Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?  (Read 24874 times)

PNym

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 781
    • View Profile
To begin with, examine the number of assumptions you've made, and then work through them.



That's not really an explanation. What assumptions have I made? If you identify them, I can perhaps justify my assumptions with evidence.

OperaAttorney

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 182
  • Freude, Königin der Weise!
    • View Profile
    • Email
Quote
I do remember Sowell saying that he heard from friends within Harvard's administration and professorate that HMS had a policy of never failing black students. Combine that policy with a policy of admitting black students who don't mean normal HMS admissions standards and you have the makings of underqualified graduates.

BULL!!! Does Sowell have concrete proof? What fool would believe this s**t?
"I don't believe in the word 'impossible,' because the One in whom I believe can do the impossible." - Me

OperaAttorney

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 182
  • Freude, Königin der Weise!
    • View Profile
    • Email
Remind me again of the link between a medical student being qualified enough to be admitted into Harvard, even with the help of affirmative action, and being underqualified to practice medicine (assuming he graduated).

I do remember Sowell saying that he heard from friends within Harvard's administration and professorate that HMS had a policy of never failing black students. Combine that policy with a policy of admitting black students who don't mean normal HMS admissions standards and you have the makings of underqualified graduates.


Also, it seems to me that if affirmative action were removed this student would still have most likely been admitted to at least a reputable state medical school, and again assuming he graduated, would still be practicing medicine. So are you insinuating that Harvard graduated him when they shouldn't have? Or that difference in medical education between Harvard and State U results in more doctor-caused deaths (since Black Doctor was probably qualified to attend State U, but not Harvard)?


Well, if the doctor in this case hadn't attended HMS, but had attended a state school, he might have been learning medicine at a pace and depth for which he was more suited (a friend of mine at HMS says the pace is ridiculously frenetic, so you have to be on your toes if you want to learn it all). If he had been learning medicine at a slower pace and in less depth in a state school than what he would have been expected to learn at Harvard, it's possible that the doctor in this case would have learned more, rather than less, reducing the chance that he would screw up.

Furthermore, the doctor might not have been performing the surgery in which he screwed up. He may have gone into radiology or anesthesiology instead, which would have benefitted the hapless patient in this case.

You obviously know very little about medical specialties. An anesthesiologist could easily send a patient to glory by administering anesthesia in incorrect amounts.  You seem to have a lot of time on your hands b/c you constantly attempt to awe us with your endless cant on AA and its intrinsic flaws.

My suggestion? Research the different medical specialties.  I'm sure you'll find that Internal Medicine is one of the "easier" ones.
"I don't believe in the word 'impossible,' because the One in whom I believe can do the impossible." - Me

PNym

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 781
    • View Profile
To begin with, examine the number of assumptions you've made, and then work through them.



That's not really an explanation. What assumptions have I made? If you identify them, I can perhaps justify my assumptions with evidence.

This exercise is for your own benefit.  Do the work. 

TJ accused me of making assumptions that don't make sense. I'm not going to list every single assumption that could be applicable to this argument, especially since this I have few stakes in the outcome of this discussion, but if there are specific assumptions that TJ would like me to address, then should he list them out, I'll do my best to provide an explanation.

Otherwise, I'm going to assume that all the assumptions I've made make sense to TJ, and he's characterizing them as erroneous so he can avoid addressing my argument.

t...

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2380
    • View Profile
Hey, you're the one doing the talking. I'm just sitting back and laughing at both your rhetoric AND your rhetorical maneuvers.

Ten bucks on what you say next.


Quote
Cady on October 16, 2007, 10:41:52 PM

i rhink tyi'm inejying my fudgcicle too much

Quote
Huey on February 07, 2007, 11:15:32 PM

I went to a party in an apartment in a silo once.

PNym

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 781
    • View Profile
Remind me again of the link between a medical student being qualified enough to be admitted into Harvard, even with the help of affirmative action, and being underqualified to practice medicine (assuming he graduated).

I do remember Sowell saying that he heard from friends within Harvard's administration and professorate that HMS had a policy of never failing black students. Combine that policy with a policy of admitting black students who don't mean normal HMS admissions standards and you have the makings of underqualified graduates.


Also, it seems to me that if affirmative action were removed this student would still have most likely been admitted to at least a reputable state medical school, and again assuming he graduated, would still be practicing medicine. So are you insinuating that Harvard graduated him when they shouldn't have? Or that difference in medical education between Harvard and State U results in more doctor-caused deaths (since Black Doctor was probably qualified to attend State U, but not Harvard)?


Well, if the doctor in this case hadn't attended HMS, but had attended a state school, he might have been learning medicine at a pace and depth for which he was more suited (a friend of mine at HMS says the pace is ridiculously frenetic, so you have to be on your toes if you want to learn it all). If he had been learning medicine at a slower pace and in less depth in a state school than what he would have been expected to learn at Harvard, it's possible that the doctor in this case would have learned more, rather than less, reducing the chance that he would screw up.

Furthermore, the doctor might not have been performing the surgery in which he screwed up. He may have gone into radiology or anesthesiology instead, which would have benefitted the hapless patient in this case.

You obviously know very little about medical specialties. An anesthesiologist could easily send a patient to glory by administering anesthesia in incorrect amounts.  You seem to have a lot of time on your hands b/c you constantly attempt to awe us with your endless cant on AA and its intrinsic flaws.

My suggestion? Research the different medical specialties.  I'm sure you'll find that Internal Medicine is one of the "easier" ones.

Well, if anesthesiology is indeed more difficult than surgery, then I've made a flawed assumption. But the point I'm trying to make is that if the doctor in this case had gone into a different field, one which was simpler than surgery, he might not have botched the procedure. If anesthesiology is more difficult than surgery, you could swap it with a field that is easier than surgery and my argument would still apply.

In addition, I highly doubt all practicioners of Internal Medicine become surgeons, so there's room in that field for non-surgeons as well.

I'm here to discuss the issue. If I didn't want to discuss the issue, I would stop posting. I'm assuming that you're here to discuss AA as well. If that is so, what would insinuating that "I have a lot of time on my hands" serve to forward the discussion of AA?

PNym

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 781
    • View Profile
Hey, you're the one doing the talking. I'm just sitting back and laughing at both your rhetoric AND your rhetorical maneuvers.

Ten bucks on what you say next.


If you're not here to address any arguments, then I can safely discount that you didn't find any unwarranted assumptions in my arguments.

Laugh however much you want, that doesn't change the fact that you were bluffing unless you can come up with something specific I can address.

t...

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2380
    • View Profile
I win.

(And you've made two more assumptions in that last post of yours; you're on a roll)

Quote
Cady on October 16, 2007, 10:41:52 PM

i rhink tyi'm inejying my fudgcicle too much

Quote
Huey on February 07, 2007, 11:15:32 PM

I went to a party in an apartment in a silo once.

OperaAttorney

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 182
  • Freude, Königin der Weise!
    • View Profile
    • Email
Remind me again of the link between a medical student being qualified enough to be admitted into Harvard, even with the help of affirmative action, and being underqualified to practice medicine (assuming he graduated).

I do remember Sowell saying that he heard from friends within Harvard's administration and professorate that HMS had a policy of never failing black students. Combine that policy with a policy of admitting black students who don't mean normal HMS admissions standards and you have the makings of underqualified graduates.


Also, it seems to me that if affirmative action were removed this student would still have most likely been admitted to at least a reputable state medical school, and again assuming he graduated, would still be practicing medicine. So are you insinuating that Harvard graduated him when they shouldn't have? Or that difference in medical education between Harvard and State U results in more doctor-caused deaths (since Black Doctor was probably qualified to attend State U, but not Harvard)?


Well, if the doctor in this case hadn't attended HMS, but had attended a state school, he might have been learning medicine at a pace and depth for which he was more suited (a friend of mine at HMS says the pace is ridiculously frenetic, so you have to be on your toes if you want to learn it all). If he had been learning medicine at a slower pace and in less depth in a state school than what he would have been expected to learn at Harvard, it's possible that the doctor in this case would have learned more, rather than less, reducing the chance that he would screw up.

Furthermore, the doctor might not have been performing the surgery in which he screwed up. He may have gone into radiology or anesthesiology instead, which would have benefitted the hapless patient in this case.

You obviously know very little about medical specialties. An anesthesiologist could easily send a patient to glory by administering anesthesia in incorrect amounts.  You seem to have a lot of time on your hands b/c you constantly attempt to awe us with your endless cant on AA and its intrinsic flaws.

My suggestion? Research the different medical specialties.  I'm sure you'll find that Internal Medicine is one of the "easier" ones.

Well, if anesthesiology is indeed more difficult than surgery, then I've made a flawed assumption. But the point I'm trying to make is that if the doctor in this case had gone into a different field, one which was simpler than surgery, he might not have botched the procedure. If anesthesiology is more difficult than surgery, you could swap it with a field that is easier than surgery and my argument would still apply.

In addition, I highly doubt all practicioners of Internal Medicine become surgeons, so there's room in that field for non-surgeons as well.

I'm here to discuss the issue. If I didn't want to discuss the issue, I would stop posting. I'm assuming that you're here to discuss AA as well. If that is so, what would insinuating that "I have a lot of time on my hands" serve to forward the discussion of AA?

I did not say nor imply that anesthesiology is an easier specialty than surgery. I simply cautioned you against "passing it off" as easy b/c it is NOT.

And one last thing: I don't engage fools in discussion.  It's useless!

Now I'm off to study.
"I don't believe in the word 'impossible,' because the One in whom I believe can do the impossible." - Me

PNym

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 781
    • View Profile

I did not say nor imply that anesthesiology is an easier specialty than surgery. I simply cautioned you against "passing it off" as easy b/c it is NOT.


If anesthesiology is easier than surgery, then my argument still applies. If anesthesiology is more difficult than surgery, substitute a specialty easier than surgery for anesthesiology and my argument still applies.

I honestly don't know enough about medicine to judge how easy anesthesiology is, but that really isn't relevant since my argument only requires an example of a medical specialty easier to learn than surgery.

And one last thing: I don't engage fools in discussion.  It's useless!

Well, then, you're implying that any argument I put forward as not being worthy of being addressed. But that doesn't mean that you've addressed the argument.