that medical schools take all qualified applicants is a bunch of BS. I don't think that the population of qualified applicants is biased gender-wise like that.

8 posted on 07/25/2006 3:05:47 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lovingthis

The bigger issue is the war on white males goes on. Fools, idiots, unable to be educated, weak, indecisive, vascilating, imbicles.

And since this movement began 25 years ago, is the country better? Are families stronger, relationships more permanent, oooooooorrrrrr, have problems associated with weak males become more pronounced, more critical and more destructive?

Marginalizing white males could be argued to have been the most serious mistake of the latter part of the 20th century. Radical females and their allies have gotten just what they wanted and now move forward.

The outlook is not good so long as the present tempo continues.

9 posted on 07/25/2006 3:06:33 PM PDT by Go (A slight modification of the story, bringing out the facts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lovingthis

Oh cmon everybody! The standards for med school were dumbed down in the very early '70's to result in more women getting in. Not that women weren't getting in, just not in the numbers that the dabblers thought should obtain.

This is never going to change. It's done. Over. Fini. Kaput.

10 posted on 07/25/2006 3:11:20 PM PDT by TalBlack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lovingthis
We are allowing ourselves to be destroyed from within by not taking control of our education system and utterly dismantling the 40 years of social engineering that's been going on there, across the entire country...
11 posted on 07/26/2006 8:05:26 AM PDT by detsaoT (Proudly not "dumb as a journalist.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson