DEI is literally the definition of racism. Disney being sued by Elon Musk

[Jonathan Whatley]

Yes. Medical schools should consider aspects of applicants' background other than only MCAT and GPA scores.

What "aspects of applicants' background other than only MCAT and GPA scores" should be considered?

Here are some off the top of my head. I was head of a pre-health students' association. I've spent more time than average talking with pre-meds, and medical academics, and thinking about these things.

• Interviews. Probably especially structured and validated measures such as a Multiple Mini Interview.
  
• Brief written statements.
  
• Reasons for studying medicine and career plans and interests within medicine. Including how well-reasoned, insightful, and realistic these are, and how congruent they are with the medical school. For example, some medical schools emphasize producing specialized physician-researchers, others emphasize producing primary-care generalists, and others seek to produce a diverse mix. Many medical schools have always had missions specific to populations their graduates will serve. It's reasonable that a state university in Alabama will admit some applicants with lower MCAT/GPAs but greater connections to Alabama and reasonably estimated likelihood of practicing in Alabama. Much the same, it's reasonable that they'll give preference to some candidates with greater connections to and reasonably estimated likelihood of practicing in positions in Alabama that are challenging to recruit for in the general market, such as both rural primary care and inner-city primary care.
  
• Letters of recommendation.
  
• Work experience.
  
• Volunteer experience.
  
• Research experience, publications, and related.
  
• Mitigating hardships. For example, if a student took a GPA hit during a period their mother died or the student themselves fought cancer, that GPA should not be considered a good predictor of their academic performance in more normal circumstances.
  
• Subjects and natures of undergraduate courses taken and undergraduate alma maters. For example, a research-oriented medical school might reasonably admit a 3.7 in biology from Yale over a 4.0 in psychology from an everyday local college, even if both candidates had performed equally in science prerequisite courses and MCAT. Conversely, a primary-care-oriented medical school in that same local area might admit a 3.7 in psychology from the everyday local college over a 4.0 in biology from Yale with the same other factors held constant.
  
• Additional education. For example a master's in biomedical science, a master's in public health, etc.
  

If you are getting life saving surgery do you want the person who graduated at the top of their class in medical school or someone less qualified who got in based on their race?

I answered your loaded and artificial question in good faith by describing important attributes I do want in the doctor performing life-saving surgery.

Your question is a false dilemma because those are not the only two choices. There are not only two types of doctor, doctors who graduated at the top of their class or doctors who got in based on race.

The large majority of doctors are neither.

Describing someone getting into medical school "based on their race" is also potentially misleading phrasing. No one is admitted to medical school in the US based on their race to the exclusion of any other factor. Every time race is used as one criteria in allocating a seat, the medical school also uses GPA, MCAT, and other common criteria to choose a candidate likely to succeed in medical school and practice. "based in some part on their race" is more precise.

Further, it's very possible for the same doctor to be in BOTH the subsets "doctors who got in based [in some part] on their race" and "person who graduated at the top of their class."

The only doctor I've ever had as a patient who there's much evidence available to me that they achieved high academic rank among doctors was also a visible minority. Might he have had some advantage getting a competitive seat somewhere along the line because of affirmative action? Maybe? So what. It doesn't bother me (and I'm a white man). He also held very high merit.

It isn't uncommon for a medical student whose pre-med statistics are at the top to regress down towards and sometimes below the mean during med school. The four years of med school, especially the last two years in clinical rotations, are very unlike pre-med college.

It's similarly not uncommon for students who start lower in the pack to move to the top.

They didn't get into medical school because their IQ was lower than the ones who did.

Do you think it is better for doctors to have a higher or lower IQ?

These statements reflect enormous misunderstanding of the topics they name.

GPA is a terrible proxy for IQ, MCAT is a terrible proxy for IQ, and other criteria medical schools use are also terrible proxies for IQ.

I got a high IQ score by answering logical puzzles.

It's almost a coincidence that I have a high GPA. The GPA was based on several contributors including subject knowledge, writing performance, and meeting deadlines. Logical thinking is in the mix but in a very different way than in the IQ test. It's not uncommon to have a high IQ but low GPA. Low IQ but high GPA isn't unheard of.

And like most people with a high IQ and/or GPA, if I took the MCAT today my score would be terrible. MCAT score depends on extensive subject knowledge of natural sciences. (I only completed some pre-health coursework.)