Dr Henry Jekyll MD

All this Yale discourse is insane, MCAT scores have very little to do with how good of a doctor you will be.

I pulled every murder and attempted murder case from Montgomery County's public court records under DA Robert Nash. 16 cases. Not one exceeded $250,000 bail. Nash never requested no bond for any of them. Then Dalton Eatherly was charged with attempted murder where nobody died, in self defense, Nash requested complete detention, and the judge set bail at $1,250,000. Every case number is verifiable. The data is below.

I appreciate Dr. Simpson going to battle with these racist who don't want to see Black people become doctors. Black babies are 3 times more likely than white babies to die when cared for by white doctors. The mortality rate for white babies isn't affected by the doctor's race.

I disagree with the Department of Justice going after Yale School of Medicine over DEI admissions policies and arguing that objective metrics like GPA and MCAT scores should dominate admissions decisions. The evidence does not support the idea that standardized test scores alone identify the best physicians. The MCAT predicts performance on other multiple-choice exams reasonably well. What MCAT scores do NOT predict are clinical judgment, communication, bedside skill, or physician performance. Put another way: doctors who test well tend to do well on examinations. But test scores do not predict how well they care for patients in clinics, hospitals, surgery, or real-world medicine. Meanwhile, more diverse physician workforces are associated with better preventive care, greater trust, improved access, and lower mortality in underserved communities. There is no objective evidence that excluding minority applicants within a reasonable score range improves patient outcomes. We need minority physicians in this country, and we have the data to prove why. So when people insist that “objective measures” alone should determine admission into medicine — while ignoring the evidence about what actually improves patient care — I increasingly see that argument as less about merit and more about preserving exclusion under the comforting language of statistics. "Equality feels like oppression to those who are privileged"

I disagree with the Department of Justice going after Yale School of Medicine over DEI admissions policies and arguing that objective metrics like GPA and MCAT scores should dominate admissions decisions. The evidence does not support the idea that standardized test scores alone identify the best physicians. The MCAT predicts performance on other multiple-choice exams reasonably well. What MCAT scores do NOT predict are clinical judgment, communication, bedside skill, or physician performance. Put another way: doctors who test well tend to do well on examinations. But test scores do not predict how well they care for patients in clinics, hospitals, surgery, or real-world medicine. Meanwhile, more diverse physician workforces are associated with better preventive care, greater trust, improved access, and lower mortality in underserved communities. There is no objective evidence that excluding minority applicants within a reasonable score range improves patient outcomes. We need minority physicians in this country, and we have the data to prove why. So when people insist that “objective measures” alone should determine admission into medicine — while ignoring the evidence about what actually improves patient care — I increasingly see that argument as less about merit and more about preserving exclusion under the comforting language of statistics. "Equality feels like oppression to those who are privileged"

The Black students at Yale are in fact some of the highest achievers in the country. Their scores are in the 95th percentile! Past the 90th percentile they are equally qualified and brilliant.

What a strange little performance this is. A man who likely benefited his entire life from invisible networks of class, education, geography, culture, and social familiarity suddenly discovers an almost priestly devotion to “pure objectivity” the instant diversity enters the conversation. You people speak of the MCAT the way medieval clergy spoke of holy relics — as though a standardized exam has descended from Sinai untouched by wealth, coaching, privilege, educational inequality, or institutional advantage. And the truly comic part is watching grown adults scream “racism” because medical schools dare consider that physicians might need qualities beyond competitive bubble-sheet filling. Medicine is practiced on terrified human beings, not on Scantrons. But outrage merchants cannot survive nuance. Their business model requires panic, caricature, and the perpetual fantasy that society was once a flawless meritocracy until minorities arrived to spoil the arithmetic.

Reading this headline you’d think Yale admitted 50 or 100 or 1000 black medical students. It is the grand total of 44 black students compared to 100s of Asian and White students that has caused this furor. Sending hugs to all black students who will suffer abuse.

I guess 5% of lawyers being Black is too much for them.

I understand why many Asian families feel frustrated in elite admissions systems. In intensely competitive environments, there is a real perception — and sometimes evidence — that exceptional academic performance still does not guarantee admission. That feeling should not be dismissed. But admissions committees also confront another reality: if you have 100 applicants from privileged, high-performing educational pipelines with nearly identical scores, resumes, research access, tutoring, and opportunities, it is not irrational to also value the applicant who achieved similar academic success despite poverty, instability, underfunded schools, family hardship, or lack of institutional advantages. That is not abandoning merit. It is recognizing that achievement exists in context. And medicine especially is not merely selecting expert test takers. It is selecting future physicians who will care for human beings across every class, culture, language, and circumstance in society. The irony is that many people who defend “objective merit” often become deeply uncomfortable the moment merit is evaluated in anything broader than a percentile ranking.