Connect with us

Business

Column: Is UCLA 'a failed medical school'? Debunking a dumb right-wing meme

Published

on

Column: Is UCLA 'a failed medical school'? Debunking a dumb right-wing meme

The right-wing and Republican project to eradicate diversity and inclusiveness from American society has become more absurd with every passing day, but it will be hard for anyone to produce a more vapid and fatuous effort than a recent article labeling UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine as a “failed medical school.”

The reason for that label, according to the right-wing Washington Free Beacon, which published the article, is that UCLA has “prioritized diversity over merit, resulting in progressively less qualified classes that are now struggling to succeed.”

To its perverse credit, the Beacon doesn’t conceal the racist import of its claims; on the contrary, it announces it outright, citing the school’s “race-based admissions” and quoting one of its anonymous sources (there is no other category) as saying, “We want diversity so badly, we’re willing to cut corners to get it.”

We’re not backing off from diversity, equity and inclusion in our medical school curricula. It’s really intended to train the next generation of physicians to respond appropriately to a rapid growth in diversity.


Steven Dubinett, dean, UCLA School of Medicine

Advertisement

An admissions officer is quoted anonymously as grousing, “All the normal criteria for getting into medical school only apply to people of certain races. For other people, those criteria are completely disregarded.”

The article purports to rely on complaints from eight of the school’s faculty members. The medical school’s full-time faculty numbers more than 2,000, with an additional 2,000 to 2,500 part-timers or adjuncts. That should give you a clue to how deeply the Beacon delved into the facts before issuing its eye-catching conclusion.

But that’s only one aspect of a piece that trips over its supposed “facts” at almost every turn, openly cherry-picks data to confirm its biases, and treats every factoid as an artifact of the quest for diversity. Its author doesn’t even appear to understand the difference between the student admissions process and the process of accepting residents, who are medical school graduates, many if not most of whom received their medical education elsewhere.

Advertisement

“I consider it to be fact-free,” Steven M. Dubinett, the school’s dean, told me about the Beacon article. He’s being kind.

Before delving into the article itself, a few words abut the Washington Free Beacon. The Beacon was founded in 2012 with funding from, among other conservatives, hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer. Its first editor was co-founder Matthew Continetti, who is a son-in-law of conservative pundit Bill Kristol.

The Beacon’s driving impulse appears to be “owning the libs,” as shown by its preening over its role in advancing the criticism of former Harvard President Claudine Gay for what many in the academic community regard as trivial cases of plagiarism.

That scandal-mongering was basically the handiwork of right-wing attack dog Christopher Rufo, who carried the theme further by accusing other Harvard figures of plagiarism; curiously, as the Harvard Crimson notes, they were all Black women, like Gay.

The Beacon’s tone was described as “puckish” by a Washington Post writer who apparently doesn’t know what “puckish” means; he praised it in the same article as standing a hair above other right-wing websites, which strikes me as a bit like trying to identify the best “Sharknado” movie. The basis of his praise was that the Beacon “does significant reporting of its own.” But if “significant” means “cogent,” that quality isn’t much in evidence in the article about UCLA.

Advertisement

So let’s pick up our endoscopes and take a look inside.

The main target of the article is Jennifer Lucero, who became associate dean for admissions in June 2020. The article posits that her arrival in that post, and her focus on diversity, led to a precipitous drop in the quality of incoming students. More on that in a moment.

The article’s empirical assertions, such as they are, start with the annual medical school rankings of U.S. News and World Report. These have been controversial for years, in part because their methodology is suspect. As a result, many of the top-ranked schools have stopped cooperating with them, though the University of California still participates.

The article’s author, Aaron Sibarium, wrings his hands over the fact that UCLA’s ranking in “research” has fallen to 18th from sixth place in just the first three years after Lucero’s arrival.

Couple of problems there. One is that research ranking tracks the activities of faculty members, not students. It has nothing to do with the record of the incoming class. Dubinett says that one reason UCLA may have fallen in the rankings is that it has assigned more faculty to clinical education rather than research, so the grant level per faculty has naturally declined.

Advertisement

But that’s not the only measure of research quality. Consider the grant approvals by the National Institutes of Health, the nation’s leading source of public grants in medicine. UC as a whole has consistently been a top recipient of NIH grants — ranking first in the nation since at least 2000 and probably for much longer than that. For most of that period, UCLA has been the second-largest recipient among UC campuses behind the research powerhouse of UC San Francisco.

From 2010 through 2019 and again in 2022 UCLA fell to third behind UCSF and narrowly behind UC San Diego, but for three of the four years of Lucero’s tenure it’s been second. There’s no sign there of a decline in research stature.

Sibarium, who did not respond to a request for comment, deserves an F in that category but an A for cherry-picking. On the other metric that U.S. News uses consistently, primary care, UCLA has risen in rank since 2020, to 10th in the nation from 11th. And in other categories, the school’s ranking has risen since 2020 — for example to seventh from 10th in internal medicine and sixth from 12th in pediatrics.

Sibarium’s other “gotcha” concerns the UCLA students’ records on shelf exams, which are given after each clinical rotation. He asserts that their failure rates have risen precipitously during the Lucero era: “As the demographics of UCLA have changed,” he writes, “the number of students failing their shelf exams has soared.” He quotes a professor, anonymously, saying, “Faculty are seeing a shocking decline in knowledge of medical students.”

But as he acknowledges, UCLA dramatically changed its academic schedule in 2020. Along with many other top schools, it moved students out of the classroom in the second of their four years of education, instead of waiting for the third. That deprived students of a full year of clinical training before they took the shelf, so of course they did worse. But the official chart illustrating Sibarium’s article shows that the failure rate on most clinical specialties has fallen as the students progressed from Year 2 to Year 3.

Advertisement

“The challenge of moving the exams earlier has been written about,” Dubinett says. But the trend lines show that by the end of their third year, well more than 90% of UCLA’s students are passing the shelf exams in almost every clinical discipline.

The Beacon’s brief against Lucero is tied to its evident resentment of diversity programs. Sibarium points to a required first-year course titled “Structural Racism and Health Equity,” which comprises “three to four hours every other week,” as though a twice-monthly course is supposed to be an unsupportable burden to medical students.

Is there a point to that sort of training? Of course there is: “We’re cognizant that more than 80% of health is based on social determinants,” Dubinett says, pointing out that the phenomenon was very much on display in racial and ethnic disparities in treatment and outcomes during the pandemic.

“These inequities result, in large part, from racial and ethnic minority populations’ inequitable access to health care, which persists because of structural racism in health care policy,” according to a 2022 paper in Health Affairs.

“We’re not backing off from diversity, equity and inclusion in our medical school curricula,” Dubinett says. “It’s really intended to train the next generation of physicians to respond appropriately to a rapid growth in diversity.” In few other places are the impacts of inattention to social conditions more evident than in Los Angeles, he says. “We can look no further than what’s outside our front door — if I drive 15 minutes to the south from my office, life expectancy falls by 15 years.”

Advertisement

The Beacon even states that diversity efforts at UCLA may be illegal or unconstitutional, since the state’s voters outlawed racial preferences at public institutions in 1996 and the U.S. Supreme Court overturned them nationwide last year.

To support this absurd claim, Sibarium turns to Adam Mortara, the lawyer who represented the plaintiffs in the Supreme Court case. Asking for information about an applicant’s race when “no lawful use can be made of it” is “presumptively illegal,” Mortara said. He added, “You can’t have evidence of overt discrimination like this and not have someone come forward” as a plaintiff.

The problem here is that there’s no evidence that the medical school has applied racial or ethnic standards to its applicants. Sibarium admits as much: The application committee “for students does not see the race or ethnicity of applicants,” he writes. So where’s the beef?

Sibarium insinuates that Lucero has exercised undue influence over residency acceptances. But he finds that she’s a member of the hiring committee only for anesthesia residents (anesthesia is Lucero’s medical specialty). Couple of issues here. One is that almost no one gets hired for a medical residency anywhere without an interview, either in person or by zoom, which is designed to give the committee a holistic sense of the applicants’ character and personality, not just their test scores.

Another is that by the author’s own admission, Lucero hasn’t been especially effective in instituting diversity tests for anesthesia residents. He cites one case in which she advocated that a white candidate be ranked downward and another in which she “insisted that a Hispanic applicant who had performed poorly on her anesthesiology rotation in medical school should be bumped up.” As it happened, he reports, “neither candidate was ultimately moved.”

Advertisement

(As for a case Sibarium mentions in which Lucero supposedly pushed to admit a Black student whose grades and test scores were below the UCLA average, he doesn’t say whether the student was admitted.)

It’s true that the UCLA entering medical school class has become more diverse over time. Figures issued by UCLA and published by the Beacon show that from 2019 through 2022, the number of whites in the 173-member class declined to 46 from 49, the number of Black students rose to 25 from 22, Hispanic students rose from 25 to 37, a catchall “other” category grew to 20 from eight, and American Indians, Hawaiians and other Pacific Islanders went from zero to three. The number of Asian students declined to 55 from 84.

Does this validate the article’s claim, voiced by an anonymous source, that “a third to a half of the medical school is incredibly unqualified”?

The math doesn’t pencil out. As blogger and statistics maven Kevin Drum notes, given that the number of nonwhite and non-Asian students increased by only 30 ion three years, even if “every single one of these students was woefully unqualified, that’s about 17% of the class. How do you get from there to ‘a third to a half’?”

By the way, the median grade point averages and scores on the Medical College Admission Test of accepted applicants haven’t declined at all since 2020 — the MCAT average in 2023 was the same as in 2020, and the GPA rose by a hair.

Advertisement

In emails to the medical school class, Dubinett and his fellow deans have reinforced their commitment to merit-based admissions and diversity training. “Students and faculty members are held to the highest standards of academic excellence,” they wrote. “Highly qualified medical students and trainees are admitted … based on merit in a process consistent with state and federal law.” That said, “we are enriched by the diverse experiences each of you brings to our community.”

UCLA, then, is standing firm against the right wing’s drive to pretend that racial and ethnic discrimination doesn’t exist in our society and to undermine efforts to wipe it out. Would that more institutions took that stand, instead of capitulating to a dishonest, braying mob.

Business

Trump orders federal agencies to stop using Anthropic’s AI after clash with Pentagon

Published

on

Trump orders federal agencies to stop using Anthropic’s AI after clash with Pentagon

President Trump on Friday directed federal agencies to stop using technology from San Francisco artificial intelligence company Anthropic, escalating a high-profile clash between the AI startup and the Pentagon over safety.

In a Friday post on the social media site Truth Social, Trump described the company as “radical left” and “woke.”

“We don’t need it, we don’t want it, and will not do business with them again!” Trump said.

The president’s harsh words mark a major escalation in the ongoing battle between some in the Trump administration and several technology companies over the use of artificial intelligence in defense tech.

Anthropic has been sparring with the Pentagon, which had threatened to end its $200-million contract with the company on Friday if it didn’t loosen restrictions on its AI model so it could be used for more military purposes. Anthropic had been asking for more guarantees that its tech wouldn’t be used for surveillance of Americans or autonomous weapons.

Advertisement

The tussle could hobble Anthropic’s business with the government. The Trump administration said the company was added to a sweeping national security blacklist, ordering federal agencies to immediately discontinue use of its products and barring any government contractors from maintaining ties with it.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who met with Anthropic’s Chief Executive Dario Amodei this week, criticized the tech company after Trump’s Truth Social post.

“Anthropic delivered a master class in arrogance and betrayal as well as a textbook case of how not to do business with the United States Government or the Pentagon,” he wrote Friday on social media site X.

Anthropic didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Anthropic announced a two-year agreement with the Department of Defense in July to “prototype frontier AI capabilities that advance U.S. national security.”

Advertisement

The company has an AI chatbot called Claude, but it also built a custom AI system for U.S. national security customers.

On Thursday, Amodei signaled the company wouldn’t cave to the Department of Defense’s demands to loosen safety restrictions on its AI models.

The government has emphasized in negotiations that it wants to use Anthropic’s technology only for legal purposes, and the safeguards Anthropic wants are already covered by the law.

Still, Amodei was worried about Washington’s commitment.

“We have never raised objections to particular military operations nor attempted to limit use of our technology in an ad hoc manner,” he said in a blog post. “However, in a narrow set of cases, we believe AI can undermine, rather than defend, democratic values.”

Advertisement

Tech workers have backed Anthropic’s stance.

Unions and worker groups representing 700,000 employees at Amazon, Google and Microsoft said this week in a joint statement that they’re urging their employers to reject these demands as well if they have additional contracts with the Pentagon.

“Our employers are already complicit in providing their technologies to power mass atrocities and war crimes; capitulating to the Pentagon’s intimidation will only further implicate our labor in violence and repression,” the statement said.

Anthropic’s standoff with the U.S. government could benefit its competitors, such as Elon Musk’s xAI or OpenAI.

Sam Altman, chief executive of OpenAI, the company behind ChatGPT and one of Anthropic’s biggest competitors, told CNBC in an interview that he trusts Anthropic.

Advertisement

“I think they really do care about safety, and I’ve been happy that they’ve been supporting our war fighters,” he said. “I’m not sure where this is going to go.”

Anthropic has distinguished itself from its rivals by touting its concern about AI safety.

The company, valued at roughly $380 billion, is legally required to balance making money with advancing the company’s public benefit of “responsible development and maintenance of advanced AI for the long-term benefit of humanity.”

Developers, businesses, government agencies and other organizations use Anthropic’s tools. Its chatbot can generate code, write text and perform other tasks. Anthropic also offers an AI assistant for consumers and makes money from paid subscriptions as well as contracts. Unlike OpenAI, which is testing ads in ChatGPT, Anthropic has pledged not to show ads in its chatbot Claude.

The company has roughly 2,000 employees and has revenue equivalent to about $14 billion a year.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

Video: The Web of Companies Owned by Elon Musk

Published

on

Video: The Web of Companies Owned by Elon Musk

new video loaded: The Web of Companies Owned by Elon Musk

In mapping out Elon Musk’s wealth, our investigation found that Mr. Musk is behind more than 90 companies in Texas. Kirsten Grind, a New York Times Investigations reporter, explains what her team found.

By Kirsten Grind, Melanie Bencosme, James Surdam and Sean Havey

February 27, 2026

Continue Reading

Business

Commentary: How Trump helped foreign markets outperform U.S. stocks during his first year in office

Published

on

Commentary: How Trump helped foreign markets outperform U.S. stocks during his first year in office

Trump has crowed about the gains in the U.S. stock market during his term, but in 2025 investors saw more opportunity in the rest of the world.

If you’re a stock market investor you might be feeling pretty good about how your portfolio of U.S. equities fared in the first year of President Trump’s term.

All the major market indices seemed to be firing on all cylinders, with the Standard & Poor’s 500 index gaining 17.9% through the full year.

But if you’re the type of investor who looks for things to regret, pay no attention to the rest of the world’s stock markets. That’s because overseas markets did better than the U.S. market in 2025 — a lot better. The MSCI World ex-USA index — that is, all the stock markets except the U.S. — gained more than 32% last year, nearly double the percentage gains of U.S. markets.

That’s a major departure from recent trends. Since 2013, the MSCI US index had bested the non-U.S. index every year except 2017 and 2022, sometimes by a wide margin — in 2024, for instance, the U.S. index gained 24.6%, while non-U.S. markets gained only 4.7%.

Advertisement

The Trump trade is dead. Long live the anti-Trump trade.

— Katie Martin, Financial Times

Broken down into individual country markets (also by MSCI indices), in 2025 the U.S. ranked 21st out of 23 developed markets, with only New Zealand and Denmark doing worse. Leading the pack were Austria and Spain, with 86% gains, but superior records were turned in by Finland, Ireland and Hong Kong, with gains of 50% or more; and the Netherlands, Norway, Britain and Japan, with gains of 40% or more.

Investment analysts cite several factors to explain this trend. Judging by traditional metrics such as price/earnings multiples, the U.S. markets have been much more expensive than those in the rest of the world. Indeed, they’re historically expensive. The Standard & Poor’s 500 index traded in 2025 at about 23 times expected corporate earnings; the historical average is 18 times earnings.

Advertisement

Investment managers also have become nervous about the concentration of market gains within the U.S. technology sector, especially in companies associated with artificial intelligence R&D. Fears that AI is an investment bubble that could take down the S&P’s highest fliers have investors looking elsewhere for returns.

But one factor recurs in almost all the market analyses tracking relative performance by U.S. and non-U.S. markets: Donald Trump.

Investors started 2025 with optimism about Trump’s influence on trading opportunities, given his apparent commitment to deregulation and his braggadocio about America’s dominant position in the world and his determination to preserve, even increase it.

That hasn’t been the case for months.

”The Trump trade is dead. Long live the anti-Trump trade,” Katie Martin of the Financial Times wrote this week. “Wherever you look in financial markets, you see signs that global investors are going out of their way to avoid Donald Trump’s America.”

Advertisement

Two Trump policy initiatives are commonly cited by wary investment experts. One, of course, is Trump’s on-and-off tariffs, which have left investors with little ability to assess international trade flows. The Supreme Court’s invalidation of most Trump tariffs and the bellicosity of his response, which included the immediate imposition of new 10% tariffs across the board and the threat to increase them to 15%, have done nothing to settle investors’ nerves.

Then there’s Trump’s driving down the value of the dollar through his agitation for lower interest rates, among other policies. For overseas investors, a weaker dollar makes U.S. assets more expensive relative to the outside world.

It would be one thing if trade flows and the dollar’s value reflected economic conditions that investors could themselves parse in creating a picture of investment opportunities. That’s not the case just now. “The current uncertainty is entirely man-made (largely by one orange-hued man in particular) but could well continue at least until the US mid-term elections in November,” Sam Burns of Mill Street Research wrote on Dec. 29.

Trump hasn’t been shy about trumpeting U.S. stock market gains as emblems of his policy wisdom. “The stock market has set 53 all-time record highs since the election,” he said in his State of the Union address Tuesday. “Think of that, one year, boosting pensions, 401(k)s and retirement accounts for the millions and the millions of Americans.”

Trump asserted: “Since I took office, the typical 401(k) balance is up by at least $30,000. That’s a lot of money. … Because the stock market has done so well, setting all those records, your 401(k)s are way up.”

Advertisement

Trump’s figure doesn’t conform to findings by retirement professionals such as the 401(k) overseers at Bank of America. They reported that the average account balance grew by only about $13,000 in 2025. I asked the White House for the source of Trump’s claim, but haven’t heard back.

Interpreting stock market returns as snapshots of the economy is a mug’s game. Despite that, at her recent appearance before a House committee, Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi tried to deflect questions about her handling of the Jeffrey Epstein records by crowing about it.

“The Dow is over 50,000 right now, she declared. “Americans’ 401(k)s and retirement savings are booming. That’s what we should be talking about.”

I predicted that the administration would use the Dow industrial average’s break above 50,000 to assert that “the overall economy is firing on all cylinders, thanks to his policies.” The Dow reached that mark on Feb. 6. But Feb. 11, the day of Bondi’s testimony, was the last day the index closed above 50,000. On Thursday, it closed at 49,499.50, or about 1.4% below its Feb. 10 peak close of 50,188.14.

To use a metric suggested by economist Justin Wolfers of the University of Michigan, if you invested $48,488 in the Dow on the day Trump took office last year, when the Dow closed at 48,448 points, you would have had $50,000 on Feb. 6. That’s a gain of about 3.2%. But if you had invested the same amount in the global stock market not including the U.S. (based on the MSCI World ex-USA index), on that same day you would have had nearly $60,000. That’s a gain of nearly 24%.

Advertisement

Broader market indices tell essentially the same story. From Jan. 17, 2025, the last day before Trump’s inauguration, through Thursday’s close, the MSCI US stock index gained a cumulative 16.3%. But the world index minus the U.S. gained nearly 42%.

The gulf between U.S. and non-U.S. performance has continued into the current year. The S&P 500 has gained about 0.74% this year through Wednesday, while the MSCI World ex-USA index has gained about 8.9%. That’s “the best start for a calendar year for global stocks relative to the S&P 500 going back to at least 1996,” Morningstar reports.

It wouldn’t be unusual for the discrepancy between the U.S. and global markets to shrink or even reverse itself over the course of this year.

That’s what happened in 2017, when overseas markets as tracked by MSCI beat the U.S. by more than three percentage points, and 2022, when global markets lost money but U.S. markets underperformed the rest of the world by more than five percentage points.

Economic conditions change, and often the stock markets march to their own drummers. The one thing less likely to change is that Trump is set to remain president until Jan. 20, 2029. Make your investment bets accordingly.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending