Dispelling a few myths about AA, URMs, and medical admissions

[Shredder]

infiniti please disclose your sat and mcat scores to evoke discourse from me. ive been accepted already, also waiting on word from 3 top 20 schools.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[1Path]

I am responding to moosepilot post #13.

In a country where color of skin is closely correlated with where you live, the quality of your health care, your life span, I am surprised you are saying color should not be used in admissions. If color determines all the things listed above, I have yet to see a convincing arguement as to why AA should not exist. Eliminate the corrleation of color to those other things and I will be against AA. Till then AA and color are very important.

Don't forget the relationship between color and good education/earnings.

 

[infiniti]

Shredder, lets just say I hold a pretty high MCAT score (August 04) and have tutored (privately) students who scored in the 90th percentile or more. My GPA (BCPM or otherwise) is above average for any American medical school.

You didn't answer my question about the book, Bell curve. Have you read it?

My problem with you shredder isn't that you have a different opinion. It is okay to have a different perspective on issues, but please have solid reason for holding such opinions. If you go back and read your posts regarding AA and medical school admissions in general, you will find that they lack substance. To me you come off as a kid who seriously lacks life experience. You hold on to arguments that have been found wanting on many levels.

 

[Shredder]

i have read it, it was insightful. you may point out any specific qualms you have with assertions i have made, and i will substantiate with evidence. gpa is a worse measure of wits than standardized testing--but this is just an aside. we will turn to data to settle any differences. 10 numbers are worth 100 words. just let me know what you want, facts are out there. opinions can go back and forth for eternity

 

[Lindyhopper]

ive been accepted already,. .

Hey. Congratulations. Become a good & great doctor.

 

[infiniti]

I am glad we are on the same page Shredder. You said the book is insightful? Give me more details. I mentioned this book because a lot of your arguments (particularly the ones lacking evidence) closely follow those made in the book.

 

[Shredder]

they do closely follow the book, basically parroting. but it was a sound book so why not. and it was entirely backed by evidence, so by syllogism i feel my arguments are as well. if you would point out a dubious assertion i could quickly buttress it.

The seminal book about IQ and class that ignited one of the most explosive controversies in decades, now updated with a new Afterword by Charles Murray

Breaking new ground and old taboos, Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray tell the story of a society in transformation. At the top, a cognitive elite is forming in which the passkey to the best schools and the best jobs is no longer social background but high intelligence. At the bottom, the common denominator of the underclass is increasingly low intelligence rather than racial or social disadvantage.

The Bell Curve describes the state of scientific knowledge about questions that have been on people's minds for years but have been considered too sensitive to talk about openly -- among them, IQ's relationship to crime, unemployment, welfare, child neglect, poverty, and illegitimacy; ethnic differences in intelligence; trends in fertility among women of different levels of intelligence; and what policy can do -- and cannot do -- to compensate for differences in intelligence. Brilliantly argued and meticulously documented, The Bell Curve is the essential first step in coming to grips with the nation's social problems.

thanks lindyhopper, its not one of my higher choices though and im greedily waiting for more. but a bird in hand is better than some number in a bush. that raises an interesting question--how many birds in the bush are better than a bird in hand? maybe ill poll on it. nm i tried but realized there are too many variables, it would take a whole model to depict. too hard to account for differences in bird (school) quality

 

[infiniti]

Shredder stated

"The Bell Curve describes the state of scientific knowledge about questions ......."

Hello Shredder,
I mentioned that book to point out your outdated mode of thinking. That book was published without any scientific evidence and has been scientifically analyzed since (there is a lot of pseudo science in that book and a nyone with a vaguely scientific mind will questions most of the so called facts in the book). In the scientific community, the bell curve has been disregarded as a joke and tons of arguments (with full scientific backing) show this. Now, I want you to go ask scientists, especially geneticists what they think about the bell curve. Be honest when you post your response. This book illustrates that you don't even know anything about the current state of science (which is specifically why I ask if you had read it).

 

[infiniti]

Something else to consider, Shredder!

How can you ever boil down intelligence to race. A lot of African American (close to 90%) have European/ Native American ancestry. This is another area this book and the authors have no answer for. Furthermore, a huge fraction of the white population in America are mixed with other ethnic backgrounds. You would have to use aboriginal populations to find any correlation. This unfortunately does not exist in America.

That being said, the book is not totally crap (page for page). The other sections regarding general intelligence and wealth could be true in an ideal world without prejudice or racism.

 

[Shredder]

infiniti please stop raving and let me know what argument you want me to find evidence for. im tired of rhetoric. i will give you numbers. you just let me know which ones you want. in the end science comes down to data, not prose.

 

[infiniti]

Ok. The problem is that there is too much crap you 've said. Just to play along (and getting back to topic) I want to hear about the "scientifically proven" system of medical school admissions that will provide doctors for underserved population and regions without using AA. Please give me evidence that this would work, not the pseudoscience that you are very accustomed to.

 

[Newton Bohr MD]

Read it and weep

http://home.att.net/~Resurgence/L-IQgapgenetic.htm

 

[gostudy]

Shredder. Do you believe light skinned blacks in the hood are more likely to succeed than dark skinned blacks?

 

[unoriginal]

the fact of the matter is that affirmative action is unfair. why should non-URMs have to bust their butts to get high numbers to have the same rewards. at my school the avg non-urm MCAT/GPA are 31/3.6. The avg URM MCAT/GPA is 23/3.3. My friend's dad actually told me that he refused to see african american doctors because he had read a paper on affirmative action. He said that he would not want to see a doctor who did not have to work as hard as a white doctors to get into medical school. Now, I know this isn't true.. but it is the attitude put fourth by affirmative action. Ever heard the expression, 2 wrongs don't make a right? To give privledge to one race over another based solely on their color of skin is wrong. Not only this, but a friend of mine who is african american who has high stats is pissed about AA because people assume he had it easy to get in or assume he is not as knowledgable or that he doesn't work as hard. When you select people based on race, you are separating them into different groups. Segregation... separate but equal?!? Despite your background, for a vast majority of people when they start making good money they are going to want to move to a rich area and send their kids to the best schools... to give their family what they never had. It doesn't matter about color. Most people will not want to go live in the poor inner city... they will want to go live the life they dreamed of living while growing up.

What you fail to see is that people can find research to back up anything they say. There are people who are strongly in favor of AA and who do biased research where their pre-conceived opions skew the result in their favor.

 

[gostudy]

Not only this, but a friend of mine who is african american who has high stats is pissed about AA because people assume he had it easy to get in or assume he is not as knowledgable or that he doesn't work as hard.

Ah, the classic anecdote. All of a sudden everyone has either:

1. A rich black/latino friend with low "stats" who pimps the system to get in.

2. A black/latino friend who hates AA.

Funny how these people come out of the woodworks in these discussions. Believe me, these people are the exception to the norm because:

1. The majority of black/latino applicants that get in have competitive "stats."

2. The great majority of blacks/latinos are in favor of some sort of AA.

 

[unoriginal]

1. The majority of black/latino applicants that get in have competitive "stats."

2. The great majority of blacks/latinos are in favor of some sort of AA.

respectively... for number 1: if the majority of black/latino applicants had competitive stats, then there would be no need for AA. The average MCAT & GPA of these matriculants is far below non-URM.

http://www.aamc.org/data/facts/2005/mcatgparaceeth.htm


as for #2, of course a majority of blacks/latinos are in favor of some sort of AA. these are the blacks/latinos with low stats. My friends that hate AA, hate it because they have competitive stats. They get treated differently by certain people at my school because people automatically think they are riding on AA. if the system was based solely on undergrad performance, the majority would not get in (hence why AA exists). ...or perhaps, if it was like this they would become more motivated and work harder to get the higher stats.

bottom line is that 2 wrongs do not make a right. selection based on race should not happen.

 

[gostudy]

respectively... for number 1: if the majority of black/latino applicants had competitive stats, then there would be no need for AA. The average MCAT & GPA of these matriculants is far below non-URM.

http://www.aamc.org/data/facts/2005/mcatgparaceeth.htm

And what is the sample size of these applicants? In my mind very small. Remember we are talking mean here and not median. I think more URMs are accepted with reaaaly low "stats" than others because of the likelihood of URMs to have more compelling stories. Give me the median, and let's see what we get.

 

[Bernito]

respectively... for number 1: if the majority of black/latino applicants had competitive stats, then there would be no need for AA. The average MCAT & GPA of these matriculants is far below non-URM.

http://www.aamc.org/data/facts/2005/mcatgparaceeth.htm


as for #2, of course a majority of blacks/latinos are in favor of some sort of AA. these are the blacks/latinos with low stats. My friends that hate AA, hate it because they have competitive stats. They get treated differently by certain people at my school because people automatically think they are riding on AA. if the system was based solely on undergrad performance, the majority would not get in (hence why AA exists). ...or perhaps, if it was like this they would become more motivated and work harder to get the higher stats.

bottom line is that 2 wrongs do not make a right. selection based on race should not happen.

Dood get with the times. You're stuck back in page 10.

 

[Shredder]

Read it and weep

http://home.att.net/~Resurgence/L-IQgapgenetic.htm

Black-White-East Asian IQ differences at least 50 percent genetic, scientists conclude in major law journal
+thats somebodys homepage--not usually considered the finest of sources

And what is the sample size of these applicants? In my mind very small. Remember we are talking mean here and not median. I think more URMs are accepted with reaaaly low "stats" than others because of the likelihood of URMs to have more compelling stories. Give me the median, and let's see what we get.

sample size is listed on the table. its easy to call samples "very small" but in statistics there is the p value which accounts for sample size to arrive at conclusions with any desired amount of statistical confidence. so its not just about sample sizes in peoples minds...as in "yeah, thats big enough for me" or "no i want more samples"

"stats" in quotes? stats i would think are the one thing thats least likely to be placed in quotation marks in such a fashion, but maybe you have some reason for doing so resentment that urms are lower? nobodys blaming you but resentment doesnt change reality. median might be able to be found--if you provide reason for wanting it. otherwise you might as well ask what is the population of life in space, and disavow anyone who is unable to cite such a figure. besides, is the burden of proof not on anyone else? most ppl dont have time or will to spend a lot of time hunting down figures while the opposition counters with prose. evidence is a two way street. really..."give me mean, median, and mode mcat scores for all different levels of SES and climate in the USA and other countries, and lets see what we get--and if you dont get what i want then i will demand you show me more until it says what i want"

 

[gostudy]

Shredder. Is a light skinned black person from the hood more likely to succeed than a dark skinned black person from the hood?

 

[Shredder]

Shredder. Is a light skinned black person from the hood more likely to succeed than a dark skinned black person from the hood?

there are some implications with that

scenario 1: ceteris paribus, based only on different skin colors and nothing else, probably (as in probability would say--not just my opinion) yes the light person is more likely to "succeed" (higher income, higher test scores? depends on how success is defined. i will go with higher income here) than dark. light blacks (light skin in most races, certainly indian) is generally (if not overwhelmingly) seen as a more becoming feature, as in beyonce and tyra banks--halle berry as well, who is not even fully black. and attractiveness shows strong correlations with income, or "success"

scenario 2: light black person has different ancestry from dark person. this means mixing of genes, and studies have shown that black/white mixes tend to be just about exactly midway between full blacks and whites in many stats. so, probability would again predict higher income

if we are talking about albinism--which is potentially another reason for light skin, just to avoid leaving things out--i cant really comment bc i dont think there is enough data out there. sample size is in fact too small to draw meaningful conclusions

so, based only on a persons skin color alone, you can make some hypotheses. this flies in the face of the racism notion i guess, but really its just all stats and probability. as for me personally--and i think everyone should do this as well, even the bell curve authors agree--everyone should be given a fair shot and treated as an individual, not a random member of a data set with such and such expectations. there are always outliers and exceptions, i know.

im really interested in all of this, i could talk about it all day. differences among people, how they arose, how to address them. i can talk about indians too, shortcomings and all, and i like to think i dont get angry about it. truth is truth

but going back to your question and rephrasing it: is a light skinned black more likely to reach X amount of income (success) than a dark one? the answer is yes, stats would show that the light one would have some percentage greater than 50 of reaching that income, compared to the dark one. so it would not be like flipping a coin, theres much more to it. and its not just about racism and dark vs light skin per se--blacks themselves tend to prefer lighter skin, as evidence by the above celebrities

 

[unoriginal]

And what is the sample size of these applicants? In my mind very small. Remember we are talking mean here and not median. I think more URMs are accepted with reaaaly low "stats" than others because of the likelihood of URMs to have more compelling stories. Give me the median, and let's see what we get.

ohhh ok. so more lower stats URMs beat out the URMs of the higher stats. this is why more URMs with lower stats get in. okay.. makes sense. the adcoms like lower stats URMs. anyways, as shreddar said, you are just talking ignorantly. you are wrong on so many levels. i do not have a lot of time to devote to this, so i don't plan on it. anyways... do a google search for your median. you will get dozens of sources on this...

http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/2001/sept_2001_3.html
"At each of the universities included in the study, the median grade point average for blacks was consistently lower than that for whites, and in some cases the discrepancy was extreme."

"For example, at Michigan State University's College of Medicine in 1999, the median grade point average (GPA) for white admittees was 3.61, nearly an A-, while the median GPA for black admittees was 2.93,"

"More disturbing than even the failure rate of minorities on the licensing exam, Clegg asserted, "is that even among the students who ultimately pass the exam it's fair to assume that they are not going to be as successful as doctors as students who are academically better qualified would have been." He continued, "You know one of the responses that we heard to our study was, well, what's wrong with racial and ethnic preferences because no one's going to be qualified to become a doctor unless they pass the exam…as far as patients are concerned, not only will there be fewer doctors, but the doctors who finally do become admitted are not going to be as good. The idea isn't simply to admit students who are able to scrape by with a passing grade after taking the medical exam several times. We should be trying to have the best possible doctors, not doctors who are simply minimally qualified."

"I think that one of the things that is disturbing about this study is that in addition to what it shows about medical schools it also shows the extent to which the use of racial and ethnic preferences at the undergraduate level has been a failure," Clegg concluded. "The claim from the proponents of affirmative action has been you give a slight edge to African American students when they apply to undergraduate school and that's all that will be necessary….Well apparently that's not true."


http://www.nationalreview.com/contributors/clegg040301.shtml
Just how significant? In 1999, the total weighted MCAT score — like the SAT, but for med school — had a gap of 7 to 8 points (out of a possible 67) between the median African-American admittee and median non-African American admittees. Thus, 75 percent of all black students admitted to UMSM's medical school in 1999 had lower MCAT scores than 75 percent of all Hispanics, Asians, and whites admitted that year.

Combining MCAT and GPA data, researchers Lerner and Nagai found that, in 1999, 19 Asians, 2 Hispanics, and 36 whites were rejected despite having higher scores for both than the median black admittee. These 57 students would have made up a significant chunk of the 262-member entering class.

This means that the relative odds of admission favoring a black applicant over a similarly qualified white applicant — that is, the two candidates have identical grades, MCAT scores, residency status (since Maryland prefers in-state students), and parental-alumni status — are 21 to 1. To put this in perspective, consider that the odds favoring a smoker getting cancer over a nonsmoker are only 14 to 1.

-----------------

So my friend, the burden of proof is on you. Hopefully you will read and learn. These are merely the first 2 results that came up in a google search. Study after study (read: legitamite study) has shown AA to be a failure. AA creates separation between races. It is not fair that black applicants have odds that favor their admissions of 21 to 1. Some of the public knows this and will not see URM docs. This creates racism.... racism breeds racism. Selection based on race is not the answer and is morally and ethically wrong.

 

[gostudy]

there are some implications with that

scenario 1: ceteris paribus, based only on different skin colors and nothing else, probably (as in probability would say--not just my opinion) yes the light person is more likely to "succeed" (higher income, higher test scores? depends on how success is defined. i will go with higher income here) than dark. light blacks (light skin in most races, certainly indian) is generally (if not overwhelmingly) seen as a more becoming feature, as in beyonce and tyra banks--halle berry as well, who is not even fully black. and attractiveness shows strong correlations with income, or "success"

scenario 2: light black person has different ancestry from dark person. this means mixing of genes, and studies have shown that black/white mixes tend to be just about exactly midway between full blacks and whites in many stats. so, probability would again predict higher income

if we are talking about albinism--which is potentially another reason for light skin, just to avoid leaving things out--i cant really comment bc i dont think there is enough data out there. sample size is in fact too small to draw meaningful conclusions

so, based only on a persons skin color alone, you can make some hypotheses. this flies in the face of the racism notion i guess, but really its just all stats and probability. as for me personally--and i think everyone should do this as well, even the bell curve authors agree--everyone should be given a fair shot and treated as an individual, not a random member of a data set with such and such expectations. there are always outliers and exceptions, i know.

im really interested in all of this, i could talk about it all day. differences among people, how they arose, how to address them. i can talk about indians too, shortcomings and all, and i like to think i dont get angry about it. truth is truth

but going back to your question and rephrasing it: is a light skinned black more likely to reach X amount of income (success) than a dark one? the answer is yes, stats would show that the light one would have some percentage greater than 50 of reaching that income, compared to the dark one. so it would not be like flipping a coin, theres much more to it. and its not just about racism and dark vs light skin per se--blacks themselves tend to prefer lighter skin, as evidence by the above celebrities

Are you saying light skinned blacks are more likely to be media darlings and are in general viewed by today's media as more attractive?

 

[unoriginal]

Sally Satel, PC, M.D.: How Political Correctness Is Corrupting Medicine,

some reading for you



“While the nation has been preoccupied with headline-grabbing subjects like HMO’s, Medicare, and the millions of uninsured Americans—all pressing issues indeed—tbe ‘indoctrinologists’ have swooped in under the radar. And their prescriptions—which ultimately are not about health, but rather about narrow ideas of social justice—will be hazardous to our health.”

The consequences of putting politics before health are far-reaching, argues Satel. It wastes taxpayer money on bogus research and diverts resources that could be used to discover authentic causes of suffering, provide proven therapies, and rigorously investigate new ones. PC, M.D. is a powerful wake-up call to the medical profession and to patients, who are the ultimate victims of these disturbing trends.

 

[gostudy]

dp

 

[Shredder]

Are you saying light skinned blacks are more likely to be media darlings and are in general viewed by today's media as more attractive?

perhaps, but the media responds to consumer demands. theyre in the business of maximizing profit. so in that light, on whose shoulders does the blame lie? media doesnt view people, people view people

and who do you prefer: beyonce, tyra banks, halle berry, vanessa williams or regina king and whoopi goldberg?

 

[gostudy]

Shredder and unoriginal. Do you think AA benefitted women in the past. That is, gave them preferential treatment in admission processes?

 

[Shredder]

Shredder and unoriginal. Do you think AA benefitted women in the past. That is, gave them preferential treatment in admission processes?

to the best of my knowledge it has, and even to a small extent today. why not making things race and gender blind? they do it for symphony auditions. just a proposition. objectivity simply produces the best results. also, since boys and girls are not entirely equal, the fact that they are represented close to equally (not sure about exact numbers) suggests fishy business going on, just like urms being represented in exact proportion to their percentage of the population. things dont fit so neatly into cutouts like that

although ive heard arguments that primary factors in getting girls into schools and the workplace were inventions like the car, washing machine, dishwasher and vacuum cleaner. not necessarily aggressive womens rights campaigns.

 

[gostudy]

perhaps, but the media responds to consumer demands. theyre in the business of maximizing profit. so in that light, on whose shoulders does the blame lie? media doesnt view people, people view people

and who do you prefer: beyonce, tyra banks, halle berry, vanessa williams or regina king and whoopi goldberg?

Oh cmon shredder. I was giving you respect till now. There are beautiful light skinned and dark skinned black women. Ok how about this. Do you prefer Condi Rice or Vivica Fox?

 

[Shredder]

Oh cmon shredder. I was giving you respect till now. There are beautiful light skinned and dark skinned black women. Ok how about this. Do you prefer Condi Rice or Vivica Fox?

like i said, there are always outliers and exceptions. but there are also general rules. if ppl were forced to take a poll asking "all other things equal, would you rather date/wed a light or dark black" the answer would be light. it just would, unless you want to dispute that, but i think it would be a silly dispute

i dont know what the answer would be in africa. but it has to be considered that in africa dark skin is an evolutionary adaptation to prevent skin cancer and death. so there may not be a strong preference for light skin there, as there is here, but thats not necessarily bc of cultural differences. just putting forth some points, can clarify or elaborate as needed

 

[gostudy]

like i said, there are always outliers and exceptions. but there are also general rules. if ppl were forced to take a poll asking "all other things equal, would you rather date/wed a light or dark black" the answer would be light. it just would, unless you want to dispute that, but i think it would be a silly dispute

i dont know what the answer would be in africa. but it has to be considered that in africa dark skin is an evolutionary adaptation to prevent skin cancer and death. so there may not be a strong preference for light skin there, as there is here, but thats not necessarily bc of cultural differences. just putting forth some points, can clarify or elaborate as needed

Beautiful dark skinned women are the exception?

 

[Shredder]

Beautiful dark skinned women are the exception?

the exception to the general rule that light skin tends to be preferred over dark--depending on the context, but in america and the West it is so--yes. dark skinned is often used interchangeably with blacks but i would think that this distinction is clear in this discourse

as a standard of beauty, in blacks lightness of skin can safely be counted on. dark skinned folk will grow angry but thats emotion not science. any third, unaffected party could see things most clearly. its not hopeless for dark skinned folks but odds are against them

 

[gostudy]

Ok, so we have digressed. You seem to be suggesting that light is preferred over dark to such an extent that light is more likely to succeed. What happened to the genetic component of light superiority? The reason I asked is for you to make the distinction between the potential successes of a person that is 1/8 black and a person that is 1/2 black. To further throw a wrench in this: what if the 1/2 showed less traditional black features than the 1/8. What is the success potential. Is it society's perceptions or the inner-workings of genes encoding congitive components?

 

[Newton Bohr MD]

Black-White-East Asian IQ differences at least 50 percent genetic, scientists conclude in major law journal
+thats somebodys homepage--not usually considered the finest of sources
sample size is listed on the table. its easy to call samples "very small" but in statistics there is the p value which accounts for sample size to arrive at conclusions with any desired amount of statistical confidence. so its not just about sample sizes in peoples minds...as in "yeah, thats big enough for me" or "no i want more samples"

"stats" in quotes? stats i would think are the one thing thats least likely to be placed in quotation marks in such a fashion, but maybe you have some reason for doing so resentment that urms are lower? nobodys blaming you but resentment doesnt change reality. median might be able to be found--if you provide reason for wanting it. otherwise you might as well ask what is the population of life in space, and disavow anyone who is unable to cite such a figure. besides, is the burden of proof not on anyone else? most ppl dont have time or will to spend a lot of time hunting down figures while the opposition counters with prose. evidence is a two way street. really..."give me mean, median, and mode mcat scores for all different levels of SES and climate in the USA and other countries, and lets see what we get--and if you dont get what i want then i will demand you show me more until it says what i want"

The website I provided has information that comes from the best research schools in America and, you responded with a pseudo scientist (J. Philippe Rushton). I did a wikipedia search (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Philippe_Rushton) to refresh my memory on the white supremacist and, found this chart where he claimed that black’s intercourse frequently with whites being second and Asians being last… If this is so why are Asians ½ of the world population?? Rushton’s science is based on half-truths and, he is not regarded by legit scientists as a scientist… Only a supremacist would take him seriously…

 

[Shredder]

pseudo scientist
wikipedia search
white supremacist

black’s intercourse frequently with whites being second and Asians being last… If this is so why are Asians ½ of the world population

stop calling names like a rabid left winger and make some points, preferably with data. wikipedia is open source, people can put whatever they want on there. typically the name calling and labeling encompasses all ends of the spectrum--one section will call a person satan and the other will call a person an angel, all in the same article. the typical retort of the politically correct scientist is to label the opposition as pseudo science. its a lot easier than conducting or showcasing actual research, i know

if you will accept that population is a function mainly of birth rate, death rate, and life expectancy then its easy to explain everything.

www.geographyiq.com

Population: 1,298,847,624 (July 2004 est.)
Population growth rate: 0.57% (2004 est.)
Birth rate: 12.98 births/1,000 population (2004 est.)
Death rate: 6.92 deaths/1,000 population (2004 est.)
Infant mortality rate: 25.28 deaths/1,000 live births
Life expectancy at birth: 71.96 years
Total fertility rate: 1.69 children born/woman (2004 est.)
HIV/AIDS - adult prevalence rate: 0.1% (2003 est.)

Population: 1,561,973
Population growth rate: -0.89% (2004 est.)
Birth rate: 24.71 births/1,000 population (2004 est.)
Death rate: 33.63 deaths/1,000 population (2004 est.)
Infant mortality rate: 69.98 deaths/1,000 live births
Life expectancy at birth: 30.76 years
Total fertility rate: 3.17 children born/woman (2004 est.)
HIV/AIDS - adult prevalence rate: 37.3% (2003 est.)

Population: 11,360,538 (July 2004 est.)
Population growth rate: 2.67% (2004 est.)
Birth rate: 48.91 births/1,000 population (2004 est.)
Death rate: 21.51 deaths/1,000 population (2004 est.)
Infant mortality rate: total: 122.66 deaths/1,000 live births
Life expectancy at birth: total population: 42.18 years
Total fertility rate: 6.83 children born/woman (2004 est.)

the reasons asians are 1/2 the world population (which is an overexaggeration) is bc they can reproduce and sustain themselves, without having to bear 5 children and only see 1 live to adulthood, with the rest dying from bad birth, starvation, aids or murder

the website you provided was a personal homepage

 

[Shredder]

light is preferred over dark to such an extent that light is more likely to succeed

all other things equal, if light is preferred over dark to even the slightest extent then it is more likely to "succeed"

make the distinction between the potential successes of a person that is 1/8 black and a person that is 1/2 black. To further throw a wrench in this: what if the 1/2 showed less traditional black features than the 1/8. What is the success potential. Is it society's perceptions or the inner-workings of genes encoding congitive components?

getting into too many fractions is difficult bc it is too hard to conduct research using decent sample sizes. sizeable samples only exist in biracial mixes, usually black/white. theory might predict that a 1/8 black 7/8 white would be equal to a weighted average of the two components. hally berry is a good example of a fractional mix. tony parker perhaps as well. maybe mariah carey but shes a lot of mixes.

anyway both looks and abilities affect success potential. people dont like halle berry bc they know shes fractional. many dont know that. they like her bc they think she looks good. im confused, i dont know whats being led up to

 

[gostudy]

all other things equal, if light is preferred over dark to even the slightest extent then it is more likely to "succeed"
getting into too many fractions is difficult bc it is too hard to conduct research using decent sample sizes. sizeable samples only exist in biracial mixes, usually black/white. theory might predict that a 1/8 black 7/8 white would be equal to a weighted average of the two components. hally berry is a good example of a fractional mix. tony parker perhaps as well. maybe mariah carey but shes a lot of mixes.

anyway both looks and abilities affect success potential. people dont like halle berry bc they know shes fractional. many dont know that. they like her bc they think she looks good. im confused, i dont know whats being led up to

Not really leading to anything. I just needed you to answer those questions to clarify your line of reasoning because I wasn't completely sure where you are coming from. Now I have a better grip on it.

 

[Newton Bohr MD]

stop calling names like a rabid left winger and make some points, preferably with data. wikipedia is open source, people can put whatever they want on there. typically the name calling and labeling encompasses all ends of the spectrum--one section will call a person satan and the other will call a person an angel, all in the same article. the typical retort of the politically correct scientist is to label the opposition as pseudo science. its a lot easier than conducting or showcasing actual research, i know

if you will accept that population is a function mainly of birth rate, death rate, and life expectancy then its easy to explain everything.

www.geographyiq.com
the reasons asians are 1/2 the world population (which is an overexaggeration) is bc they can reproduce and sustain themselves, without having to bear 5 children and only see 1 live to adulthood, with the rest dying from bad birth, starvation, aids or murder

the website you provided was a personal homepage

You obviously refuse to read what I post which is fine ... This is my last post on this topic!!
I hope you know that there are encyclopedias of Information by reputable scientist which call Rushton a white supremacist… The only people that quote this guy are white supremacist and white nationalists. (do a goggle search if you want to). This is another paper which basically calls him an idiot…
http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/People/Rushton/rushton-black-reply.html
BTW what you posted refers to now... It is obvious that china has a low birth rate b/c they are practicing population control but, Asians (China and India and others) did not become half of the world pop. by having ~2 children per family... Obviously, if what you posted had merit Black people would be by far the most populous group in the world... But, as you know there are more people in China alone than the whole African Union...

BTW… read the website I posted and look at the sources …

 

[Newton Bohr MD]

all other things equal, if light is preferred over dark to even the slightest extent then it is more likely to "succeed"
getting into too many fractions is difficult bc it is too hard to conduct research using decent sample sizes. sizeable samples only exist in biracial mixes, usually black/white. theory might predict that a 1/8 black 7/8 white would be equal to a weighted average of the two components. hally berry is a good example of a fractional mix. tony parker perhaps as well. maybe mariah carey but shes a lot of mixes.

anyway both looks and abilities affect success potential. people dont like halle berry bc they know shes fractional. many dont know that. they like her bc they think she looks good. im confused, i dont know whats being led up to

hahah I hope you are kidding... It seems likemany of the black female models are "dark skinned" b/c most agencies are looking for the "ethnic look"...

http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20040216/flair/flair1.html

 

[Thundrstorm]

Now I understand why I've done well academically! My white mother's genes gave me a boost over my black dad's genes. Even though she's a homemaker with a high school level education and he's an executive who worked his way through college, I'm so glad she diluted his ignorant blackness. Plus, I'm obviously more attractive than I would have been with dark skin.

 

[gostudy]

hahah I hope you are kidding... It seems like every many of the black female models are "dark skinned" b/c most agencies are looking for the "ethnic look"...

http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20040216/flair/flair1.html

Thank you NB for clearing that up. I don't think you can say that beautiful dark skinned women are the "exception."

 

[gostudy]

Now I understand why I've done well academically! My white mother's genes gave me a boost over my black dad's genes. Even though she's a homemaker with a high school level education and he's an executive who worked his way through college, I'm so glad she diluted his ignorant blackness. Plus, I'm obviously more attractive than I would have been with dark skin.

Yes, finally the sarcasm is arriving! I was wondering when it would come. I mean yeah, I think I may bleach my skin. It will give me more confidence. Plus the media will love it!

 

[Newton Bohr MD]

Yes, finally the sarcasm is arriving! I was wondering when it would come. I mean yeah, I think I may bleach my skin. It will give me more confidence. Plus the media will love it!

 

[Thundrstorm]

perhaps, but the media responds to consumer demands. theyre in the business of maximizing profit. so in that light, on whose shoulders does the blame lie? media doesnt view people, people view people

and who do you prefer: beyonce, tyra banks, halle berry, vanessa williams or regina king and whoopi goldberg?

The best example of black beauty you could come up with is Whoopi?

 

[Bernito]

Shredder is confused here. I think he is confusing beauty with acceptance. The country still has trouble with skin color. We aren't even talking beauty, just making acceptable for people with biases to watch.

Examples: Bernie Mac. He is really dark. But on his TV show its like they either digitally made lighter or they cover him in lighter makeup. Ray romano show (I forget the name). Dude is not white, but all his kids are blond hair blue eyed. George Lopez, all kids light skinned.

 

[gostudy]

Shredder is confused here. I think he is confusing beauty with acceptance. The country still has trouble with skin color. We aren't even talking beauty, just making acceptable for people with biases to watch.

Examples: Bernie Mac. He is really dark. But on his TV show its like they either digitally made lighter or they cover him in lighter makeup. Ray romano show (I forget the name). Dude is not white, but all his kids are blond hair blue eyed. George Lopez, all kids light skinned.

True. There is a difference between beauty and acceptance.

 

[Bernito]

(<-- As close to a jaw drop as I can find) Who is this?

 

[1Path]

duplicate post

 

[1Path]

and who do you prefer: beyonce, tyra banks, halle berry, vanessa williams or regina king and whoopi goldberg?

Who do YOU prefer, Rosanne or Heide Plume? Or are Tom Cruise or Gene Hackman a better analogy?

Dam, I guess I shouldn't have used Heide as an exam since one of the sexiest white women in the world is married to an African WITH a biracial baby! Ohhh, I bet the blood of many men boiled when THAT came out!

 

[1Path]

(<-- As close to a jaw drop as I can find) Who is this?

Looks like Meagan Good.