Minorities
Posted: Sun Aug 28, 2011 5:56 pm
Will being a minority, specifically hispanic, be likely to improve my chances of getting accepted to physics graduate schools?
(This resource is NOT affiliated with gre.org or ets.org)
https://physicsgre.com/
I promise you, it isn't any more complicated than that. African Americans, Hispanics, Asian Americans, etc make up a smaller portion of the population and, as such, their interests have a tendency to be overlooked. We (i.e. Most government programs and many private groups) make a concerted effort to balance this out by providing additional incentives to minorities.bfollinprm wrote:I think it's more complicated than that. Definitely what matters is unrepresented minority status, and that's dependent on the field. Hispanics are underrepresented in Physics, along with those of African American descent, women, and Native Americans. It does not include, for example, Asian Americans, though they would be considered a minority in, say, government.
I'm more inclined to agree with bfollinprm than HappyQuark. As an Asian-American, I can tell you from first-hand experience that I don't count as a "minority" (in STEM fields at least). There are scholarships for minorities that I don't qualify for because Asian-Americans do not fit the scholarship's definition of minority, even though we are less abundant than non-Hispanic whites. I'm fairly certain that I have never been the target of any "additional incentives to minorities."HappyQuark wrote:I promise you, it isn't any more complicated than that. African Americans, Hispanics, Asian Americans, etc make up a smaller portion of the population and, as such, their interests have a tendency to be overlooked. We (i.e. Most government programs and many private groups) make a concerted effort to balance this out by providing additional incentives to minorities.bfollinprm wrote:I think it's more complicated than that. Definitely what matters is unrepresented minority status, and that's dependent on the field. Hispanics are underrepresented in Physics, along with those of African American descent, women, and Native Americans. It does not include, for example, Asian Americans, though they would be considered a minority in, say, government.
It's generally unrelated to a specific field. Whether it ought to be is a different question.
I absolutely agree with bfollinprm here. More and more you see people explicitly saying "underrepresented minority" when the subject comes up. If you consider the word minority without context, then sure, it has a strict definition related only to the country's population. In practice, the underrepresented minorities are the only reason we are talking about minorities in this forum. If all ethnicities were represented in all fields as they were in the population I don't think anyone would care about race anymore in terms of admission/hiring.bfollinprm wrote:I think it's more complicated than that. Definitely what matters is unrepresented minority status, and that's dependent on the field. Hispanics are underrepresented in Physics, along with those of African American descent, women, and Native Americans. It does not include, for example, Asian Americans, though they would be considered a minority in, say, government.
This is without a doubt the truest thing ever said on this forum.WhoaNonstop wrote:I'm in the minority of AWESOME. That is the only reason I was accepted by any schools.
-Riley
No, the truest thing said was:bfollinprm wrote:This is without a doubt the truest thing ever said on this forum.WhoaNonstop wrote:I'm in the minority of AWESOME. That is the only reason I was accepted by any schools.
-Riley
garden wrote:I would say that you guys should *** off the school with damn committee, which they put you guys down because of your GREs not over 90%. Why? because they are so conservative! if they know they are 90% sure what they are doing, they would all win Nobel prize! Even they do not need to do physics ...
I am a minority of one in the sense that I make up less than 50% of the population.Dorian_Mode wrote:Isn't the meaning of "minority" pretty clear? Hispanic people make up less than 50% of the population and are thus considered minorities. Done and done.
did anybody force that minority to close the books and not study science and concentrate on dance and food? what happened that they became underrepresented in physics?bfollinprm wrote: To be clear, this is still tongue-in-cheek--there are certainly good reasons to worry about the gross under-representation of black, hispanic, and female populations in physics aside from their deviation from the mean, which certainly doesn't apply to my red-headed-ness (or does it? Irish immigrants were notoriously downtrodden...)
I don't think this captures the rationale at all. If you grow up Hispanic (or black, or a woman) and have a desire to do science, it's a harder road. There are less available role models in your community, less opportunities are presented to you (you have to do more work yourself), and it's hard(er) to relate to those people you do find in science, all for the simple reason that those in your community (those "like" you) don't do science. The fact that admissions or fellowships take race, gender, and economic/geographic information into account is supposed to reflect these inherent disadvantages.pqortic wrote: did anybody force that minority to close the books and not study science and concentrate on dance and food? what happened that they became underrepresented in physics?
for instance, suppose I could find all the students interested in physics with initials MM and ask them not to apply or not to continue their education, then after few years there would be lack of physicist with initials MM and then we would be worried about the underrepresented population with initials MM!
That's like saying a Wendy's should be required to hire more rich kids because Wendy's employees are underrepresented in wealthy communities. Thus the children of the super rich have no fast food role models to look up to and are less likely to want to work in fast food themselves. It's also saying that you're likely to follow in the footsteps of role models who are members of your own race, etc, and I'm not sure that's true either.bfollinprm wrote:I don't think this captures the rationale at all. If you grow up Hispanic (or black, or a woman) and have a desire to do science, it's a harder road. There are less available role models in your community, less opportunities are presented to you (you have to do more work yourself), and it's hard(er) to relate to those people you do find in science, all for the simple reason that those in your community (those "like" you) don't do science. The fact that admissions or fellowships take race, gender, and economic/geographic information into account is supposed to reflect these inherent disadvantages.pqortic wrote: did anybody force that minority to close the books and not study science and concentrate on dance and food? what happened that they became underrepresented in physics?
for instance, suppose I could find all the students interested in physics with initials MM and ask them not to apply or not to continue their education, then after few years there would be lack of physicist with initials MM and then we would be worried about the underrepresented population with initials MM!
It's obviously not a perfect system (not every "Hispanic" is necessarily denied role models and opportunities), but it's more than just "there aren't many X's in physics, so we should give preference to X's." If it does turn into that, then my tongue-in-cheek response becomes serious, because a simple statistical under-representation isn't enough to imply lack of opportunity. The purpose is to build a set of knowledge-experts in physics in these ethnic communities, so that in the future the disadvantages disappear (more women physicists, for instance, means more science role models for the next generation of female students).
It's not like saying that at all. You don't need role models to work in fast food, because it doesn't require ambition and commitment to learn higher level skills. This is reducto-ad-absurdum, all you've really shown is the idea is more complex than can be put in a 2 paragraph post.That's like saying a Wendy's should be required to hire more rich kids because Wendy's employees are underrepresented in wealthy communities.
200 years of American history have shown this (the african-american case is the most studied, bar perhaps women). It's not universal, of course, but in large numbers it's true, for a multiplicity of reasons you can probably find in a good book on the subject. Did you grow up wanting to be the next Chandrasekhar? Or the next Yukawa? You chose to relate to the physicists you most resemble--culturally, ethnically, or geographically. More to the point, you didn't have to aspire to such grandiose and ill-formed notions to motivate yourself. You didn't need to say "I'm going to be the next Einstein" because there were people in your community--and likely your professors--who came from similar backgrounds and provided an example that the path of graduate school in Physics was possible for you. Don't underestimate what effect not having those examples can have.It's also saying that you're likely to follow in the footsteps of role models who are members of your own race, etc
I agree, though I was more explicit with what I mean by "underexposed". I actually don't think ethnicities are the best way to bin the population anymore (urban white youth and urban black youth often have really similar childhoods). It's much harder to divide on socio-economic background, however, and one (arguably THE) leading indicator of socio-economic status in the US IS your race (hispanic, black, native american = poor, asian, white = rich).The real impediment, in my opinion, is that minorities are more likely to be poor and underexposed to science
Yes, it does (or at least it prevents them from seriously entertaining it). I didn't grow up playing or watching basketball, I grew up playing and watching baseball (and soccer). Do you actually think there's something in the African genome that causes excellent basketball skills, or in the Latin genome that causes excellent baseball skills, or in the pacific islander that causes excellent football skills? How else do you explain the over-representation of these races in their respective sports? Oh yeah, the over-preponderance of role models for them. For blacks/hispanics/Filipinos, the respective sports offer a tried-and-true life path (they have friends, mentors, and community members who have experienced or witnessed success in sports). Likewise, graduate school in STEM fields offer Caucasians and Asian-Americans a tried and true life path (they have friends, mentors, and community members who have experienced or witnessed success in Physics).having basketball teams consisting primarily of black men doesn't stop white kids from dreaming of being in the NBA
Michio Kaku actually. And no, I'm not Japanese.bfollinprm wrote:It's not like saying that at all. You don't need role models to work in fast food, because it doesn't require ambition and commitment to learn higher level skills. This is reducto-ad-absurdum, all you've really shown is the idea is more complex than can be put in a 2 paragraph post.That's like saying a Wendy's should be required to hire more rich kids because Wendy's employees are underrepresented in wealthy communities.
200 years of American history have shown this (the african-american case is the most studied, bar perhaps women). It's not universal, of course, but in large numbers it's true, for a multiplicity of reasons you can probably find in a good book on the subject. Did you grow up wanting to be the next Chandrasekhar? Or the next Yukawa? You chose to relate to the physicists you most resemble--culturally, ethnically, or geographically. More to the point, you didn't have to aspire to such grandiose and ill-formed notions to motivate yourself. You didn't need to say "I'm going to be the next Einstein" because there were people in your community--and likely your professors--who came from similar backgrounds and provided an example that the path of graduate school in Physics was possible for you. Don't underestimate what effect not having those examples can have.It's also saying that you're likely to follow in the footsteps of role models who are members of your own race, etc
I agree, though I was more explicit with what I mean by "underexposed". I actually don't think ethnicities are the best way to bin the population anymore (urban white youth and urban black youth often have really similar childhoods). It's much harder to divide on socio-economic background, however, and one (arguably THE) leading indicator of socio-economic status in the US IS your race (hispanic, black, native american = poor, asian, white = rich).The real impediment, in my opinion, is that minorities are more likely to be poor and underexposed to science
Just because you didn't want to play basketball doesn't mean others didn't Of course there's nothing in the African genome making blacks better at basketball; they just play more basketball.Yes, it does (or at least it prevents them from seriously entertaining it). I didn't grow up playing or watching basketball, I grew up playing and watching baseball (and soccer). Do you actually think there's something in the African genome that causes excellent basketball skills, or in the Latin genome that causes excellent baseball skills, or in the pacific islander that causes excellent football skills? How else do you explain the over-representation of these races in their respective sports? Oh yeah, the over-preponderance of role models for them. For blacks/hispanics/Filipinos, the respective sports offer a tried-and-true life path (they have friends, mentors, and community members who have experienced or witnessed success in sports). Likewise, graduate school in STEM fields offer Caucasians and Asian-Americans a tried and true life path (they have friends, mentors, and community members who have experienced or witnessed success in Physics).having basketball teams consisting primarily of black men doesn't stop white kids from dreaming of being in the NBA
Neither is Kaku, a San Jose native--not that that was my point.Michio Kaku actually. And no, I'm not Japanese.
That blacks play more basketball is a law of the universe, then? There's a reason why more blacks play basketball competitively (I guarantee there are more white children playing basketball than black children, simply because almost everyone plays basketball and there are more white children than black). And that reason is because in the communities these children often grow up in, it's seen as a viable career path for them (the majority of athletes in the community are black), while the doctors, lawyers, and academics (including physicists) in their community are predominately white/asian.Of course there's nothing in the African genome making blacks better at basketball; they just play more basketball.
Frankly, in this case there isn't an effect because physicists aren't visible media figures like athletes. Having any number of black/Jewish/Asian/Mexican physicists won't make basketball any less of a lucrative career.That blacks play more basketball is a law of the universe, then? There's a reason why more blacks play basketball competitively (I guarantee there are more white children playing basketball than black children, simply because almost everyone plays basketball and there are more white children than black). And that reason is because in the communities these children often grow up in, it's seen as a viable career path for them (the majority of athletes in the community are black), while the doctors, lawyers, and academics (including physicists) in their community are predominately white/asian.
Look, I'm not trying to start a flame war or overgeneralize a point that admittedly isn't true in all cases. But it's really hard for me to see how someone can argue that there isn't an effect on children pertaining to the density of relate-able mentors they can interact with. Maybe it's because I've been exposed to both sides (I taught in a predominately black neighborhood, while I grew up next to a DOE/NIH laboratory).
I see. Here's the confusion (which I admit I've contributed to). I'm not talking solely or even predominately about media role models (though these help, and are important, and do exist in physics (think Einstein, Newton, Feynman, Brian Greene, and Kaku). I'm talking about models in the community--people in science (science teachers, math teachers, engineers, academics) that you and I run into in our daily lives. Certain segments of the population either (1) never run in to these people, or (2) the ones they do run into are not relate-able (due to different gender, ethnicity, background, etc).twistor wrote:Frankly, in this case there isn't an effect because physicists aren't visible media figures like athletes. Having any number of black/Jewish/Asian/Mexican physicists won't make basketball any less of a lucrative career.That blacks play more basketball is a law of the universe, then? There's a reason why more blacks play basketball competitively (I guarantee there are more white children playing basketball than black children, simply because almost everyone plays basketball and there are more white children than black). And that reason is because in the communities these children often grow up in, it's seen as a viable career path for them (the majority of athletes in the community are black), while the doctors, lawyers, and academics (including physicists) in their community are predominately white/asian.
Look, I'm not trying to start a flame war or overgeneralize a point that admittedly isn't true in all cases. But it's really hard for me to see how someone can argue that there isn't an effect on children pertaining to the density of relate-able mentors they can interact with. Maybe it's because I've been exposed to both sides (I taught in a predominately black neighborhood, while I grew up next to a DOE/NIH laboratory).
I don't think people are generally inspired to do things based on local role models. I certainly wasn't , nor can I think of anyone I know who was. In fact, I can honestly say there is no one in my life who made a career choice based on a role model.bfollinprm wrote:I see. Here's the confusion (which I admit I've contributed to). I'm not talking solely or even predominately about media role models (though these help, and are important, and do exist in physics (think Einstein, Newton, Feynman, Brian Greene, and Kaku). I'm talking about models in the community--people in science (science teachers, math teachers, engineers, academics) that you and I run into in our daily lives. Certain segments of the population either (1) never run in to these people, or (2) the ones they do run into are not relate-able (due to different gender, ethnicity, background, etc).twistor wrote:Frankly, in this case there isn't an effect because physicists aren't visible media figures like athletes. Having any number of black/Jewish/Asian/Mexican physicists won't make basketball any less of a lucrative career.That blacks play more basketball is a law of the universe, then? There's a reason why more blacks play basketball competitively (I guarantee there are more white children playing basketball than black children, simply because almost everyone plays basketball and there are more white children than black). And that reason is because in the communities these children often grow up in, it's seen as a viable career path for them (the majority of athletes in the community are black), while the doctors, lawyers, and academics (including physicists) in their community are predominately white/asian.
Look, I'm not trying to start a flame war or overgeneralize a point that admittedly isn't true in all cases. But it's really hard for me to see how someone can argue that there isn't an effect on children pertaining to the density of relate-able mentors they can interact with. Maybe it's because I've been exposed to both sides (I taught in a predominately black neighborhood, while I grew up next to a DOE/NIH laboratory).
What I was thinking, but I just let people be their own experts on their anecdotes. I just stop arguing.Dorian_Mode wrote:Really? No one you know was influenced by someone in their personal life? I honestly don't believe that.
Yes, really.Dorian_Mode wrote:Really? No one you know was influenced by someone in their personal life? I honestly don't believe that.
The only way that could be true is if you have 0 friends. Do you have 0 friends?twistor wrote:Yes, really.Dorian_Mode wrote:Really? No one you know was influenced by someone in their personal life? I honestly don't believe that.
Well, this is the internet.HappyQuark wrote:The only way that could be true is if you have 0 friends. Do you have 0 friends?twistor wrote:Yes, really.Dorian_Mode wrote:Really? No one you know was influenced by someone in their personal life? I honestly don't believe that.