<p>“Rare white with a 32”, “super common asian with a 36”? What exactly is your evidence to support this?</p>
<p>Look at <a href=“https://www.aamc.org/data/facts/applicantmatriculant/157998/mcat-gpa-grid-by-selected-race-ethnicity.html”>https://www.aamc.org/data/facts/applicantmatriculant/157998/mcat-gpa-grid-by-selected-race-ethnicity.html</a> . It contains tables breaking down MCAT and GPA by ethnicity.</p>
<p>For 4.0 GPA and 39-45, for White people there are 784, for Asians there are 432. For Black people there are 12, for Hispanics there are 34.</p>
<p>To look at the number you used, of 36, at 4.0 GPA and 36-38, there are 2175 White people and 994 Asians.</p>
<p>White people are not super-low scoring. I took the MCAT with only one month of studying and scored in the mid-30s, sufficient for Ivy League. And judging by the statistics, “32” is not a “rare white”, and 36 is not “super common” for Asians.</p>
<p>And in regards to Mcat2, that last paragraph seems something of a jump from the economic perspective above it in your post. Did you mean to imply that woman had gone through a Holocaust of male oppression in this country? The juxtaposition of elements makes me wonder about that.</p>
<p>My own comment on this: the soft science of class identity involves inducing knowledge of shared suffering. Ellul briefly touched upon this general topic. Note that I say “induce” because it can in fact be artificial. In a country of 300 million, you have a limited amount of television air time and with such a large population you are never going to lack for incidents of one crime committed by one group against another, so consequently if one wishes one can use the psychological tactic of framing and proceed to report all the crimes of one group against another as racial crimes or hate crimes, while ignoring and choosing not to report any crimes committed in the reverse direction. For example, in school we are all taught about the KKK, at a vulnerable age when we are easily scarred (which is the point), but the Black Panthers and the Nation of Islam committed acts of racial terrorism at the time as well. But no one teaches people about that in school (isn’t that convenient?) so it isn’t part of the popular experience or popular psyche. Much of history thus as it popularly exists is actually a fiction of selective editing.</p>
<p>In other words, as Hayek commented concerning unions, because groups are able to highly organize themselves, they are able to force preferential conditions for themselves, and the unorganized groups end up increasingly bearing hardships to balance the budget and the results of economic recession. And this is why we have people who are given preferential access to medical schools because of their ethnicity / sexual orientation / factional membership when their scores otherwise wouldn’t deserve it. The concept of “under” in “under represented minority” is an entirely arbitrary one and people only begin keeping figures and statistics on a group when they already are a politically powerful lobbyist group.</p>
<p>There are all sorts of groups that could contribute to “Diversity”, but that actual concept is very narrowly used. It is not a question of economics as Mcat2 suggests, but rather of politics.</p>