Hello All - I am searching for an honest opinion!!
I am currently in the process of applying for a few nursing programs around the Kansas City area! I have a BA and an MBA (neither related to nursing).
Upon applying to these programs, I worry that my gpa for my BA (3.2) may hinder my ability to get in! My MBA gpa is 4.0. Anyway, im hoping to get an interview with the schools I apply for, just because I think I can explain my desire to become a nurse a lot easier in person than on paper! But I am a little worried about going in for an interview!
I am an African American female, and I'm really not sure if that could potentially be a disadvantage. Just want to hear opinions. I am asking because one school I looked up was the University of Kansas nursing program. I would love to attend this one as I have heard it was a great school, but even just looking at the photos online of their nursing program, I don't see much diversity at all. It can sometimes be a bit discouraging.
I really think finding a program that values diversity not only with race but gender, previous schooling background, work experience, etc. would be beneficial! Any ideas on this? Thoughts? Advice on schools?
I am really starting to take offense to the argument about POC having low requirements.
Can you not see that the playing field is not even? My youngest is going into sophomore year at a university. She is in engineering. She went to a great school in an upper income area. She took advanced classes and did amazing on her SAT and ACT. She skipped her first year of math and science at the college level because she tested out. She is a great student and will have awesome opportunities in life. She also had little adversity during her school years. Her food and clothing was provided entirely by parents so she did not have to have a job in addition to going to school. She was able to participate in summer educational enrichment activities which certainly gave her the edge over students who couldn't afford to do so.
To say that other applicants who did not have the same opportunities that she had are lower is so offensive to me. So if another student, perhaps a minority, had to also work full time in order to help his/her family pay bills or buy food then they are a lesser student because their grades are lower than my daughter's grades? Or somebody who had to help raise younger siblings and didn't have near as much time for school could have lower grades. I think it is so short-sighted to base ability soley on grades/test scores. And if I were on an admission committee I would consider other factors as well as GPA to get an overall picture of the student. And to judge the other students as not being equally qualified comes across as so elitist. How do you know all of the other student's qualifications? I think you are making many assumptions that do not give others the benefit of the doubt.
I am going against my own decision to drop out of this, which is solely my fault, but I have to address your post.
The knowledge that the bar is set lower, that lower test scores, lower grades, lower EVERYTHING is acceptable as long as the applicant is black, not white, is WELL known. You cannot possibly believe that this is not the case. Someone early in the thread (Emergent? I'm not sure) commented about how it was acceptable for an applicant to be 10-15 points lower on an admission score if the applicant was black. How can THIS not be offensive?
You presented a hypothetical student who might have worked through school, might have lower grades. And colleges most certainly do take those things into consideration, of that I ALSO have no doubt. But *I* am offended at the idea that if those two hypothetical students you supposed were applying together, the one that is the minority in question would AUTOMATICALLY be preferred.
Your daughter was a student of privilege. That's great for her. My son was not so very privileged. There was no legacy for him, he worked his a$$ off to get the grades, he skipped some fun things because he had to work. But he's white. Which means he had to do all the things any OTHER student in your hypothetical storied situation would have to do AND MORE, because he's white. Most definitely not a privileged applicant, he busted his butt and had no fairly tale youth, but hey....he's white, so we expected that he'd have to compete with those who by virtue of NOT being white would be given preference. I'M insulted at the idea this is ok.
My entire problem with all of the AA issue is that the assumption is that the black student who worked through school to support his family and perhaps earned lower grades is GOING to be placed over the white student in the identical situation. Racism= preference for one race over another, exclusive of other factors. It's the very definition.
I am not very interested in giving the benefit of the doubt where there is no doubt. When an applicant who is not as qualified as another is given preference automatically, there is no doubt. It's a given.
And I really do have to get out of this, as I am not fond of being painted as a bigot when NOTHING could be farther from the truth. I AM in favor of equal standards. I am NOT in favor of racism being painted as fairness.
So here's a story for consideration (anectdotal evidence, but still). I have a white biological child, and a Native American step child, one grade apart. In middle school, my white child excelled and was placed in an honors program. She was in gifted education. Her Native sister started the same middle school, she's equally smart, if not smater, and equally dedicated.
Within 2 weeks of my Native child starting school I got calls. First it was that she brought a weapon to school, and was brandishing it. I rushed down. Well, she sews, and had been sewing before school, and had forgotten to take off her wrist pin cushion. It was a weapon in the school's eyes. I took it home, and thought nothing more of it. As the school year wore on, it was call after call. She was disruptive, she was argumentative, they were worried she was gang affiliated because she wore a red tank top (borrowed from her white sister, that my white child had worn a dozen times). I finally had to pull her, and place her in a charter school, where they have had ZERO complaints about her since.
We need affirmative action (which isn't "quotas" btw) because racial biases like this still exist. She had a label on her the day she walked through the doors. I was even, at one point, asked if we had alcohol or drugs in the home, because of the issues she was having. At no point, did anyone realize that we had a white child in the same school, because the counselor and principal never had reason to call me about her and they have different last names. Does anyone want to honestly tell me these two kids were getting the same level of education day in and day out? That they were on equal playing fields? Nobody called home to invite my Native Child to test for honors programs. Their grades were identical. My Native child studies harder, and cares MORE. I honestly am so deeply grateful that their little sibling looks on the whiter side of his heritage. I'm, unfortunately, certain it will make his life easier to "pass".
If you think there is no white privilege, come talk to my kids, they will clear that right up for you.
No, not at all. Will have to do the work to dig up the info, as I'm working from memory of years ago, not instant at-my-fingertips links.
I'd really like to see that research. Like I said before, my lab didn't do stereotype research, but the lab next door did. We talked about research all the time, and I've never heard of this study you're talking about. Even if you just come up with a citation, I can pull the article, and I'd really appreciate being able to read it.
The knowledge that the bar is set lower, that lower test scores, lower grades, lower EVERYTHING is acceptable as long as the applicant is black, not white, is WELL known. You cannot possibly believe that this is not the case. Someone early in the thread (Emergent? I'm not sure) commented about how it was acceptable for an applicant to be 10-15 points lower on an admission score if the applicant was black. How can THIS not be offensive?
...
And I really do have to get out of this, as I am not fond of being painted as a bigot when NOTHING could be farther from the truth. I AM in favor of equal standards. I am NOT in favor of racism being painted as fairness.
I don't think having problems with AA is unique to bigots (and thus, I wouldn't call you a bigot based on that). A lot of people, both in the majority and people of color, find it problematic, although I imagine for very different reasons. But making admissions criteria equal assumes a lot about applicants, and those assumptions may apply more often to students of one race/ethnicity/background than to other students. So "equal" is not necessarily "equitable." This is a conversation we have in healthcare all the time, right? Healthcare isn't equitable, either. Everyone and their brother has published research showing that people of color get lower quality treatment than whites on average (IOM, AARP, CDC, CMS, UN).
It would be great if we could do college admissions based on opportunity. Students who went to schools without computers, who worked during high school, who helped raise siblings or care for loved ones, who lived in food deserts, who lacked access to nutritious foods as children, who experienced food/income/housing insecurity, who lacked health insurance or access to high quality healthcare, who scored high on the ACE scale... If we could quantify all of those things and establish a metric of who had opportunities and who didn't, and adjust entrance scores based on those things, that would be awesome. But we can't, because then applying to college would be a six-month interview process akin to applying to work for the CIA.
So, they've decided - rightly or wrongly - that we already know what groups of people are more likely to have experienced those things. And that's AA. Is it perfect? No. I think you'd be pretty hard pressed to find anyone who thinks it is. Can you find specific examples of people abusing the system? Sure. When discussing human behavior you can find examples of pretty much anything. Which is why we speak about averages and what is most common, and then try to make policies that are generally applicable. Which is why, "Here's a specific case of someone screwed by the system," doesn't change my mind (my apologies to those of you screwed by the system). The system - the whole birth to the grave social system - is not equal, and thus expecting to get the same results from people with unequal opportunity is inherently unfair and favors people with more opportunity.
So, because we can't create a perfect system for accounting for unequal opportunity, we use an imperfect system. Some people who deserve consideration are left out by the system (and those are the ones we hear about), but if it does its job then far more people of color who struggled with far more adversity are considered than would have been if the entrance criteria were equal but not equitable.
Really? If he has the grades, he has the chops needed to excel, but wasn't here at the time of the Civil Rights Movement of the 60's.....but wants to be recognized as having EARNED his achievements rather than have the assumption be it was handed to him because of his skin color....THAT reflects poorly on him? Absurd.
I think that if those who are benefiting from "preference points" REALLY wanted to be seen as equals, then they'd not only expect but DEMAND that the bar/standard be set for them exactly as it is for their non-minority (read: white male) counterparts. The fact that the white male is a minority when compared with all the rest of the "minorities" population is another story, but...it's there.
Why be ok accepting that the bar is lower, that it's ok to be 10-15 points less on anything, and it's ok "because they're black"? PrincessBride, who obviously worked her butt off to get the grades and merits she did, is pissed to discover that people do assume she got where she did because she's black. And rightly so...but until AA is repealed in EVERY State, and the standard is EQUAL for EVERYONE applying for enrollments....that doubt will ALWAYS be there.
You can't change people's minds to view Equal Opportunity as being equal simply by making it unequal in the OTHER direction.
People have posted examples of someone not getting a job because he's black, although he deserved it. Ok...how about my husband not getting a job because he's white? You heard me right: he deserved the job, but found out from the same kind of 'inside' track in that other story that it HAD to go to a black person. Male or female, they didn't care, but most definitely not white. How is THAT ok with anyone? That ISN'T racism of the very worst kind....qualified, but he's got the wrong skin color? Disgusting.
And why is it that only ONE race is the one to specifically benefit when it comes to 'minority' preference? Asians are most definitely a minority....but they have the same admission standards (grades/scores) that whites do. But not blacks. How are blacks not enraged at this? Well....some of them are, because they DO understand they will always be thought of as 'less than' because of that. And others are happy the way it is, because "hey, I got mine". Never mind someone else more qualified didn't.
People face discrimination everywhere. Whites, too, so I'm not interested in hearing about all the "preferences" of the past. How about "Irish Need Not Apply" and "No Jews Allowed"? White....but clearly not "preferred". No one is going to guarantee you a prejudice-free America, not going to happen. But why is it ok to only make it better (MUCH better) for this very specific group? Asians face discrimination, bigotry...but they don't have a special lower-aptitude bar to meet on their applications. No, they have to be the best to get in. But not the black applicants? How is this NOT disgusting?
AA will become a thing of the past, there is no doubt. But until it does, the answer to "does my race and/or gender matter in my consideration for college enrollment?" will always be YES: blacks preferred over whites, women over men.
Here's a thought: nursing is primarily women. It's a mix of races, of course, but overwhelmingly women. Is everyone here who is female and earned a spot in a competitive nursing program by having great grades, recommendations, etc willing to give up that spot to a male because...you know...there are far fewer of them in nursing? That if there are 100 applicants for 20 seats, and 10 of those applicants are male, that 10 seats should go to the males and 10 to the females? Don't take the highest scores, no....take the gender consideration first. Fair....right?
I know that this might be hard for you to come to terms with, but did you ever think that maybe...just maybe the job went to the BEST man for the job, regardless of race? *drops mic*
Thank you for this; it's well thought-out and I appreciate the honesty. I highlighted some of your test, because that's the focus for my response: those comments actually demonstrate WHY Affirmative Action's time has come and gone. You may have the chops for the jobs you want, but you will still probably be viewed as a lesser candidate because of the fact that AA allows lesser applicants enrollment, lesser applicants opportunities even though they ARE lesser applicants....and solely because they are black. That is really my whole point. Eroc and I are obviously the most vocal advocates for the repeal of AA, as we are obviously tired of having a double standard (high for whites, lower for blacks) be the norm. It shouldn't be.
White women have absolutely benefited greatly, no doubt! And you know what? WOMEN now make up 51% of the country's population. NO minority there, and therefore IMHO no 'preference' ought to be afforded them either. Why is it such a horrible idea to have everyone be considered on his or her merits alone, compared equally, not favoring one over another on things that have no bearing on his or her ability to do a job or succeed in academics?
Yes, slavery happened. Yes, it was unfair to the extreme. YES, people of color (as were OTHER people who were WHITE but still deemed 'undesirable') were kept out of academic institutions and barred from social clubs and employment. But at what point are today's college applicants, tomorrow's, supposed to be done paying for those injustices that they had no part in? It seems to be the prevalent attitude on this thread that since injustices were done that FOREVERMORE, in perpetuity, there shall no longer be fairness given, that favoritism must be place, bonus/race points awarded. Forever.
Not long back there was some study or other (don't recall the specifics) in which Millennials were asked about racial discrimination as it applies to these very topics. And this young, tolerant, appropriately aware group of young people voiced their indignation that they were NOT all special and wonderful just as they were, that SOME of them were considered more special and more wonderful if they were the "right" race on the application. And they were pretty clear about intending to change that. I have no doubt that they will, eventually.
THIS. This is the thing that gets me. When some non Person of color deems to admit to the history of slavery they can't even be bothered to do it without throwing in non blacks as though the situation is the same. I am going to be brutally honest for a moment and say that since you keep mentioning the jewish people and the holocaust jewish people aren't forced to live up the street from Auschwitz. Your grandchildren don't go to school with Mengele's grandchildren telling you to get over it its the past while they are wearing their Auschwitz will rise again T-shirts. You're not at the mercy of those same descendents for a job or seat in school. The other difference between AA people and white skinned "undesirables is that we never had the opportunity to get a nosejob and change our last name as many jews, italians, irish etc. did. Unless you were light enough to "pass for white" there was no hiding your ethnicity.
THIS. This is the thing that gets me. When some non POC deems to admit to the history of slavery they can't even be bothered to do it without throwing in non blacks as though the situation is the same. I am going to be brutally honest for a moment and say that since you keep mentioning the jewish people and the Holocaust jewish people aren't forced to live up the street from Auschwitz. Your grandchildren don't go to school with Mengele's grandchildren telling you to get over it its the past while they are wearing their Auschwitz will rise again T-shirts. You're not at the mercy of those same descendents for a job or seat in school. The other difference between AA people and white skinned "undesirables is that we never had the opportunity to get a nosejob and change our last name as many jews, italians, irish etc. did. Unless you were light enough to "pass for white" there was no hiding your ethnicity.
No, they just get the same people who harass poc harassing them as well, telling them that the Halocaust was a lie or exaggerated. That it was propoganda used to make the Nazis look bad. That they need to get over it. That it was over 50 years ago.That Christians never persecuted Jews. Some Jewish people may "pass for white," but that does not mean they do not suffer. Some are not white. Just like there can be blonde Hispanics. They have a culture that is noticeable. The Halocaust is not something so far back that no one living remembers it first hand. Nor were the Japanese camps the US kept. Stories from parents and grandparents who survived the camps often about those who didn't.
The idea being, we never know where someone came from or what they have experienced. Just like you have your story, they have theirs.
I have my own stories of being discriminated against involving anything from being poor, female being the wrong kind of Christian, to even being Christian at all. I've even had attack me physically for some of these things.
My being discriminated against does not invalidate your experiences. Instead of trying to say that is worse for me, how about agreeing that it is human nature to be drawn to like things, but that we need to get over it, because discriminating against someone for any reason, even a reason you think can be hidden, is still a bad thing.
I mean, it's bad enough world out there as it is without us fighting about who has it worse instead of doing something to make it better.
I mean, it's bad enough world out there as it is without us fighting about who has it worse instead of doing something to make it better.
While I like the sentiment of focusing on improvement, and we certainly don't need to fight about it, I think this is a bit of a false dichotomy. I think that making things better necessitates first identifying where and how they fail. If the system is failing certain groups of people more than others, that seems like an important thing to know. Identifying where limited resources will do the most good virtually requires that we know who is, in effect, suffering the most.
This isn't a great example, because we've actually researched this pretty extensively, but it's intended to be merely illustrative. Let's say we reduced CAD-related mortality by ten percent, but we did it through the development of a fancy new beta blocker. Blacks don't respond to beta blockers as well as whites (related to differing renin and Na+ levels), and so chances are good that you would be increasing the inequality by saving dramatically more white lives (who already have lower rates of mortality related to CAD than blacks). What allows us to know what first-line meds are likely to be effective in both blacks (diuretics, CCBs) and whites (beta blockers, ACE inhibitors) is first understanding how the problem (CAD) was different for each group.
I have blue eyes, therefore I have a higher risk of developing glaucoma. That's not a form of discrimination, that is a physiological affect of having blue eyes.
Racism and discrimination are social concepts. People may say that they don't like fat people because fat people are unhealthy and cost more money to keep healthy, and while it's true that there are some higher risks with being overweight, it's still a social concept that says it's okay to discriminate against someone for being fat, because they are lazy and lack the willpower to lose the weight. Just like it's a social concept that says black men are thugs with no family support, or native Americans are drunks. These are all stereotypes used to justify treating someone differently, they're social. Of course we need to address physiological differences. If I have a darker skinned patient and I am this far north, I'm going to wonder about vitamin d levels. That's not discrimination, that is looking out for my patient.
RNsRWe, ASN, RN
3 Articles; 10,428 Posts
I am going against my own decision to drop out of this, which is solely my fault, but I have to address your post.
The knowledge that the bar is set lower, that lower test scores, lower grades, lower EVERYTHING is acceptable as long as the applicant is black, not white, is WELL known. You cannot possibly believe that this is not the case. Someone early in the thread (Emergent? I'm not sure) commented about how it was acceptable for an applicant to be 10-15 points lower on an admission score if the applicant was black. How can THIS not be offensive?
You presented a hypothetical student who might have worked through school, might have lower grades. And colleges most certainly do take those things into consideration, of that I ALSO have no doubt. But *I* am offended at the idea that if those two hypothetical students you supposed were applying together, the one that is the minority in question would AUTOMATICALLY be preferred.
Your daughter was a student of privilege. That's great for her. My son was not so very privileged. There was no legacy for him, he worked his a$$ off to get the grades, he skipped some fun things because he had to work. But he's white. Which means he had to do all the things any OTHER student in your hypothetical storied situation would have to do AND MORE, because he's white. Most definitely not a privileged applicant, he busted his butt and had no fairly tale youth, but hey....he's white, so we expected that he'd have to compete with those who by virtue of NOT being white would be given preference. I'M insulted at the idea this is ok.
My entire problem with all of the AA issue is that the assumption is that the black student who worked through school to support his family and perhaps earned lower grades is GOING to be placed over the white student in the identical situation. Racism= preference for one race over another, exclusive of other factors. It's the very definition.
I am not very interested in giving the benefit of the doubt where there is no doubt. When an applicant who is not as qualified as another is given preference automatically, there is no doubt. It's a given.
And I really do have to get out of this, as I am not fond of being painted as a bigot when NOTHING could be farther from the truth. I AM in favor of equal standards. I am NOT in favor of racism being painted as fairness.