:) Myth: Minorities’ past records of having lower scores on the MCAT and having lower GPAs reflects their collective lack of cognitive abilities.
False:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11302036&query_hl=10
Do underrepresented minority medical students differ from non-minority students in problem-solving ability?

BACKGROUND: In medical education, examinations must assess a logical progression toward problem-solving skills. Differences in cognitive development between underrepresented minority students (URMs) and non-URMs may affect examination performance and subsequent attrition rates. PURPOSE: The authors investigated URM and non-URM performances by retrospectively analyzing success rates on exam items of differing cognitive demand. METHOD: Mean correct responses to exam items classified as Recall, Interpretation, or Problem-Solving questions were calculated. Both URM and non-URM groups were stratified by grade point average (GPA) and scores on the Medical College Admission Test (MCAT). Differences were investigated with analysis of variance and general linear models. RESULTS: For all students, performance levels decreased as the cognitive demands of the exam items increased. When stratified by GPA and MCAT score, several important differences were found between URM and non-URM performance. CONCLUSIONS: Because cognitive measures fail to account for the majority of performance differences, noncognitive attributes must contribute to the poorer performance of URMs.

:) Myth: Inherent mental capability is the best predictor for who will do well on the MCAT.


There have also been studies that show a strong positive correlation between parental income and MCAT scores.

Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7495461&dopt=Abstract

PURPOSE. To test the hypothesis that family financial status is associated with the academic performance of a medical student. METHOD. The relationships between parental income and mean scores on the Medical College Admission Test (MCAT) and United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 were examined for the students in the 1994 and 1995 graduating classes at the UMDNJ-New Jersey Medical School who had applied for financial aid in 1991 and reported annual parental income. Pearson correlations were used to analyze separately the data for minority and majority students, for men and women, and for the four subgroups by gender and race-ethnicity. RESULTS. The final study cohort consisted of 192 students (55% of all students). Significant positive correlations were found between the (1) MCAT and USMLE Step 1 for the women, men, majority, and minority students, (2) MCAT and parental income for the subgroups of majority men and minority women, and (3) USMLE Step 1 and parental income for the subgroup of minority women. CONCLUSION. Parental income was correlated significantly with performances on the MCAT and USMLE Step 1. These relationships may be particularly strong and persistent for minority women.
Facts: On average, minority applicants come from families of much lower socio-economic status;

Source: http://www.unmc.edu/Community/ruralmeded/admissions_ratios_and_us_med.htm



:) Myth: There have been no studies proving that URMs actually go on to work in underprivileged areas. The “bar” is simply lowered for URMs without any proven results.

Source: http://www.aamc.org/diversity/amicusbrief.pdf

“Minority physicians are more likely to serve minority patients even when controlling for premedical school performance and socio-economic backgrounds”

“Minority patients were over four times more likely to receive care from non-white physicians than were Caucasian patients”

“African American physicians practiced in areas where the percentage of African Americans was nearly five times as high, on average, as in areas where other physicians practiced”

“Although black physicians account for less than 5% of the total US physician workforce, they serve as regular health care providers for 23% of black individuals.”

The article goes on to quote studies that show minorities are more likely than other ethnic groups to go into primary care, serve uninsured populations, give care to individuals using medicade, and (yes) practice in under served areas.

:) Myth: there are FEWER URMs in medicine because under represented minorities are, on average, lazier than non-URMs or because these individuals are afraid they can’t hack it in medical school.

Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14507613&query_hl=16

Against this background, applications by members of racial and ethnic minorities, who represent an increasing fraction of the college age population, become particularly important. The author reports the trends in education, over several decades, by members of the principal racial-ethnic groups-whites, blacks, Hispanics, and Asians-traces their participation from kindergarten through college, and projects the likelihood of their applying to medical school over the next two decades. (A companion article in this issue reports a parallel study from the standpoint of gender.) One prominent observation is the firm link between academic achievement in the earliest grades and success thereafter. A second is the profound influence of parents' education, income, and expectations at each step along the way. Inadequacies in either sphere erode the potential for children to reach college and to do so in ways that predict interest in and capacity for medical school. Yet, even when that potential emerges, inadequate finances deflect qualified high school and college students from the paths that lead to medical education. These factors weigh most heavily on black and Hispanic children, particularly boys, but are prevalent among whites, as well. Without aggressive education in the earliest years and without adequate financial support in the later years, it is not clear that there will be a sufficiently large pool of qualified applicants for the number of medical school seats that must exist in the future.

:) Myth: Considering race and ethnicity compromises physician competence.

Source: http://www.aamc.org/diversity/amicusbrief.pdf

Medical school retention rate for URM students is, on average, 88%. This is the percentage of URMs that pass their required tests and go on to be practicing physicians. Before you note that this percentage is lower than for other groups, consider the fact that there are far fewer minorities in US medical schools than other students. If one minority drops out of medical school, he represents a much larger percentage of the entire class. Conversely, one non-URM student represents a smaller percentage of that ethnic group’s entire population. (i.e. if 1 out of 6 URM drops out of school, the drop out rate for URMs is 17%. If 1 out of 100 non-URM students drops out of medical school, the drop out rate for non-URMs is 1%).
:) Myth: The primary goal of AA in medicine is to give students from disadvantaged backgrounds a “break” on admissions.

Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=13678423&query_hl=32

The consideration of race in medical admissions is not based on the individual, but on the entire US population. There are staggering health disparities that affect those groups that are traditionally under represented in medicine. Admiting more URMs has been the only proven way to directly remedy these disparities.

:) Myth: Programs based on socio-economic status would do better at admitting minorities and those who truly need the help.

Source: http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=13678423

Remember the primary goal of considering race and ethnicity in medicine is to diversify the medical community. No race-neutral factor can effectively substitute for direct consideration of race for admissions. For example, substituting “economic hardship” for race in admissions decisions would not address the pressing need to increase the number of minority physicians being trained in America. Studies confirm that the relationship between a physician’s race or gender and his willingness to care for underserved populations was significantly more pronounced than the relationship between a physician’s socioeconomic background and his commitment to these same groups.

:) Myth: Considering race and ethnicity compromises physician competence.

Source: http://www.aamc.org/diversity/amicusbrief.pdf

Medical school retention rate for URM students is, on average, 88%. This is the percentage of URMs that pass their required tests and go on to be practicing physicians. Before you note that this percentage is lower than for other groups, consider the fact that there are far fewer minorities in US medical schools than other students. If one minority drops out of medical school, he represents a much larger percentage of the entire class. Conversely, one non-URM student represents a smaller percentage of that ethnic group’s entire population. (i.e. if 1 out of 6 URM drops out of school, the drop out rate for URMs is 17%. If 1 out of 100 non-URM students drops out of medical school, the drop out rate for non-URMs is 1%).



What is the retention rate for all students? Do you know?

What is the retention rate for all students? Do you know?
The best estimate I can find is "Over 95%" though I didn't get this from an official/reputable web site. I can't find the statistic on AAMC.org.

Also, here are average level of parental income of applicants by ethnicity:

http://photos-949.facebook.com/n7/565/n37509565_30156949_1289.jpg

This is from the source:
http://www.unmc.edu/Community/ruralmeded/admissions_ratios_and_us_med.htm

I crunched the numbers and african americans (the AAMC data was too segmented for a quick calculation of all URM's) represent approx 15% of med school dropouts when using the 95% overall number.

Im not sure whether this is a high precentage or not. They do comprise 6.5% of matriculants.

http://www.aamc.org/data/facts/2005/2003to2005detmat.htm
Using 2005 data.

:) Myth: Minorities’ past records of having lower scores on the MCAT and having lower GPAs reflects their collective lack of cognitive abilities.
False:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11302036&query_hl=10
Do underrepresented minority medical students differ from non-minority students in problem-solving ability?

BACKGROUND: In medical education, examinations must assess a logical progression toward problem-solving skills. Differences in cognitive development between underrepresented minority students (URMs) and non-URMs may affect examination performance and subsequent attrition rates. PURPOSE: The authors investigated URM and non-URM performances by retrospectively analyzing success rates on exam items of differing cognitive demand. METHOD: Mean correct responses to exam items classified as Recall, Interpretation, or Problem-Solving questions were calculated. Both URM and non-URM groups were stratified by grade point average (GPA) and scores on the Medical College Admission Test (MCAT). Differences were investigated with analysis of variance and general linear models. RESULTS: For all students, performance levels decreased as the cognitive demands of the exam items increased. When stratified by GPA and MCAT score, several important differences were found between URM and non-URM performance. CONCLUSIONS: Because cognitive measures fail to account for the majority of performance differences, noncognitive attributes must contribute to the poorer performance of URMs.

Huh? This doesn't even make sense. "For all students, performance levels decreased as the cognitive demands of the exam items increased." Translation: As problems got harder, students did worse on 'em. - wow, big surprise. "Several important differences were found...", but somehow, the jump has been made to the differences not being caused by intelligence. What were they caused by? No clue, no suggestion. Can you post what they attribute the differences to?

:) Myth: Inherent mental capability is the best predictor for who will do well on the MCAT.


There have also been studies that show a strong positive correlation between parental income and MCAT scores.

Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7495461&dopt=Abstract

PURPOSE. To test the hypothesis that family financial status is associated with the academic performance of a medical student. METHOD. The relationships between parental income and mean scores on the Medical College Admission Test (MCAT) and United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 were examined for the students in the 1994 and 1995 graduating classes at the UMDNJ-New Jersey Medical School who had applied for financial aid in 1991 and reported annual parental income. Pearson correlations were used to analyze separately the data for minority and majority students, for men and women, and for the four subgroups by gender and race-ethnicity. RESULTS. The final study cohort consisted of 192 students (55% of all students). Significant positive correlations were found between the (1) MCAT and USMLE Step 1 for the women, men, majority, and minority students, (2) MCAT and parental income for the subgroups of majority men and minority women, and (3) USMLE Step 1 and parental income for the subgroup of minority women. CONCLUSION. Parental income was correlated significantly with performances on the MCAT and USMLE Step 1. These relationships may be particularly strong and persistent for minority women.
Facts: On average, minority applicants come from families of much lower socio-economic status;

Source: http://www.unmc.edu/Community/ruralmeded/admissions_ratios_and_us_med.htm

I don't really have any objection to this. Your parents have more money, you're more likely to get a strong education, you're more likely to have a lot of books at home, you're more likely to get intellectual stimulation from parents, and you're more likely to have parents who can give good advice on pre-professional preparation, having gone through something similar and/or had friends who went through something similar.


:) Myth: There have been no studies proving that URMs actually go on to work in underprivileged areas. The “bar” is simply lowered for URMs without any proven results.

Source: http://www.aamc.org/diversity/amicusbrief.pdf

Quote snipped for space.

This is a good point, I'm glad to see documentation of that.

:) Myth: there are FEWER URMs in medicine because under represented minorities are, on average, lazier than non-URMs or because these individuals are afraid they can’t hack it in medical school.

Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14507613&query_hl=16

Quote snipped for space.


:) Myth: Considering race and ethnicity compromises physician competence.

Source: http://www.aamc.org/diversity/amicusbrief.pdf

Medical school retention rate for URM students is, on average, 88%. This is the percentage of URMs that pass their required tests and go on to be practicing physicians. Before you note that this percentage is lower than for other groups, consider the fact that there are far fewer minorities in US medical schools than other students. If one minority drops out of medical school, he represents a much larger percentage of the entire class. Conversely, one non-URM student represents a smaller percentage of that ethnic group’s entire population. (i.e. if 1 out of 6 URM drops out of school, the drop out rate for URMs is 17%. If 1 out of 100 non-URM students drops out of medical school, the drop out rate for non-URMs is 1%).
:) Myth: The primary goal of AA in medicine is to give students from disadvantaged backgrounds a “break” on admissions.

Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=13678423&query_hl=32

The consideration of race in medical admissions is not based on the individual, but on the entire US population. There are staggering health disparities that affect those groups that are traditionally under represented in medicine. Admiting more URMs has been the only proven way to directly remedy these disparities.

Just because the group is smaller, somehow that 88% contrasted to a 95% isn't valid? Wow. That's a leap of logic.


:) Myth: Programs based on socio-economic status would do better at admitting minorities and those who truly need the help.

Source: http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=13678423

Remember the primary goal of considering race and ethnicity in medicine is to diversify the medical community. No race-neutral factor can effectively substitute for direct consideration of race for admissions. For example, substituting “economic hardship” for race in admissions decisions would not address the pressing need to increase the number of minority physicians being trained in America. Studies confirm that the relationship between a physician’s race or gender and his willingness to care for underserved populations was significantly more pronounced than the relationship between a physician’s socioeconomic background and his commitment to these same groups.

This is the ultimate one to me. This is where it gets tricky and people get mad, so bear with me.

What is the advantage given to URMs, if any? Students with lower numbers are admitted to medical school. Can every student who is qualified go to med school? In other words, does every student with numbers higher than the student with the lowest numbers (who could be any race, but there is always a student with the lowest numbers in every school) get in? No. So every student who gets in with lower numbers bumps one student with higher numbers out.

Ok, so the point is to:

1. Diversify the class
2. Help underserved communities get medical care

My thoughts are:

1. Every person is totally unique. I'm different than everyone else. Any class that I'm in is gaining diversity. This isn't because I'm part German, part English, part Creek, and part Cherokee. It's for a million reasons. Every minute of every day for the 32 years prior to me entering school, I went my own way, learned my own things, met different people and I'm bringing that all with me to the first day of class. How can you diversify it more? Is it just about color? If so, how is that better than what we're trying to correct. It's not about color except when it is?

2. There are other ways to do this that don't have costs to other applicants. Fund these positions so it is economically attractive to work in those areas. Why should qualified applicants bear the burden for the underserved to receive care? If we as a nation believe that's important, it's up to us to pay the cost, not to demand it out of our pre-medical students.

Remember the primary goal of considering race and ethnicity in medicine is to diversify the medical community. No race-neutral factor can effectively substitute for direct consideration of race for admissions. For example, substituting “economic hardship” for race in admissions decisions would not address the pressing need to increase the number of minority physicians being trained in America. Studies confirm that the relationship between a physician’s race or gender and his willingness to care for underserved populations was significantly more pronounced than the relationship between a physician’s socioeconomic background and his commitment to these same groups.
In other words, racism is good as long as you feel warm and fluffy when you get done with it.

Huh? This doesn't even make sense. "For all students, performance levels decreased as the cognitive demands of the exam items increased." Translation: As problems got harder, students did worse on 'em. - wow, big surprise. "Several important differences were found...", but somehow, the jump has been made to the differences not being caused by intelligence. What were they caused by? No clue, no suggestion. Can you post what they attribute the differences to?

If you look further down, there is information on why URMs tend to score lower on the MCAT (educational differences, socioeconomic status, etc.) but I guess i'll post another link. While the summary is a bit ambiguous, I'm not going to buy the full study to satisfy your curiosity.

Source: http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=13678423

Disadvantages in early education contribute to minorities' low test scores. Many educators believe a host of interconnected factors are responsible for such a disadvantage including poorly equipped schools (i.e. computers, activities, after school programs, test preparation), fewer competent instructors, stereotypically lowered expectations of teachers of minority students and minority students themselves, and the lack of domestic and social support [11]. Although low income level is an additional factor, minority students from middle-class families have been shown to have lower academic achievement as a measured by GPA and SAT scores than whites and Asians [13,14]. Such evidence of disparity between minority and non-minority groups reveal the immense social, educational, cultural, and economic forces still operating along racial lines in this country.




Just because the group is smaller, somehow that 88% contrasted to a 95% isn't valid? Wow. That's a leap of logic.

Why is that? If medical school classes are only 6% African American (for example) your sample size skewes the statistical representation. Comparing a larger sample size to a smaller sample size is unfair in this case for the reasons I've stated above. For example, UT Houston has 4 African Americans in their current MS1 class. If you measured the drop out rate at graduation and compared it to the drop out rate of non-blacks, one person could make a HUGE statistical difference. Say 6 non URMs out of 200 drop out while only one out of four African Americans drops out. The drop out rate for non-blacks is 3% while the drop out rate for African Americans is 25%. I'm just saying that, considering the much smaller population of URMs in medicine, 88% is not a bad retention rate.




This is the ultimate one to me. This is where it gets tricky and people get mad, so bear with me.

What is the advantage given to URMs, if any? Students with lower numbers are admitted to medical school. Can every student who is qualified go to med school? In other words, does every student with numbers higher than the student with the lowest numbers (who could be any race, but there is always a student with the lowest numbers in every school) get in? No. So every student who gets in with lower numbers bumps one student with higher numbers out.

Ok, so the point is to:

1. Diversify the class
2. Help underserved communities get medical care

My thoughts are:

1. Every person is totally unique. I'm different than everyone else. Any class that I'm in is gaining diversity. This isn't because I'm part German, part English, part Creek, and part Cherokee. It's for a million reasons. Every minute of every day for the 32 years prior to me entering school, I went my own way, learned my own things, met different people and I'm bringing that all with me to the first day of class. How can you diversify it more? Is it just about color? If so, how is that better than what we're trying to correct. It's not about color except when it is?

2. There are other ways to do this that don't have costs to other applicants. Fund these positions so it is economically attractive to work in those areas. Why should qualified applicants bear the burden for the underserved to receive care? If we as a nation believe that's important, it's up to us to pay the cost, not to demand it out of our pre-medical students.

I'm sure this is what you think, and that's fine, but you didn't do any studies to test your hypothesis. I'm not using my words here, this information was gathered from studies performed by the AAMC. Apparently diversity of experience does not serve the US population to the same extent that ethnic diversity does. Furthermore, how do you define "qualified"? Consider this: If we, as a nation, are in dire need of producing more ethnically diverse physicians, why isn't ethnic diversity a qualification? I.E. Considering the current demands of the medical community, being an under represented minority makes one inherently more qualified. I'll give a tangible example: The population of Hispanic Americans is quickly increasing in America. Because of this, there is a growing need for Spanish speaking physicians. While anyone can learn Spanish, those who are most qualified to speak comfortably with native speakers are those who come from Spanish speaking homes (i.e. Hispanic physicians). In this way, a Hispanic applicant is more qualified to serve populations that have limited access to health care. The point is, someone has to get the spot so choosing applicants who will do best for our Nation is the first priority in admissions. No one "robbed" ORMs of "their spots". People aren't penalized for not being URM in admissions.

With regard to the bolded print:
The truth is there are fewer spaces in medical school than there are qualified applicants. Completely unqualified minorities do not get into medical schools—certainly not at prestigious institutions. By your reasoning, every individual who gets into medical school costs another “his spot”. If I didn’t get in this year I could just as easily say, “Some Asian applicant took my spot. Why are so many ORMs accepted anyway? I’m more qualified because more URMs are needed in medicine.” Also, just because you work in an underserved area for economic incentive does not mean you are the best physician to serve this population. If you are a practicing physician in an urban area, you are never required to give health care to those who can’t afford it. In the study on diversity that I quoted above, it shows that URMs are more likely to provide health care to the uninsured. Besides there are other benefits to having URM doctors work with URM patients including minority patient satisfaction and the biomedical research promoted by minorities. You can read about these specific benefits at:

http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=13678423

Under the heading: “Affirmative Action Minimizes Heath Disparities”

In other words, racism is good as long as you feel warm and fluffy when you get done with it.
Hey, I didn't say it. The AAMC did.

Besides, I really did my research on this one. You could at least be courteous enough to respond with something better than this.

I don't feel like searching, so tell me: I come from an awful place with very little educational resources (see: money, support). I also want to provide health care to underserved areas and even uninsured patients in the future. I am Caucasian, however.

If I do score lower than average on the MCAT, am I to be considered above those Caucasians that scored very well? And where do I stand in regard to the URM's that are expected to one day treat underprivileged patients?

Good research, by the way.

I don't feel like searching, so tell me: I come from an awful place with very little educational resources (see: money, support). I also want to provide health care to underserved areas and even uninsured patients in the future. I am Caucasian, however.

If I do score lower than average on the MCAT, am I to be considered above those Caucasians that scored very well? And where do I stand in regard to the URM's that are expected to one day treat underprivileged patients?

Good research, by the way.
You can apply as a disadvantaged applicant and talk about your commitment to underserved populations in your essays. I know schools take this information into consideration during the admissions process. Are you from a rural area or an urban area? Many schools hope to increase the number of physicians who pursue rural medicine; your application would probably be most compelling at these schools.

What is the advantage given to URMs, if any? Students with lower numbers are admitted to medical school. Can every student who is qualified go to med school? In other words, does every student with numbers higher than the student with the lowest numbers (who could be any race, but there is always a student with the lowest numbers in every school) get in? No. So every student who gets in with lower numbers bumps one student with higher numbers out.

Ok, so the point is to:

1. Diversify the class
2. Help underserved communities get medical care

My thoughts are:

1. Every person is totally unique. I'm different than everyone else. Any class that I'm in is gaining diversity. This isn't because I'm part German, part English, part Creek, and part Cherokee. It's for a million reasons. Every minute of every day for the 32 years prior to me entering school, I went my own way, learned my own things, met different people and I'm bringing that all with me to the first day of class. How can you diversify it more? Is it just about color? If so, how is that better than what we're trying to correct. It's not about color except when it is?Numbers are not everything, as we well know.

One false assumption many people make is that simply being from a URM group indicates that one is truly capable of enhancing the medical community in a unique way. What URMs ideally would bring into the profession would be perspective that they would share with their peers, and help make everyone overall better providers. When experiences are shared and disseminated, URMs are no longer the only ones in their class who are capable of understanding where URM patients are coming from. This helps the medical community to build a communication bridge, if done correctly. Now, if you take someone from a URM group out of a suburb, they may very well be incapable of diversifying the perspective of the medical community. At the same time, there are craploads of poor kids who grew up in trailer parks that have underrepresented perspectives but are not from a URM group. The system fails to pull in some underrepresented groups and pulls in some individuals from URMs that aren't really diverse in background. Personally, I think affirmative action based systems are a leaky bandage that we use to try and delay treatment for other problems.

There are some services that certain URMs are uniquely capable of. We have a few physicians in my community that are able to reach specific non-english speaking populations because of linguistic capabilities and cultural proficiency.

If you look further down, there is information on why URMs tend to score lower on the MCAT (educational differences, socioeconomic status, etc.) but I guess i'll post another link. While the summary is a bit ambiguous, I'm not going to buy the full study to satisfy your curiosity.

Source: http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=13678423

Disadvantages in early education contribute to minorities' low test scores. Many educators believe a host of interconnected factors are responsible for such a disadvantage including poorly equipped schools (i.e. computers, activities, after school programs, test preparation), fewer competent instructors, stereotypically lowered expectations of teachers of minority students and minority students themselves, and the lack of domestic and social support [11]. Although low income level is an additional factor, minority students from middle-class families have been shown to have lower academic achievement as a measured by GPA and SAT scores than whites and Asians [13,14]. Such evidence of disparity between minority and non-minority groups reveal the immense social, educational, cultural, and economic forces still operating along racial lines in this country.

See, you're mixing your explanations. We shouldn't favor the disadvantaged, because it's really racial diversity that we're seeking, but URMs score lower, because they're disadvantaged. Except those from middle and upper class families, who clearly aren't, but we're going to ignore them, because they don't fit the data.

I don't think URMs are inherently dumb. That would be a funny hypothesis for me to support. I do think that there are cultural issues that discourage academic performance in certain groups and I think those issues, more than anything, need to be addressed.


Why is that? If medical school classes are only 6% African American (for example) your sample size skewes the statistical representation. Comparing a larger sample size to a smaller sample size is unfair in this case for the reasons I've stated above. For example, UT Houston has 4 African Americans in their current MS1 class. If you measured the drop out rate at graduation and compared it to the drop out rate of non-blacks, one person could make a HUGE statistical difference. Say 6 non URMs out of 200 drop out while only one out of four African Americans drops out. The drop out rate for non-blacks is 3% while the drop out rate for African Americans is 25%. I'm just saying that, considering the much smaller population of URMs in medicine, 88% is not a bad retention rate.

Ah, but see the smaller sample size should lead to more variability. Because each person is so important, some years they'll be at 88% and some years they should be at 98%, if their long term performance was the same as the main group. It's not. If they're regularly lower, that's indicative.

I'm sure this is what you think, and that's fine, but you didn't do any studies to test your hypothesis. I'm not using my words here, this information was gathered from studies performed by the AAMC. Apparently diversity of experience does not serve the US population to the same extent that ethnic diversity does. Furthermore, how do you define "qualified"? Consider this: If we, as a nation, are in dire need of producing more ethnically diverse physicians, why isn't ethnic diversity a qualification? I.E. Considering the current demands of the medical community, being an under represented minority makes one inherently more qualified. I'll give a tangible example: The population of Hispanic Americans is quickly increasing in America. Because of this, there is a growing need for Spanish speaking physicians. While anyone can learn Spanish, those who are most qualified to speak comfortably with native speakers are those who come from Spanish speaking homes (i.e. Hispanic physicians). In this way, a Hispanic applicant is more qualified to serve populations that have limited access to health care. The point is, someone has to get the spot so choosing applicants who will do best for our Nation is the first priority in admissions. No one "robbed" ORMs of "their spots". People aren't penalized for not being URM in admissions.

With regard to the bolded print:
The truth is there are fewer spaces in medical school than there are qualified applicants. Completely unqualified minorities do not get into medical schools—certainly not at prestigious institutions. By your reasoning, every individual who gets into medical school costs another “his spot”. If I didn’t get in this year I could just as easily say, “Some Asian applicant took my spot. Why are so many ORMs accepted anyway? I’m more qualified because more URMs are needed in medicine.” Also, just because you work in an underserved area for economic incentive does not mean you are the best physician to serve this population. If you are a practicing physician in an urban area, you are never required to give health care to those who can’t afford it. In the study on diversity that I quoted above, it shows that URMs are more likely to provide health care to the uninsured. Besides there are other benefits to having URM doctors work with URM patients including minority patient satisfaction and the biomedical research promoted by minorities. You can read about these specific benefits at:

http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=13678423

Under the heading: “Affirmative Action Minimizes Heath Disparities”

You're using circular reasoning. We've decided that favoring URMs is the answer, so favoring URMs is right, because...

I'm questioning that basic tenant. I don't believe it's right to look at color as a subsitute for diversity. Color is just one aspect of a person. What about height? What about weight? What about speed? Or strength? They're just physical differences. So what? Or is it the life experiences? I talked about that. I don't favor everyone attending med school being from the country club, but that's not what you're arguing. You're just saying that different shades of skin are the only measure of diversity.

You're right, if you don't get a spot, who knows who took it? If someone with higher numbers took it, though, you lost it due to factors you had the chance to control. That's the difference.

If you give economic incentives to work in certain communities, people will seek out the qualifications. If it requires learning Spanish, if it pays enough, doctors will learn Spanish in order to work there.

As is often said in Iraq, what is the exit plan? How are you going to taper this policy off and start requiring equal numeric qualifications from each group? Is that ever going to happen or is whatever group that doesn't attend med school always going to be favored?

I would agree that color/race/ethnicity/whatever term you want to use is a ****ty surrogate measure of diversity.

As far as giving people financial incentives to work in certain primary care niches, I don't agree with that. Underserved areas usually have fewer resources to pull in providers, making the proposal simply unrealistic. Further, you are never going to get the same quality of interest when you rely on extra pay to get someone to do something, as compared to pulling in people with an inherent interest in that area. Language is not the only competency, either. There are social and cultural competencies that one has to meet to be accepted and trusted as a provider. People need a genuine interest in their patients to become fully competent in any primary care setting. Offering a bonus to serve in these areas makes that ideal less likely to become a reality.

I think it's an interesting double standard that this thread is still here and even has an SMOD posting in it. What's going on? Is the gist of the thing that pro-AA threads are ok, but anti-AA threads are verboten?

I'm ok with this thread, just like I was ok with the last one, but there is definitely no consistency.

See, you're mixing your explanations. We shouldn't favor the disadvantaged, because it's really racial diversity that we're seeking, but URMs score lower, because they're disadvantaged. Except those from middle and upper class families, who clearly aren't, but we're going to ignore them, because they don't fit the data.

No you are mixing your issues. You asked why minorities tend to score lower on standardized tests. I provided an answer and sited a reputable source. Since the specific question had nothing to do with the reason why URMs should be selected over non-URMs, you should not assume this answer serves to explain Affirmative Action.

In medicine, Affirmative Action does not serve to help individuals who are disadvantaged in the application process. It does seek to deliver health care to those who are underserved.

The reason why URMs tend to have lower test scores is directly related to certain educational disparities.

See how these are separate statements that serve different purposes?




Ah, but see the smaller sample size should lead to more variability. Because each person is so important, some years they'll be at 88% and some years they should be at 98%, if their long term performance was the same as the main group. It's not. If they're regularly lower, that's indicative.

The statistic I gave was for the 2003-2004 graduating class. Averaging statistics for graduating classes over the years would produce inaccurate results because many factors have historically effected minority enrollment and retention. The most accurate statistic should be a discrete and current one. Also, if this group regularly represents a small number of medical school students, then each URM regularly counts for more of the class. For instance, African Americans comprise 6% of the medical school population (given 100 students, 6 will be black) if one drops out every year, the retention rate is reduced by 17%. There would have to be a good number of graduating classes with 100% minority retention to produce a 98% retention rate. Surely you see how a higher sample size would yield more forgiving statistics.



You're using circular reasoning. We've decided that favoring URMs is the answer, so favoring URMs is right, because...


I'm not using circular reasoning. Through diligent study of the topic performed by capable institutions, it has been determined that the most effective physician population is one that mirrors the diversity of the general population. Because of this, admissions committees seek to create ethnic diversity in US medical schools. Other methods for creating this racial diversity have been tested, but the best method is racially based Affirmative Action.

I'm questioning that basic tenant. I don't believe it's right to look at color as a subsitute for diversity. Color is just one aspect of a person. What about height? What about weight? What about speed? Or strength? They're just physical differences. So what? Or is it the life experiences? I talked about that. I don't favor everyone attending med school being from the country club, but that's not what you're arguing. You're just saying that different shades of skin are the only measure of diversity.

Why can't you believe that racial and ethnic issues matter in this country? People weren't enslaved and subsequently denied rights because they were too tall or short, too fat or thin, fast runners, exceptionally strong, or had unique life experiences. They were denied rights because of skin color. While I agree that this practice was unfair, it has left scars on our nation. Since the Civil Rights Movement, individuals of all races have gained rights, but not equal footing. The health disparities in certain ethnic populations reflect the scars left by years of racial injustice. Since the heath disparities are related to racial issues, it follows that a direct method for correcting these disparities has to involve race. In the end, it's not an argument over whether or not Affirmative Action is morally correct, it's a question of whether or not it works best to achieve a defined goal. It has been proved time and time again that this answer is yes.

You're right, if you don't get a spot, who knows who took it? If someone with higher numbers took it, though, you lost it due to factors you had the chance to control. That's the difference.

If you give economic incentives to work in certain communities, people will seek out the qualifications. If it requires learning Spanish, if it pays enough, doctors will learn Spanish in order to work there.

First, can we please get over this notion of people having "spots"? There are a limited number of seats in medical school and a large applicant pool. These seats will be filled with individuals who can best serve the US population. I know you can't control your ethnic background, and it's unfortunate that this uncontrolable factor makes a difference in our imperfect society. That being said, there are many other controlable factors that influence whether or not you get in. I know you got in to many Texas schools as an out of state applicant, and you are not URM. If AA made so much of a difference, there would be no such thing as over represented minorities.

There are economic incentives for physicians to enter urban areas and to pursue primary care:
Source:http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/279/17/1403

"There is evidence to indicate that financial incentives influence specialty choice,10 and managed care is providing new economic incentives for young physicians. Between 1985 and 1993, states with the highest penetration by managed care also had the highest rate of growth in primary care physicians' income."

Ethnicity just seems to work better than economic incentive. When it comes down to it, it is cheaper and more effective to admit minority students who want to work with minority populations than to pay groups of different ethnic backgrounds to work in an environment that would be otherwise unfavorable to them.


As is often said in Iraq, what is the exit plan? How are you going to taper this policy off and start requiring equal numeric qualifications from each group? Is that ever going to happen or is whatever group that doesn't attend med school always going to be favored?
I agree that AA is a quick fix to a larger problem, but until there is massive reform of the education and health care systems it will be the most efficient way to produce an adequately diverse physician population.

I think it's an interesting double standard that this thread is still here and even has an SMOD posting in it. What's going on? Is the gist of the thing that pro-AA threads are ok, but anti-AA threads are verboten?

I'm ok with this thread, just like I was ok with the last one, but there is definitely no consistency.
I think the difference is that this thread is aimed at spreading valid information while the last thread was a haven for individuals who "resent URMs" to vent their frustrations. Any thread entitled, "Do you resent (X ethnic group)" is probably inappropriate and offensive.

I have one question: Why did academic institutions take on the responsibility of public policy execution? Why are medical schools concerned about funnelling more doctors into underserved areas? Shouldn't their only concern be to train the best doctors possible, regardless of where they will practice? Leave the politics to the politicians. If it truly is a laudable social goal, then there will be enough public pressure to move government/private healthcare providers to create incentives to practice in underserved areas.

No you are mixing your issues. You asked why minorities tend to score lower on standardized tests. I provided an answer and sited a reputable source. Since the specific question had nothing to do with the reason why URMs should be selected over non-URMs, you should not assume this answer serves to explain Affirmative Action.

In medicine, Affirmative Action does not serve to help individuals who are disadvantaged in the application process. It does seek to deliver health care to those who are underserved.

The reason why URMs tend to have lower test scores is directly related to certain educational disparities.

See how these are separate statements that serve different purposes?

No, not at all. URMs deserve to get in because we create diversity (magically, by our very presence), but the disadvantaged don't add the same diversity. Yet the very reason we aren't able to compete on our own is because we're disadvantaged? Then why not just favor the disadvantaged and recruit minorities? With the cause of the lower scores (as proved by your reference) controlled for, the only thing keeping URMs out of school will be our choices.


The statistic I gave was for the 2003-2004 graduating class. Averaging statistics for graduating classes over the years would produce inaccurate results because many factors have historically effected minority enrollment and retention. The most accurate statistic should be a discrete and current one. Also, if this group regularly represents a small number of medical school students, then each URM regularly counts for more of the class. For instance, African Americans comprise 6% of the medical school population (given 100 students, 6 will be black) if one drops out every year, the retention rate is reduced by 17%. There would have to be a good number of graduating classes with 100% minority retention to produce a 98% retention rate. Surely you see how a higher sample size would yield more forgiving statistics.

No, not at all. It's not like the larger number of people in the non-URM sample guarantees them the good numbers. Each of those people has to compete and succeed on their own, just like the URMs. I would expect the larger sample size to create more consistent numbers, but if the samples were really achieving at the same level, I'd expect the URM grad numbers to fluctuate widely around the mean of the non-URM number. That's not what we're seeing.

Here's the analogy. Flip a coin 10 times. Right down the results. Flip a coin 100 times. Right down the results. That's one "year". Do that ten times. What do you think you'll see? If it was just sample size, that's the same thing you'd see in graduation rate, but it's not!


I'm not using circular reasoning. Through diligent study of the topic performed by capable institutions, it has been determined that the most effective physician population is one that mirrors the diversity of the general population. Because of this, admissions committees seek to create ethnically diversity in US medical schools. Other methods for creating this racial diversity have been tested, but the best method is racially based Affirmative Action.

The research isn't objective. It is circular logic and I'm sorry you can't see that. Other methods for creating racial diversity don't work as well... that presupposes that racial diversity, other wise known as skin color diversity is necessary and not simple human diversity.

Why can't you believe that racial and ethnic issues matter in this country? People weren't enslaved and subsequently denied rights because they were too tall or short, too fat or thin, fast runners, exceptionally strong, or had unique life experiences. They were denied rights because of skin color. While I agree that this practice was unfair, it has left scars on our nation. Since the Civil Rights Movement, individuals of all races have gained rights, but not equal footing. The health disparities in certain ethnic populations reflect the scars left by years of racial injustice. Since the heath disparities are related to racial issues, it follows that a direct method for correcting these disparities has to involve race. In the end, it's not an argument over whether or not Affirmative Action is morally correct, it's a question of whether or not it works best to achieve a defined goal. It has been proved time and time again that this answer is yes.

The defined goal is the start of my problem. Most of the remaining issues stem from that.

First, can we please get over this notion of people having "spots"? There are a limited number of seats in medical school and a large applicant pool. These seats will be filled with individuals who can best serve the US population. I know you can't control your ethnic background, and it's unfortunate that this uncontrolable factor makes a difference in our imperfect society. That being said, there are many other controlable factors that influence whether or not you get in. I know you got in to many Texas schools as an out of state applicant, and you are not URM. If AA made so much of a difference, there would be no such thing as over represented minorities.

There are economic incentives for physicians to enter urban areas and to pursue primary care:
Source:http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/279/17/1403

"There is evidence to indicate that financial incentives influence specialty choice,10 and managed care is providing new economic incentives for young physicians. Between 1985 and 1993, states with the highest penetration by managed care also had the highest rate of growth in primary care physicians' income."

Ethnicity just seems to work better than economic incentive. When it comes down to it, it is cheaper and more effective to admit minority students who want to work with minority populations than to pay groups of different ethnic backgrounds to work in an environment that would be otherwise unfavorable to them.



I agree that AA is a quick fix to a larger problem, but until there is massive reform of the education and health care systems it will be the most efficient way to produce an adequately diverse physician population.

I've been admitted to one TX school so far. I did apply as a URM, since my particular mutt mix is something like German, English, Creek, and Cherokee. The latter two somehow mean more than the fact that I grew up on food stamps, government cheese, and free lunches. It bothers me and I think it needs to be fixed.

It's cheaper? Who bears the cost? And who can make the decision to have someone else bear that cost for them. It makes me mad, like when I heard that Gov. Schwarzeneger (sp?) wanted to fix California's financial problems by taxing the successful Native American groups. Screw honoring treaties, we have a chance to fix our problems by harming a group that nobody cares about... let's do it!

I have one question: Why did academic institutions take on the responsibility of public policy execution? Why are medical schools concerned about funnelling more doctors into underserved areas? Shouldn't their only concern be to train the best doctors possible, regardless of where they will practice? Leave the politics to the politicians. If it truly is a laudable social goal, then there will be enough public pressure to move government/private healthcare providers to create incentives to practice in underserved areas.
This again goes back to your definition of "best qualified physicians"

Also, the AMA has ALWAYS been intricately involved in politics. Medical schools get most of their funding from the NIH and that is a government agency. The government has decided that this is a truly laudable social goal and it has pressured the medical community (including medical schools) to act accordingly. Besides, who cares who decides to fix a problem as long as it gets fixed?

No, not at all. URMs deserve to get in because we create diversity (magically, by our very presence), but the disadvantaged don't add the same diversity. Yet the very reason we aren't able to compete on our own is because we're disadvantaged? Then why not just favor the disadvantaged and recruit minorities? With the cause of the lower scores (as proved by your reference) controlled for, the only thing keeping URMs out of school will be our choices.




No, not at all. It's not like the larger number of people in the non-URM sample guarantees them the good numbers. Each of those people has to compete and succeed on their own, just like the URMs. I would expect the larger sample size to create more consistent numbers, but if the samples were really achieving at the same level, I'd expect the URM grad numbers to fluctuate widely around the mean of the non-URM number. That's not what we're seeing.

Here's the analogy. Flip a coin 10 times. Right down the results. Flip a coin 100 times. Right down the results. That's one "year". Do that ten times. What do you think you'll see? If it was just sample size, that's the same thing you'd see in graduation rate, but it's not!




The research isn't objective. It is circular logic and I'm sorry you can't see that. Other methods for creating racial diversity don't work as well... that presupposes that racial diversity, other wise known as skin color diversity is necessary and not simple human diversity.



The defined goal is the start of my problem. Most of the remaining issues stem from that.



I've been admitted to one TX school so far. I did apply as a URM, since my particular mutt mix is something like German, English, Creek, and Cherokee. The latter two somehow mean more than the fact that I grew up on food stamps, government cheese, and free lunches. It bothers me and I think it needs to be fixed.

It's cheaper? Who bears the cost? And who can make the decision to have someone else bear that cost for them. It makes me mad, like when I heard that Gov. Schwarzeneger (sp?) wanted to fix California's financial problems by taxing the successful Native American groups. Screw honoring treaties, we have a chance to fix our problems by harming a group that nobody cares about... let's do it!

Ok, wait. Let’s simplify. Is your problem that you don't understand why racial diversity is a lucrative goal that should be pursued through Affirmative Action?

Ok, wait. Let’s simplify. Is your problem that you don't understand why racial diversity is a lucrative goal that should be pursued through Affirmative Action?

I'll bite. Why is it that racial diversity, in and of itself, is a goal that should be pursued through Affirmative Action?

I think it's an interesting double standard that this thread is still here and even has an SMOD posting in it. What's going on? Is the gist of the thing that pro-AA threads are ok, but anti-AA threads are verboten?

I'm ok with this thread, just like I was ok with the last one, but there is definitely no consistency.Keep in mind that this forum is located in an academic area, not Everyone, so threads are going to be regulated by academic standards. That means, when TOS violations start flying, they are going to be dealt from a more hands-on approach, as long as the moderators are aware of the violations. Hopefully this will allow for non-flame ridden discussion of topics which would quickly be derailed under Everyone conditions.

Threads aren't going to get closed in any area based on the OP's viewpoint, as long as it is sincere and not offered for the purpose of trolling. Either thread type, for or against AA, is a medium for discussion. Perhaps people are just more likely to complain about or flame in one type of thread versus another. That isn't something any of us can control. This discussion is totally civil, so there is no reason to close it.

I'm not an AA supporter and I am giving my viewpoints. The OP has opened the floor for discussion. That means you can respond in kind, or with a different opinion. Why my being an sMod is relevant, I don't understand.

I'll bite. Why is it that racial diversity, in and of itself, is a goal that should be pursued through Affirmative Action?
Ok, first let’s admit the fact that race matters in this country. When U of H boasts about its amazingly diverse student body, everyone understands the racial/ethnic implications. If we had an SDN meet and I walked into the room, the first thing you would notice is that I’m black. People in the United States of America are not color blind; it makes a difference in how people interact.

That being said, these are reasons why racial diversity alone is favorable necessary especially with regard to physician populations. The information is provided by: http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=13678423

1. Minority Practice in Underserved Areas.
Collectively, diversity in medical education provides enhanced access to health care for underserved populations. Many studies provide evidence that minority physicians are more likely than their non-minority colleagues to practice in underserved and often minority populations [4,10,23,24]. Despite the same insurance, income, and medical conditions, a congressionally commissioned report of the National Institutes of Medicine (NIH) [25] suggests that minorities are often left with fewer diagnostic tests, less sophisticated treatments, and ultimately inferior care. These intolerable racial disparities in medicine can be diminished by diversity of medical practitioners who treat underrepresented minorities, in addition to financial incentives for those who practice in such environments. Minority physicians are more likely to enter primary care specialties, work in underserved and disadvantaged areas, and provide health care to the medically indigent, irrespective of a patient's race or ethnicity, thereby reducing the racial and ethnic health disparities [10].
2. Biomedical Research Promoted by Minorities.
Congress has identified various medical disparities generally on the basis of race that plague our health care system and also acknowledge the contributions of minority medical professionals in combating them. Congress is eliminating the inequalities by allocating scholarship funds and creating programs aimed at disadvantaged and minority individuals in medical and scientific professions (i.e. the Minority Biomedical Research Support Program, one of the largest of its kind instituted by the NIH to increase minority researchers in the field of biomedical sciences). The NIH has even recognized that the momentum of the scientific progression depends upon diverse biomedical investigators [26].
The American research agenda is primarily promoted and investigated by individuals who feel and see the problems they wish to solve. Diversifying the medical (MD) and doctoral (PhD) student pool will only broaden the research foundation of our country, especially areas of public health, biosocial, and medical concerns. Such a workforce will be equipped with the tools necessary to combat the various ailments our country faces, including racial discrimination.
3. Minority Patient Satisfaction.
Studies indicate that minority patients have greater unwillingness to accept physician recommendations or seek medical care than their white counterparts [25]. This predilection may be due to language and cultural barriers [27]; however, in the case of African Americans, a NIH study [25] states that racial preference in their providers may be attributed to the general disbelief in medical professionals that results from racial discrimination and segregated, and ultimately substandard, care for minorities. Though racial preference exists in minority populations for their medical providers, the notion that patients should always have physicians of their own race or that minority medical doctors can only deliver great care to minority patients is foolish. On the contrary, cultural competency should be promoted among all physicians. Consumer choice, especially when it leads to greater patient satisfaction and improved health care, is another reason for diversity and race-conscious programs in medical school admissions.
4. Classroom Diversity Is Favored.
Medical students at Harvard University and the University of California, San Francisco have shown support for affirmative action in admissions as measured by survey [28]. The students expressed that racial diversity enhances their medical education experience, ultimately improving their ability in practicing in an increasing multicultural society and patient body. In addition, the study shows that exposure to diversity contributes to greater tolerance and less discrimination and the ability to comprehend multiple perspectives. A textbook alone cannot adequately teach these vital principles to our physician workforce. Adequate representation among students and faculty is the only real option to successfully integrate such education into the medical school experience and produce "culturally competent" physicians. Also, as previously mentioned, racial preference of minority patients is likely due to language and cultural barriers, and classroom diversity will assistant in bridging the minority patient and physician relationship, irrespective of race or ethnicity, thereby shrinking medical disparities.

Keep in mind that this forum is located in an academic area, not Everyone, so threads are going to be regulated by academic standards. That means, when TOS violations start flying, they are going to be dealt from a more hands-on approach, as long as the moderators are aware of the violations. Hopefully this will allow for non-flame ridden discussion of topics which would quickly be derailed under Everyone conditions.

Threads aren't going to get closed in any area based on the OP's viewpoint, as long as it is sincere and not offered for the purpose of trolling. Either thread type, for or against AA, is a medium for discussion. Perhaps people are just more likely to complain about or flame in one type of thread versus another. That isn't something any of us can control. This discussion is totally civil, so there is no reason to close it.

I'm not an AA supporter and I am giving my viewpoints. The OP has opened the floor for discussion. That means you can respond in kind, or with a different opinion. Why my being an sMod is relevant, I don't understand.

Are you familiar with the background of the other thread? It was going pretty much similiarly to this one, in an academic thread, and was closed because a poster didn't like that it was against her viewpoint and therefore "racist".

I'll PM you more details, but basically this is a huge inconsistency.

Edit: The fact that you're an SMOD is relevant because one of the accusations in the other thread was that it didn't get closed because it wasn't seen. This one is clearly seen, so that is not the reason for the inconsistency.

I DON'T want this one closed, I just want a consistent policy so that one side of the discussion isn't constantly shut down.

Ok, first let’s admit the fact that race matters in this country.I think the request was for you to provide support for the argument that race in and of itself is what matters, not to use that as an assumption and then elaborate on it.

My question to you is this: What is the purpose of AA in your eyes? To provide patients with a more balanced set of providers? To make all racial/ethnic/color groups proportionately represented? Something else entirely?

Ok, wait. Let’s simplify. Is your problem that you don't understand why racial diversity is a lucrative goal that should be pursued through Affirmative Action?

That presupposes that you're right and I'm wrong.

I don't agree that enforced racial diversity is a lucrative (moneymaking) or otherwise admirable goal that should be pursued through discriminatory means.

I think that admissions should be color blind. I don't want it to discriminate based on race or color.

I think that education opportunities for disadvantaged should be encouraged starting prior to grade school. Minorities and the disadvantaged should be recruited, but should have to compete for medical school on an even basis. For there to truly be an even basis, they need a good early education. I think our efforts should be concentrated there.

That presupposes that you're right and I'm wrong.

I don't agree that enforced racial diversity is a lucrative (moneymaking) or otherwise admirable goal that should be pursued through discriminatory means.

I think that admissions should be color blind. I don't want it to discriminate based on race or color.

I think that education opportunities for disadvantaged should be encouraged starting prior to grade school. Minorities and the disadvantaged should be recruited, but should have to compete for medical school on an even basis. For there to truly be an even basis, they need a good early education. I think our efforts should be concentrated there.
Sorry if my wording offended you, I was just trying to get to the basis of our disagreement.

Ultimately, you are correct. In a perfect world, admissions should be color-blind. The long-term solution should be to correct the educational disparities that lead to fewer minority applicants and lower minority test scores. The problem is that we need to start creating diversity now. An ideal system would be one that preserves AA for current use with the understanding that this is an inadequate quick-fix. While AA takes care of the immediate need, efforts should be implemented to correct disparities in our education system. As the number of URM applicants increases and URM test scores also increase, the AA system can be scaled back. Eventually the proper method would phase out the improper one.

Sorry if my wording offended you, I was just trying to get to the basis of our disagreement.

Ultimately, you are correct. In a perfect world, admissions should be color-blind. The long-term solution should be to correct the educational disparities that lead to fewer minority applicants and lower minority test scores. The problem is that we need to start creating diversity now. An ideal system would be one that preserves AA for current use with the understanding that this is an inadequate quick-fix. While AA takes care of the immediate need, efforts should be implemented to correct disparities in our education system. As the number of URM applicants increases and URM test scores also increase, the AA system can be scaled back. Eventually the proper method would phase out the improper one.

What is the incentive? If you can get into med school with a 3.0/25 then you're going to enjoy the extra time. I was unaware of what it took to get into med school the first time, which is a combination of being from a background where me going to college made me the superstar of my family (and getting a 3.25 meant I was keeping my scholarships!) and not investigating, but I know I took the extra time to have a fuller personal life. Why would someone give that up if they didn't have to? In numerous threads you've told ORM applicants to quit whining about AA and just improve their apps. If it's that easy, why not say the same for everyone?

I do agree that your plan is better than our current one, but it needs to have a firm date. It needs to be publicized and all our students need to know when it's going to sunset.

The most important thing and, in my opinion one of the most important things our government could do in general, is to fix the educational problems that make this even conceivable.

Keep in mind that this forum is located in an academic area, not Everyone, so threads are going to be regulated by academic standards. That means, when TOS violations start flying, they are going to be dealt from a more hands-on approach, as long as the moderators are aware of the violations. Hopefully this will allow for non-flame ridden discussion of topics which would quickly be derailed under Everyone conditions.

Threads aren't going to get closed in any area based on the OP's viewpoint, as long as it is sincere and not offered for the purpose of trolling. Either thread type, for or against AA, is a medium for discussion. Perhaps people are just more likely to complain about or flame in one type of thread versus another. That isn't something any of us can control. This discussion is totally civil, so there is no reason to close it.

I'm not an AA supporter and I am giving my viewpoints. The OP has opened the floor for discussion. That means you can respond in kind, or with a different opinion. Why my being an sMod is relevant, I don't understand.


From the other AA thread yesterday:
Moving to the Topics in Healthcare forum for now.

Some reminders:

If want to discuss Affirmative Action, please take the discussion to the Everyone forum. If this thread turns into an Affirmative Action discussion, it will be moved to the Everyone forum.

We're not here to enforce opinions, but we do ask that you discuss these issues in a civil manner. If not, we'll have to close the thread.

Carry on...
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showpost.php?p=3168310&postcount=100



And I was posting sources that showed that AA hurt law students (gasp! Sources in a discussion).

I would like to call for the mods to decide. Should AA be talked about, or should only pro-AA threads be allowed with threads where there is a strong argument against AA being threatened to be moved to the Everyone's forums. It seems that just dealing with the 2 major threads in the last 24 hours that there IS a bias for AA.

Furthermore, please define what a "civil manner" is. Would calling AA a racist program that help underqualified (because if they were qualified then they wouldn't need AA) special interest groups into school over other people on no ground other then their ancestors (i.e. race) came from the right continent?

Not a personal attack in there, just calling AA what it is.

What is the incentive? If you can get into med school with a 3.0/25 then you're going to enjoy the extra time. I was unaware of what it took to get into med school the first time, which is a combination of being from a background where me going to college made me the superstar of my family (and getting a 3.25 meant I was keeping my scholarships!) and not investigating, but I know I took the extra time to have a fuller personal life. Why would someone give that up if they didn't have to? In numerous threads you've told ORM applicants to quit whining about AA and just improve their apps. If it's that easy, why not say the same for everyone?

I do agree that your plan is better than our current one, but it needs to have a firm date. It needs to be publicized and all our students need to know when it's going to sunset.

The most important thing and, in my opinion one of the most important things our government could do in general, is to fix the educational problems that make this even conceivable.
What do you mean what is the incentive? If you start fixing the education system at a very early level, kids will learn better and achieve more. They will take this knowledge with them to higher education. Why would perfectly capable URMs suddenly choose to screw up the MCAT since AA will get them in anyway? Also, I didn't hear about the URM advantage until I started posting on SDN. I'd expect most URMs don't feel comfortable leaning on a system that they are uninformed about. Also, I do not regularly say, "ORMs should stop whining about AA and improve their apps." I made this comment in the thread about mods closing offensive threads to illustrate why discriminatory language is hurtful and inappropriate on SDN. If you read my post history, I do not hinge my arguments on this ignorant notion. As for implementing a new program, I believe many organizations are working towards this goal. As you know, it is very difficult for individual citizens to affect legal change on a national level. I agree that this would be the best plan, however.

What do you mean what is the incentive? If you start fixing the education system at a very early level, kids will learn better and achieve more. They will take this knowledge with them to higher education. Why would perfectly capable URMs suddenly choose to screw up the MCAT since AA will get them in anyway? Also, I didn't hear about the URM advantage until I started posting on SDN. I'd expect most URMs don't feel comfortable leaning on a system that they are uninformed about. Also, I do not regularly say, "ORMs should stop whining about AA and improve their apps." I made this comment in the thread about mods closing offensive threads to illustrate why discriminatory language is hurtful and inappropriate on SDN. If you read my post history, I do not hinge my arguments on this ignorant notion. As for implementing a new program, I believe many organizations are working towards this goal. As you know, it is very difficult for individual citizens to affect legal change on a national level. I agree that this would be the best plan, however.

I mean what is the incentive? If they see their peers that are several years ahead of them getting in with 3.0/25, why strive?

You don't have to try to bomb the MCAT. Bombing the MCAT is the default. I was among the top five best standardized test takers in my high school class of 800ish students. We had the most national merit scholars in OK except for the Tulsa magnet schools and OSSM, both of which were preselected groups. It doesn't mean much and certainly didn't mean much on the MCAT. I got a 31. Then I retook and got a 32. It took 8 years of maturation and 3 months of really focused effort to get up to about the max I could get. I think the same thing probably applies to many others, yet most people aren't natural test takers.

People are lazy. Not URMs, but people. Generally we won't do work that we don't have to. That's a survival trait. Yet if you don't set a definite time for this policy to sunset, you'll never see the numbers merit the end of AA.

Further, I'm not even sure that's the best way to do it. I started a masters in public administration. One of the classes that I really enjoyed was on public policy. I think we should actually examine this policy. You said earlier something to the effect of "What difference does it make who sets this policy?". It matters because medical schools aren't obligated to the voters. Do the 2 or 3 ORMs at each medical school who get bumped for numerically less qualified URMs deserve to bear the cost of making schools more racially diverse, which I argue isn't a need we as a society have agreed to, but rather one which a certain subset of liberal interests have decided for us? Do they deserve it even for the 10 to 50 years or whatever it is going to take to sunset the policy?

I mean what is the incentive? If they see their peers that are several years ahead of them getting in with 3.0/25, why strive?

You don't have to try to bomb the MCAT. Bombing the MCAT is the default. I was among the top five best standardized test takers in my high school class of 800ish students. We had the most national merit scholars in OK except for the Tulsa magnet schools and OSSM, both of which were preselected groups. It doesn't mean much and certainly didn't mean much on the MCAT. I got a 31. Then I retook and got a 32. It took 8 years of maturation and 3 months of really focused effort to get up to about the max I could get. I think the same thing probably applies to many others, yet most people aren't natural test takers.

People are lazy. Not URMs, but people. Generally we won't do work that we don't have to. That's a survival trait. Yet if you don't set a definite time for this policy to sunset, you'll never see the numbers merit the end of AA.

Further, I'm not even sure that's the best way to do it. I started a masters in public administration. One of the classes that I really enjoyed was on public policy. I think we should actually examine this policy. You said earlier something to the effect of "What difference does it make who sets this policy?". It matters because medical schools aren't obligated to the voters. Do the 2 or 3 ORMs at each medical school who get bumped for numerically less qualified URMs deserve to bear the cost of making schools more racially diverse, which I argue isn't a need we as a society have agreed to, but rather one which a certain subset of liberal interests have decided for us? Do they deserve it even for the 10 to 50 years or whatever it is going to take to sunset the policy?

Can we please stop with the notion that members of certain ethnic groups get “bumped” for under qualified URMs. No one has a “spot”. It’s not like admissions committees decide all the spaces are automatically for the people with the highest numbers. Then they look through the other applicants and take spaces from those “more qualified” individuals as they encounter URM applications. Other factors determine who has the potential to be a qualified physician and who does not. Ethnic diversity just happens to be one of those factors—not because one ethnicity is inherently more equipped to be a physician but because of the current demands in medicine.

When I suggested staring to reform education early but keep implementing AA until the scales are balanced, I assume people would develop proper study skills and work ethics early on. No matter who you are, higher numbers= more options—this is the incentive. Minority students try to the best of their ability to make the highest score possible with the resources afforded to them. It follows that providing more educational resources will cause more minorities to make higher scores.

About it not being fair to ORM students, I promise it does not make that much of a difference. After all, they are still over represented. Besides, if an ORM with adequate qualifications is rejected from his top choice school, the probability that he will get into one of his other choices is great. There is a chance that he still will not get in, but this has more to do with application pressure than AA. Is it fair that all qualified applicants don’t get in to medical school? No, but there are a limited number of seats. The job of the adcom is to choose who occupies those seats wisely; not necessarily by who has the highest numbers. Again, it's not about what's fair and consistent, it's about what works best. Right now, this is what works best.

If you take issue with the methods of political representation in the US, I don't have a good solution for you. There are too many people in America for there to be direct representation on every issue. Consequently, we choose a few people to make decisions regarding the masses.

From the other AA thread yesterday:

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showpost.php?p=3168310&postcount=100



And I was posting sources that showed that AA hurt law students (gasp! Sources in a discussion).

I would like to call for the mods to decide. Should AA be talked about, or should only pro-AA threads be allowed with threads where there is a strong argument against AA being threatened to be moved to the Everyone's forums. It seems that just dealing with the 2 major threads in the last 24 hours that there IS a bias for AA.

Furthermore, please define what a "civil manner" is. Would calling AA a racist program that help underqualified (because if they were qualified then they wouldn't need AA) special interest groups into school over other people on no ground other then their ancestors (i.e. race) came from the right continent?

Not a personal attack in there, just calling AA what it is.I will bring topic of AA thread placement to the mods for discussion. The thread yesterday was closed because numerous people requested that it be closed. If you read the OP, it was asking people if they resent URMs, not whether or not they agreed with AA as a policy. When you focus on hating people rather than policy, it gets ugly fast. And, if the intention is percieved by others as inciting controversy rather than initiating civil discussion then the OP may constitute trolling. It is noteable that the OP mentioned nothing about the med school admissions process. Straight up AA discussion does indeed belong in the Everyone forum. It is when we have an AA/admissions topic such as this particular thread that placement is an issue. Personally, I kind of like how the topic can be discussed here with a bit more moderation. We can get at things here that would devolve quickly in Everyone.

A civil manner is defined by your tone and content. Simply stating that AA is racist isn't uncivil, IMO. How you present your opinion is key.

I think that we should not hijack the current discussion too much if we can help it. I'll get back to you once I have an answer for you. Until then, please feel free to discuss the OP's topic in a manner appropriate to an academic area. :)

Can we please stop with the notion that members of certain ethnic groups get “bumped” for under qualified URMs. No one has a “spot”. It’s not like admissions committees decide all the spaces are automatically for the people with the highest numbers. Then they look through the other applicants and take spaces from those “more qualified” individuals as they encounter URM applications. Other factors determine who has the potential to be a qualified physician and who does not. Ethnic diversity just happens to be one of those factors—not because one ethnicity is inherently more equipped to be a physician but because of the current demands in medicine.

When I suggested staring to reform education early but keep implementing AA until the scales are balanced, I assume people would develop proper study skills and work ethics early on. No matter who you are, higher numbers= more options—this is the incentive. Minority students try to the best of their ability to make the highest score possible with the resources afforded to them. It follows that providing more educational resources will cause more minorities to make higher scores.

About it not being fair to ORM students, I promise it does not make that much of a difference. After all, they are still over represented. Besides, if an ORM with adequate qualifications is rejected from his top choice school, the probability that he will get into one of his other choices is great. There is a chance that he still will not get in, but this has more to do with application pressure than AA. Is it fair that all qualified applicants don’t get in to medical school? No, but there are a limited number of seats. The job of the adcom is to choose who occupies those seats wisely; not necessarily by who has the highest numbers. Again, it's not about what's fair and consistent, it's about what works best. Right now, this is what works best.

If you take issue with the methods of political representation in the US, I don't have a good solution for you. There are too many people in America for there to be direct representation on every issue. Consequently, we choose a few people to make decisions regarding the masses.

Why stop with the notion that qualifications (or in your language all qualifications other than race) should determine the make-up of a class and that any deviation from that model is bumping the person who should have had the spot through their qualifications for someone who gets it due to slightly lower qualifications and one racial qualification? It's not like all URMs bump those more qualified, but there must be some that do or there wouldn't need to be AA policy. This is what works best because you've defined it that way. How do we know that works best? What else have we tried? How long ago? Are there any schools that are control groups? No...

Each person is an individual. It might not statistically look like it's making a lot of difference, but to the 2-3 people (or whatever) per school, that's a huge difference. They get bumped down to the next tier, if they were smart enough to apply widely. The people at that school get bumped by the URMs and the ORMs that trickle down. The people at the next school get bumped down and so on, until a certain pool of ORMs don't get accepted anywhere, when they would have if it wasn't for AA policy.

I don't have any problem with representation, but guess what - I don't have a representative in the ADCOM. That's why the government needs to address the issue. If I was one of the people that got bumped, I'd definitely contact my representative. My righteous indignation doesn't extend that far.

I think that AA used is professional school is wrong. College is getting to be a mandatory requirement for good jobs so helping people get into college, ANY COLLEGE, I see as a plus.

So the URMs get admitted to college with scholarships (I point to my state school as example where URMs minimum for scholarships are a full 5 points lower than the minimum for others). The playing field is now equal as I see it. In many cases it is FAVORABLE since they have no debt associated.

So why the extra consideration in professional school? Why such a push for a diverse class? I can understand that people are more likely to go to a patient of their own race but if the want to neglect their health due to their racist attitudes towards white physicians so be it.

I think that AA used is professional school is wrong. College is getting to be a mandatory requirement for good jobs so helping people get into college, ANY COLLEGE, I see as a plus.

So the URMs get admitted to college with scholarships (I point to my state school as example where URMs minimum for scholarships are a full 5 points lower than the minimum for others). The playing field is now equal as I see it. In many cases it is FAVORABLE since they have no debt associated.

So why the extra consideration in professional school? Why such a push for a diverse class? I can understand that people are more likely to go to a patient of their own race but if the want to neglect their health due to their racist attitudes towards white physicians so be it.

Yes, but the concern is that the white physician's reluctance to practice medicine in a minority community will give them no choice. Further, even if a white physician does practice in the area, the physician will lack the commonalities that lead to rapport. They won't understand minority issues important to their healthcare and won't be able to relate to them as people.

I think it's BS, but I think that's the argument.

Yes, but the concern is that the white physician's reluctance to practice medicine in a minority community will give them no choice. Further, even if a white physician does practice in the area, the physician will lack the commonalities that lead to rapport. They won't understand minority issues important to their healthcare and won't be able to relate to them as people.

I think it's BS, but I think that's the argument.
The thing is I live in the Midwest. Physicians don't practice in the suburbs or in the "urban" areas, so it is equally as hard to get to the docs no matter where you live.

The thing is I live in the Midwest. Physicians don't practice in the suburbs or in the "urban" areas, so it is equally as hard to get to the docs no matter where you live.

Well, I think that's a big part of the difference. Urbanites think the whole world is separated into racial neighborhoods.

Well, I think that's a big part of the difference. Urbanites think the whole world is separated into racial neighborhoods.
I guess I'm blessed then.

1. Minority Practice in Underserved Areas.
Collectively, diversity in medical education provides enhanced access to health care for underserved populations. Many studies provide evidence that minority physicians are more likely than their non-minority colleagues to practice in underserved and often minority populations [4,10,23,24]. Despite the same insurance, income, and medical conditions, a congressionally commissioned report of the National Institutes of Medicine (NIH) [25] suggests that minorities are often left with fewer diagnostic tests, less sophisticated treatments, and ultimately inferior care. These intolerable racial disparities in medicine can be diminished by diversity of medical practitioners who treat underrepresented minorities, in addition to financial incentives for those who practice in such environments. Minority physicians are more likely to enter primary care specialties, work in underserved and disadvantaged areas, and provide health care to the medically indigent, irrespective of a patient's race or ethnicity, thereby reducing the racial and ethnic health disparities [10].

If a goal of AA-related admissions was to increase the number of physicians that serve minority populations, it make sense for med schools to be upfront about this. i.e., designated class places for URM's in NHSC-type programs. Currently, many rural med programs are lenient on GPA/MCAT for non-URM students planning to practice in rural areas. There should be something similar for people planning to treat underserved communities, or people like Paul Farmer, who want to treat impoverished patients in internatinal settings.

Yes, but the concern is that the white physician's reluctance to practice medicine in a minority community will give them no choice. Further, even if a white physician does practice in the area, the physician will lack the commonalities that lead to rapport. They won't understand minority issues important to their healthcare and won't be able to relate to them as people.

I think it's BS, but I think that's the argument.
All the sources I've read say there is a positive correlation between MCAT/GPA and Step 1 scores and grades during pre-clinical years. However, these factors do not measure success in the clinical years nor do they determine who will be the better clinician. Furthermore, having higher MCAT scores correlates positively for less interest in primary care.

http://www.unmc.edu/Community/ruralmeded/medicine_education_social_status.htm

http://pics-16.hi5.com/userpics/516/109/109607516.img.jpg

As you've seen in previous articles sited on this thread, there has been a growing concern for the diminishing number of primary care clinicians. If only 2.5% of people with the highest MCAT scores choose to pursue primary care and these are the specialties most needed in the US, how would admitting only top MCATers best serve the population? I've worked very hard to use valid sources to support my claims. Show me, with actually studied information, that this is all BS--that the best qualified physicians to practice in the US are those with the highest MCAT scores. Show me a reputable study that proves ethnic diversity is not needed in medicine. Also, show me some facts about how minority populations are adequately served by non-URMs and that fewer URM physicians will probably result in relief of health disparities.

I would like to call for the mods to decide. Should AA be talked about, or should only pro-AA threads be allowed with threads where there is a strong argument against AA being threatened to be moved to the Everyone's forums. It seems that just dealing with the 2 major threads in the last 24 hours that there IS a bias for AA.Here is the policy:

AA threads appropriate for PA would be ones where the OP is related to school admissions, such as "Do historically black colleges use AA?" or "Does XYZ SOM have an AA policy?"

AA threads appropriate for HT would be ones where the OP prompts discussion of AA in the context of the healthcare professions. As stated in the sticky at the top of this forum, civility is a requirement.

AA threads appropriate for Everyone would be all general discussions of AA, or discussions of AA that are not limited in scope to the healthcare professions or school admissions. I suppose that if a thread had degenerated completely into general discussion, and could not be brought back on track it could be moved to Everyone.

Let's direct discussion of the policy to this thread: http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=245056

Now that that matter has been addressed, I hope that we can get back to the discussion at hand. :)

All the sources I've read say there is a positive correlation between MCAT/GPA and Step 1 scores and grades during pre-clinical years. However, these factors do not measure success in the clinical years nor do they determine who will be the better clinician. Furthermore, having higher MCAT scores correlates positively for less interest in primary care.

http://www.unmc.edu/Community/ruralmeded/medicine_education_social_status.htm

http://pics-16.hi5.com/userpics/516/109/109607516.img.jpg

As you've seen in previous articles sited on this thread, there has been a growing concern for the diminishing number of primary care clinicians. If only 2.5% of people with the highest MCAT scores choose to pursue primary care and these are the specialties most needed in the US, how would admitting only top MCATers best serve the population? I've worked very hard to use valid sources to support my claims. Show me, with actually studied information, that this is all BS--that the best qualified physicians to practice in the US are those with the highest MCAT scores. Show me a reputable study that proves ethnic diversity is not needed in medicine. Also, show me some facts about how minority populations are adequately served by non-URMs and that fewer URM physicians will probably result in relief of health disparities.

You've admitted that MCAT scores and GPA correlate with medical school performance. Clinical performance is harder to predict and I haven't seen any studies on that, but students have to complete medical school to get there. That's a given. So without a study you're going to theorize that the students who do best in medical school aren't going to continue to succeed? I don't think the correlation is nearly perfect, but it seems obvious that it would be positive. Do you think a study could be performed in academia today that tried to show that ethnic diversity wasn't needed? :laugh: We presuppose the answer and start our research to match it :laugh: :laugh: I'll show you such a study as soon as you define adequately served. Are they adequately served now?

You've admitted that MCAT scores and GPA correlate with medical school performance. Clinical performance is harder to predict and I haven't seen any studies on that, but students have to complete medical school to get there. That's a given. So without a study you're going to theorize that the students who do best in medical school aren't going to continue to succeed? I don't think the correlation is nearly perfect, but it seems obvious that it would be positive. Do you think a study could be performed in academia today that tried to show that ethnic diversity wasn't needed? :laugh: We presuppose the answer and start our research to match it :laugh: :laugh: I'll show you such a study as soon as you define adequately served. Are they adequately served now?
What I meant was GPA and MCAT scores are good predictors of achievement during the first two years of study in medical school (i.e. on written tests). Since the last two years are devoted to clinical rotations, those with lower MCAT scores perform just as well as those with high scores. People can choose to study whatever they want; I found a study entitled, "Do under represented minorities differ from other students in reasoning ability." This study was published on pub med, so yes I do think this study could have been done. Also, just because a hypothesis assumes one result doesn't mean the findings will support that hypothesis. In this way, a study that attempts to prove diversity is beneficial could unexpectedly prove that it's not. By adequately serve, I mean do non URMs tend to seek under served areas in equal or larger numbers than URMs. Also, are the minority patients of non-URMs satisfied to equal or greater extend than they would be satisfied by a URM doctor. Apparently you can qualify patient satisfaction, because I've seen data on it. You could even show me data that people with higher MCAT scores of ORM groups tend to pursue those primary care specialties that are most needed. I'm asking you to prove to me that your opinion is valid using actually researched information. You can't possibly think all these agencies are just making stuff up because they happen to really like URMs. If you can't prove it, then don't dismiss the opposing argument as "BS" simply because you don't think it's fair.

I think the request was for you to provide support for the argument that race in and of itself is what matters, not to use that as an assumption and then elaborate on it.

My question to you is this: What is the purpose of AA in your eyes? To provide patients with a more balanced set of providers? To make all racial/ethnic/color groups proportionately represented? Something else entirely?

The specific reasons why race, in and of itself, is important in medical admissions were mentioned below under the sited document.

I think the purpose of AA in medical admissions is to make all racial/ethnic groups proportionately represented in order to provide patients with a more balanced set of clinicians.

What I meant was GPA and MCAT scores are good predictors of achievement during the first two years of study in medical school (i.e. on written tests). Since the last two years are devoted to clinical rotations, those with lower MCAT scores perform just as well as those with high scores. People can choose to study whatever they want; I found a study entitled, "Do under represented minorities differ from other students in reasoning ability." This study was published on pub med, so yes I do think this study could have been done. Also, just because a hypothesis assumes one result doesn't mean the findings will support that hypothesis. In this way, a study that attempts to prove diversity is beneficial could unexpectedly prove that it's not. By adequately serve, I mean do non URMs tend to seek under served areas in equal or larger numbers than URMs. Also, are the minority patients of non-URMs satisfied to equal or greater extend than they would be satisfied by a URM doctor. Apparently you can qualify patient satisfaction, because I've seen data on it. You could even show me data that people with higher MCAT scores of ORM groups tend to pursue those primary care specialties that are most needed. I'm asking you to prove to me that your opinion is valid using actually researched information. You can't possibly think all these agencies are just making stuff up because they happen to really like URMs. If you can't prove it, then don't dismiss the opposing argument as "BS" simply because you don't think it's fair.

If that reasoning research had revealed anything counter to the initial hypothesis, do you think it would have been published? Think about the president, was it Yale? Harvard? Who almost lost his job for theorizing that men and women think differently.

You're asking me to resort to the same sort of authority you are. One, I don't care enough to do the research, two, I don't have access to those documents, since I don't have any affiliation to any school, three, I don't think any research that says what I think would ever see the light of day in the current academic/political climate. I don't feel I have to have research to point out basic tenants of equity. It's not equity of result, but equity of opportunity that I'm looking for. I'm shocked that you can't and won't listen vs. just requesting studies.

The specific reasons why race, in and of itself, is important in medical admissions were mentioned below under the sited document.

I think the purpose of AA in medical admissions is to make all racial/ethnic groups proportionately represented in order to provide patients with a more balanced set of clinicians.You have pages of text. Give it to me straight in 2-3 sentences.

Racially based admissions quotas would likely be found to discriminate against non-underrepresented applicants, which is a violation of the 14th amendment so long as the school uses any governmental funding. The 14th amendment protects everyone, not just minorities. Plus, simply having the best of the best from each group does not ensure a diversity of life experience. You need people who can bring varying perspectives. You have to look beyond race/ethnicity and take life experiences into account. Race/ethnicity is simply one facet of diversity, not the end all be all.

the true reasons for any forms of AA are two: to buy votes and prevent riots. if medical students and high school students started going out in hoards to vote against politicians who supported aa, it would fall off the face of the usa. politicians dont care about equal representation and this and that, they only want votes (and power and pampering by lobbyists). but young people hardly vote so instead they only can gripe about it.

facts about aa beneficiaries in the medical context: they get in with much lower numbers, perform at the bottom of classes, and drop out at much higher rates. performing at the bottom of classes hurts self esteem--i support the creation of more HBCU(?) to provide better opportunities

reverse discrimination (aa) is a blatant violation of the equal protection clause, im not sure what has become of judicial activism to let it slide

the true reasons for any forms of AA are two: to buy votes and prevent riots. if medical students and high school students started going out in hoards to vote against politicians who supported aa, i would fall off the face of the usa. politicians dont care about equal representation and this and that, they only want votes. but young people hardly vote so instead they only can gripe about it.
But minorities hardly vote too, remember? If this wasn't something that the AMA and the AAMC felt was necessary, do you really think it would happen? Are politicians suddenly clamoring to gather those last few minority votes? I would expect that it is much more important to political success to be in the pocket of the AMA--not to appease the traditionally poorer minorities.

i dont know how any minorities can support aa, as it undermines intelligence and credentials at the time of admissions and throughout the future. hmm i have conspiracy theories about aa, as it seems too nonsensical. there might be people pulling AA strings from high up to intentionally create friction between races. and yet everyone buys into it and is fooled by them. youre playing right into their hand. basically minorities can take their pick: benefits of AA and face the animosity of non beneficiaries, or compete on a level playing ground and try to really make a race blind society. all of these efforts to try to justify AA will fail, they will only give rise to more annoyance and hostility. and im talking to you person to person and giving you the straight story here.

the true reasons for any forms of AA are two: to buy votes and prevent riots. if medical students and high school students started going out in hoards to vote against politicians who supported aa, i would fall off the face of the usa. politicians dont care about equal representation and this and that, they only want votes. but young people hardly vote so instead they only can gripe about it.Diversity in healthcare is something that has value. We all learn about varying viewpoints from our peers and hopefully become bigger people and better practitioners for it. It's something that benefits patients, not just program entrants. So, there is more than just politics involved with that issue. AA is just not a fair or sensible way to sort people out. It is certainly fair to give people bonus points for being able to explain why they can contribute in a way that is different than other applicants. It's not fair to assume someone will contribute more or less based on URM status alone.

Diversity in healthcare is something that has value. We all learn about varying viewpoints from our peers and hopefully become bigger people and better practitioners for it. It's something that benefits patients, not just program entrants. So, there is more than just politics involved with that issue.all pc speak straight from med school websites and left wing media reports. why dont we ever hear direct reports of these benefits and varying viewpoints from students themselves. and do people need different skin colors to represent different viewpoints

again 2 options:
1.forced diversity via double standards, with the cost being underlying animosity and doubts that are present even if not expressed. the only way someone would not have doubts is to be irrational and brainwash oneself.

2.equal playing field with one standard and mutual respect for everyones abilities and credentials

so this is a choice minorities have to make in deciding whether to support aa policies or not. bear in mind, double standards do not change whether someone is qualified to attend a school or not. its like wearing stilts in the nba, wont work. besides, nobody can ever answer the question of why there isnt any AA in sports, especially bball. can you? hey, personally id find it enjoyable to watch some indians play ball, lets get them in there.

Diversity in healthcare is something that has value. We all learn about varying viewpoints from our peers and hopefully become bigger people and better practitioners for it. It's something that benefits patients, not just program entrants. So, there is more than just politics involved with that issue. AA is just not a fair or sensible way to sort people out.
I understand why AA should not be the ultimate fix for admissions, but considering our current predicament, why isn't it a sensible quick-fix? No other methods implemented at this high level of education have been proved to work better to promote diversity.

all pc speak straight from med school websites and left wing media reports

again 2 options:
1.forced diversity via double standards, with the cost being underlying animosity and doubts that are present even if not expressed. the only way someone would not have doubts is to be irrational and brainwash oneself.

2.equal playing field with one standard and mutual respect for everyones abilities and credentials

so this is a choice minorities have to make in deciding whether to support aa policies or not. bear in mind, double standards do not change whether someone is qualified to attend a school or not. its like wearing stilts in the nba, wont work. besides, nobody can ever answer the question of why there isnt any AA in sports, especially bball. can you? hey, personally id find it enjoyable to watch some indians play ball, lets get them in there.I have some added comments above. BTW, I have never once read a med school website. I am speaking as someone who has had experience as a healthcare practitioner in underserved, average, and priviledged communities. It sounds as if you don't buy the idea that diversity has value and that you favor a merit based system. Is this correct?

To everyone who keeps throwing around the competence issue, I did a little more homework. Medical schools acknowledge that at a certain point, lower MCAT scores correlate to greater probability of failure in medical school. The current admissions practice is to set thresholds. These thresholds are based on the statistical probability of success in medical school given certain MCAT scores. Even minority students are subject to these standards. The study is summarized here:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15833725&query_hl=1
A comparison of statistical criteria for setting optimally discriminating MCAT and GPA thresholds in medical school admissions.

Albanese MA, Farrell P, Dottl SL.

Department of Population Health Sciences, University of Wisconsin Medical School, Madison, Wisconsin 53726-2397, USA. maalbane@wisc.edu

BACKGROUND: Using Medical College Admission Test-grade point average (MCAT-GPA) scores as a threshold has the potential to address issues raised in recent Supreme Court cases, but it introduces complicated methodological issues for medical school admissions. PURPOSE: To assess various statistical indexes to determine optimally discriminating thresholds for MCAT-GPA scores. METHODS: Entering classes from 1992 through 1998 (N = 752) are used to develop guidelines for cut scores that optimize discrimination between students who pass and do not pass the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 on the first attempt. RESULTS: Risk differences, odds ratios, sensitivity, and specificity discriminated best for setting thresholds. Compensatory versus noncompensatory procedures both accounted for 54% of Step 1 failures, but demanded different performance requirements (noncompensatory MCAT-biological sciences = 8, physical sciences = 7, verbal reasoning = 7--sum of scores = 22; compensatory MCAT total = 24). CONCLUSIONS: Rational and defensible intellectual achievement thresholds that are likely to comply with recent Supreme Court decisions can be set from MCAT scores and GPAs.

If you'd like to pay $24 for the full article, be my guest. You should then share the additional information with the rest of us.

But wait, there's more! What could be more important in determining who will be a quality physician than GPA and MCAT you ask? Since many seem to think I'm co-conspiring with the AMA, AAMC, NIH, and Congress to create the illusion that ethnic/racial diversity is important in medicine, I'll list different qualities sought after by medical admissions committees.

Empathy: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12047665&query_hl=3
ONTEXT: Empathy is a major component of a satisfactory doctor-patient relationship and the cultivation of empathy is a learning objective proposed by the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) for all American medical schools. Therefore, it is important to address the measurement of empathy, its development and its correlates in medical schools. OBJECTIVES: We designed this study to test two hypotheses: firstly, that medical students with higher empathy scores would obtain higher ratings of clinical competence in core clinical clerkships; and secondly, that women would obtain higher empathy scores than men. MATERIALS AND SUBJECTS: A 20-item empathy scale developed by the authors (Jefferson Scale of Physician Empathy) was completed by 371 third-year medical students (198 men, 173 women). METHODS: Associations between empathy scores and ratings of clinical competence in six core clerkships, gender, and performance on objective examinations were studied by using t-test, analysis of variance, chi-square and correlation coefficients. RESULTS: Both research hypotheses were confirmed. Empathy scores were associated with ratings of clinical competence and gender, but not with performance in objective examinations such as the Medical College Admission Test (MCAT), and Steps 1 and 2 of the US Medical Licensing Examinations (USMLE). CONCLUSIONS: Empathy scores are associated with ratings of clinical competence and gender. The operational measure of empathy used in this study provides opportunities to further examine educational and clinical correlates of empathy, as well as stability and changes in empathy at different stages of undergraduate and graduate medical education.

Other qualifications include "fundamental proficiencies such as accurate recording of observations, communicating ideas well, dealing with human emotions and becoming sensitive to human frailties, learning to listen and respond appropriately, learning to make sound judgments, and cultivating empathy and compassion."

For more of these non-MCAT and GPA related criteria, check out
http://www.naahp.org/abstract_threeflat.htm

From reading this, I found out that

"The findings that 74 percent of the variance in graduation categories was not accounted for by the traditional preadmissions data for students in Group I and that more than 60 percent of the students in Group II are doing better than predicted by the discriminant model emphasizes the limitations of using traditional admissions variables in predicting progress of nontraditional students. "

WHAT?! 74% of the variance not accounted for by the traditional preadmissions data :eek: ??? I guess there goes the idea that those with highest MCATS and GPAS should always have the "spots" and under qualified URMs with lower scores bump those people from "their spots". Maybe Admissions committees find it necessary to consider other, non-numerical factors.

I understand why AA should not be the ultimate fix for admissions, but considering our current predicament, why isn't it a sensible quick-fix? No other methods implemented at this high level of education have been proved to work better to promote diversity.It is a quick way to get some diversity, but not a satisfactory solution. We need to revamp the admissions process so that the unique and valuble things that URMs bring to the table are valued more in the admissions process. It's a hard solution. There will always be some group that is underrepresented, either because they aren't applying as often, or because something about the applicants or the admissions process makes them inherently less competitive.

It is a quick way to get some diversity, but not a satisfactory solution. We need to revamp the admissions process so that the unique and valuble things that URMs bring to the table are valued more in the admissions process. It's a hard solution. There will always be some group that is underrepresented, either because they aren't applying as often, or because something about the applicants or the admissions process makes them inherently less competitive.
hmm, I guess this is a quasi-agreement in an AA thread. Never thought it would happen. **pats self on the back for making a civil AA thread**

hmm, I guess this is a quasi-agreement in an AA thread. Never thought it would happen. **pats self on the back for making a civil AA thread**But now is where I step in and play devil's advocate. :D

Can you find an argument for diversity in non-clinical specialties?

But now is where I step in and play devil's advocate. :D

Can you find an argument for diversity in non-clinical specialties?
yes, but in the morning. I'm going to pay attention to my boyfriend for the rest of the night. Good-night to all. To be continued...

Satisfactory solution would be to scrutinize every possible variable in the applicants personal and educational life which would take:

A) Too much time.
B) Be invasive.
C) Lead to too much subjectivity in admissions.

The thing about medicine is that it involves touchy feely emotions. If this was engineering school it shouldn't matter.

Satisfactory solution would be to scrutinize every possible variable in the applicants personal and educational life which would take:

A) Too much time.
B) Be invasive.
C) Lead to too much subjectivity in admissions.

The thing about medicine is that it involves touchy feely emotions. If this was engineering school it shouldn't matter.Your argument is just a straw man. There is a medium between where schools are in terms of valuing diversity and where they need to be that does not involve analyzing every possible variable. Admissions are already nearly completely subjective. You think it's all about stats, but it's not. They just get your foot in the door. Not a single person in my class at school is a smoker, because the school screened them out in the interview. A good adcom can read you inside and out. If they don't like you they will reject you, regardless of your stats. If they want a diverse group, they need to ask questions that let them select accordingly. Many of them just don't know what questions to ask and are wary to change the admissions criteria that they have grown used to. Chances are, it's what got them where they want to be.

I was just proposing that instead of a blanket URM to those who have no intention of practicing in the underrepresented realm then why the boost. If the point is to get people to serve the URM community they should look more closely at the issue instead of just the heritage of the person.

But wait, there's more! What could be more important in determining who will be a quality physician than GPA and MCAT you ask? Since many seem to think I'm co-conspiring with the AMA, AAMC, NIH, and Congress to create the illusion that ethnic/racial diversity is important in medicine, I'll list different qualities sought after by medical admissions committees.

Empathy: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12047665&query_hl=3
ONTEXT: Empathy is a major component of a satisfactory doctor-patient relationship and the cultivation of empathy is a learning objective proposed by the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) for all American medical schools. Therefore, it is important to address the measurement of empathy, its development and its correlates in medical schools. OBJECTIVES: We designed this study to test two hypotheses: firstly, that medical students with higher empathy scores would obtain higher ratings of clinical competence in core clinical clerkships; and secondly, that women would obtain higher empathy scores than men. MATERIALS AND SUBJECTS: A 20-item empathy scale developed by the authors (Jefferson Scale of Physician Empathy) was completed by 371 third-year medical students (198 men, 173 women). METHODS: Associations between empathy scores and ratings of clinical competence in six core clerkships, gender, and performance on objective examinations were studied by using t-test, analysis of variance, chi-square and correlation coefficients. RESULTS: Both research hypotheses were confirmed. Empathy scores were associated with ratings of clinical competence and gender, but not with performance in objective examinations such as the Medical College Admission Test (MCAT), and Steps 1 and 2 of the US Medical Licensing Examinations (USMLE). CONCLUSIONS: Empathy scores are associated with ratings of clinical competence and gender. The operational measure of empathy used in this study provides opportunities to further examine educational and clinical correlates of empathy, as well as stability and changes in empathy at different stages of undergraduate and graduate medical education.

Other qualifications include "fundamental proficiencies such as accurate recording of observations, communicating ideas well, dealing with human emotions and becoming sensitive to human frailties, learning to listen and respond appropriately, learning to make sound judgments, and cultivating empathy and compassion."

For more of these non-MCAT and GPA related criteria, check out
http://www.naahp.org/abstract_threeflat.htm

From reading this, I found out that

"The findings that 74 percent of the variance in graduation categories was not accounted for by the traditional preadmissions data for students in Group I and that more than 60 percent of the students in Group II are doing better than predicted by the discriminant model emphasizes the limitations of using traditional admissions variables in predicting progress of nontraditional students. "

WHAT?! 74% of the variance not accounted for by the traditional preadmissions data :eek: ??? I guess there goes the idea that those with highest MCATS and GPAS should always have the "spots" and under qualified URMs with lower scores bump those people from "their spots". Maybe Admissions committees find it necessary to consider other, non-numerical factors.

What does diversity have to do with empathy? Empathy by definition is being able to identify with "other than self". So how do you have to be a minority to identify with a minority?

I was just proposing that instead of a blanket URM to those who have no intention of practicing in the underrepresented realm then why the boost. If the point is to get people to serve the URM community they should look more closely at the issue instead of just the heritage of the person.Well, dammit, you are going to make me give up the argument I was going to make LJ make tomorrow! :laugh:

Practicing in an underserved community is only one way that someone can bring their perspective to the medical community. When you have a diverse group of people around you in medical school, you learn that not everyone is like you, not your peers, not your patients. It makes you appreciate that other people have skills and knowledge that they can share with you which can help you to better understand, empathize with, and interact with your patients, whose backgrounds are going to be very diverse. If you do not learn to meet your patients where they are, you will never be a fully competent clinician. People will hide things from you because they will not trust you enough to share pertinent information.

The other part of what I was going to get at tomorrow is that diversity isn't worth **** to patients in non-clinical practice. In that setting the patient benefits the most by having a provider with the highest technical competencies. But, you can't tell who will go into what specialties during the admissions process, so it's a moot point.

What does diversity have to do with empathy? Empathy by definition is being able to identify with "other than self". So how do you have to be a minority to identify with a minority?It's about establishing a peer group that can learn from each other and grow to appreciate varying perspectives and life experiences.

From my understanding, the whole point of recruiting URMs is to pump out more URM graduates to serve their community. So is the diversity for the benefit of the students in the class or the community after graduation? If they can demonstrate a commitment to do so fine. Same goes with ORM's wanting to serve underserved communities. Give them a bump to accomplish the goal.

I agree with your point that non-clinical medicine need not recruit. The pt only knows who their radiologist or pathologist was when they get the bill.

It's about establishing a peer group that can learn from each other and grow to appreciate varying perspectives and life experiences.

It might be if anyone went to class and if while in class they did anything but passively absorb information from a monotonous power point lecture.

BS.

From my understanding, the whole point of recruiting URMs is to pump out more URM graduates to serve their community. So is the diversity for the benefit of the students in the class or the community after graduation? If they can demonstrate a commitment to do so fine. Give them a bump to accomplish the goal.

I agree with your point that non-clinical medicine need not recruit. The pt only knows who their radiologist or pathologist was when they get the bill.That may very well be the goal of some institutions. And, it isn't a bad goal to have. But, if these communities were not underserved, there would still be value to diversity within medicine, because of what a diverse student body can help to foster in terms of clinical competency, if correctly incubated. Clinical competency doesn't just come into play when a provider comes into contact with someone from a minority group. Every individual patient can benefit from an approachable and open minded provider.

From my understanding, the whole point of recruiting URMs is to pump out more URM graduates to serve their community. So is the diversity for the benefit of the students in the class or the community after graduation? If they can demonstrate a commitment to do so fine. Same goes with ORM's wanting to serve underserved communities. Give them a bump to accomplish the goal.

I agree with your point that non-clinical medicine need not recruit. The pt only knows who their radiologist or pathologist was when they get the bill.one thing i can put forward that has been mentioned on the forums before is that minorities tend to go to these places regardless of if they want to, as their performance and credentials at the end of med school tend to be lower, leaving them with little choice. and statistics show the lagging performance, so its not only my opinion. therefore, regardless of the stated goals of AA and minorities' desire to abide by them, the end result is the same. it mightve even been you who i first heard this from. whats to be thought of that?

of course i vehemently oppose AA but this is a point to consider. AA is a great concept for preventing a race blind society, conspiracy i tell you. bananaface diversity goes beyond skin color. i dont think exotic languages or food contribute much to medical education, and thats pretty much the extent of racial differences, at least outwardly. ceteris paribus, i will concede that patients would probably prefer a doctor of their own skin color. the problem is that its not ceteris paribus, not nearly.

It might be if anyone went to class and if while in class they did anything but passively absorb information from a monotonous power point lecture.

BS.Yes, I am sure that no one gets to know each other during medical school, having the same classes together for 2 years straight. And, no one is going to speak to each other on rotations either. Also, you will never ever address clinical competency in any context which could possibly allow for the exchange of ideas. :rolleyes:

You are such a pessimist. Ask your g/f if she has had to school anyone yet. $5 says she has. :p :laugh:

Yes, I am sure that no one gets to know each other during medical school, having the same classes together for 2 years straight. And, no one is going to speak to each other on rotations either. Also, you will never ever address clinical competency in any context which could possibly allow for the exchange of ideas. :rolleyes:

You are such a pessimist. Ask your g/f if she has had to school anyone yet. $5 says she has. :p :laugh:

Ask her if she's had to school anyone on "hispanic issues"? I'll take that bet.

Ask her if she's had to school anyone on "hispanic issues"? I'll take that bet.share the wealth

of course i vehemently oppose AA but this is a point to consider. AA is a great concept for preventing a race blind society, conspiracy i tell you. bananaface diversity goes beyond skin color. i dont think exotic languages or food contribute much to medical education, and thats pretty much the extent of racial differences, at least outwardly. ceteris paribus, i will concede that patients would probably prefer a doctor of their own skin color. the problem is that its not ceteris paribus, not nearly.Of course diversity goes beyond skin color. That's a point that I was hitting on for a good portion of this thread. If you think that languages and food are the only obstacles to overcome, you going to have a whole lot of "fun" someday.

Ask her if she's had to school anyone on "hispanic issues"? I'll take that bet.I await my $5! :meanie:

I await my $5! :meanie:

:laugh:

Ok, we'll see. I'm sure she's school them, but I doubt it's been about hispanic issues. What hispanic issues?!

Of course diversity goes beyond skin color. That's a point that I was hitting on for a good portion of this thread. If you think that languages and food are the only obstacles to overcome, you going to have a whole lot of "fun" someday.obstacles? what obstacles? if you have 2 ppl of different skin color who have lived in the usa for generations, you can hardly say they will bring vastly different cultures to the table. ive had tons of experience in my earlier schooling with minorities--"fun" in other words. im sure much more than yourself. ive ridden buses with gang members and participated in cinco de mayo song and dance, valuable indeed. im not too interested in hearing stories from the hood when i go to med school, i go there to learn medicine. i think intellectual diversity is far more important even if everyone is of uniform skin color. the main differences are food, religion and language. these are the things that are environmentally determined vs genetically. and if youre going to consider where somebody grew up then you must also give reverse discrimination/AA to the white applicant who grew up in africa.

i want classmates who are smart and able, regardless of race. truly, youre still speaking pc and thats a language i dont comprehend

:laugh:

Ok, we'll see. I'm sure she's school them, but I doubt it's been about hispanic issues. What hispanic issues?!She will go off on people who are being ignorant. Ask her to tell you about the time she schooled my friend Matt about the taco bus music. :D

obstacles? what obstacles? if you have 2 ppl of different skin color who have lived in the usa for generations, you can hardly say they will bring vastly different cultures to the table. ive had tons of experience in my earlier schooling with minorities--"fun" in other words. im sure much more than yourself. ive ridden buses with gang members and participated in cinco de mayo song and dance, valuable indeed. im not too interested in hearing stories from the hood when i go to med school, i go there to learn medicine. i think intellectual diversity is far more important even if everyone is of uniform skin color. the main differences are food, religion and language. these are the things that are environmentally determined vs genetically. and if youre going to consider where somebody grew up then you must also give reverse discrimination/AA to the white applicant who grew up in africa.

i want classmates who are smart and able, regardless of race. truly, youre still speaking pc and thats a language i dont comprehendBy "fun", I was referring to the utter horror that your clinical rotations are going to be unless you make an effort to acquire intrapersonal skills during school. If you bring this attitude to the table, your patients aren't going to respect you, much less trust you. And, what you learned in the classroom will be greatly depriciated in value because you lack the skills to apply it.

eh, makes no sense, and i wasnt aware this thread was about lecturing. besides, anyone who acts the same way on an online forum as he does in a professional setting needs to loosen up.

She will go off on people who are being ignorant. Ask her to tell you about the time she schooled my friend Matt about the taco bus music. :D

Well, her answer was no. I accept installments :laugh:

Taco bus music?

obstacles? what obstacles? if you have 2 ppl of different skin color who have lived in the usa for generations, you can hardly say they will bring vastly different cultures to the table. ive had tons of experience in my earlier schooling with minorities--"fun" in other words. im sure much more than yourself. ive ridden buses with gang members and participated in cinco de mayo song and dance, valuable indeed. im not too interested in hearing stories from the hood when i go to med school, i go there to learn medicine. i think intellectual diversity is far more important even if everyone is of uniform skin color. the main differences are food, religion and language. these are the things that are environmentally determined vs genetically. and if youre going to consider where somebody grew up then you must also give reverse discrimination/AA to the white applicant who grew up in africa.

i want classmates who are smart and able, regardless of race. truly, youre still speaking pc and thats a language i dont comprehend
Thanks for equating URM with Ghetto. You don't want to here stories from the hood? You've had classes with gang members? Because that's what being a minority is all about. People who are not URMs have these preconceived notions about URMs and being exposed to SUCCESSFUL AND INTELLIGENT URMs in a class room setting usually helps to soften these narrow-minded ideas. Further, if you were a URM who was not from the hood (they exist I promise) would you want to be treated by someone who assumed you had to have some gang affiliations or that you crawled from the deepest darkest pits of the ghetto? No. When I was at HCEM we were talking about health disparities and we started discussing the issue of getting minorities on organ donor lists. We watched a video about how in a community of blacks in Chicago, very very few diabetics were ever put on the donor list to receive a new kidney at their local hospital. When they did research to figure out why, it turns out that the clinicians thought blacks would just go back and eat the wrong foods and screw up the kidneys again. They felt since there were a limited number of kidneys, they should give them to the more appreciative whites who would make sure they stayed healthy afterwards. These stereotypes do affect access to health care; they could mean the difference between life and death for some patients. You just proved to me why diversity is so sorely needed in medicine

By "fun", I was referring to the utter horror that your clinical rotations are going to be unless you make an effort to acquire intrapersonal skills during school. If you bring this attitude to the table, your patients aren't going to respect you, much less trust you. And, what you learned in the classroom will be greatly depriciated in value because you lack the skills to apply it.
:clap: :clap: Exactly! I'm glad you didn't let this thread degenerate into a, "minorities are all under qualified ghetto morons" thread over night.

Thanks for equating URM with Ghetto.isnt that the premise of AA? you can thank the Man for that one

isnt that the premise of AA? you can thank the Man for that one
You know, there are many educated explanations for AA in this thread. If you'd like more information you can easily access it on pubmed, AAMC.org, NIH web sites, or really just google search it. Many on this thread keep posting about how AA is racism/BS or how none of it makes sense, but no one has offered any reasonable evidence that these points are not valid. This is not because every researcher is too scared to step on the toes of powerful minority groups (as suggested before), but because the counter arguments are not backed by truth. You refuse to educate yourself because education would invalidate your close-minded opinions and you still approach me with ignorant questions like this one--expecting me to give you a reasonable answer. If you want to know what AA is really about, take the time to look at the research that I worked so hard to post on this thread. Funny how you make assumptions about URMs lacking academic ability while you refuse to even read the bits of text I've posted.

In short: No, AA does not equate URM with Ghetto. It's up to you to find out why.

I think that education opportunities for disadvantaged should be encouraged starting prior to grade school. Minorities and the disadvantaged should be recruited, but should have to compete for medical school on an even basis. For there to truly be an even basis, they need a good early education. I think our efforts should be concentrated there.
I think that this is the most sensible solution that anyone has proposed in all four pages of this thread. Here in FL, we've recently enacted voluntary pre-school for all four-year-olds. My only question is, why the h*** is it voluntary? We ought to enact MANDATORY pre-school for all children starting from when they are potty-trained. There is really no excuse for elementary school children who do not know how to read, write, or perform arithmetic. These disadvantaged students who are being passed through in grade school and high school never catch up, no matter how much preference you give them for their disadvantaged status later on in post-secondary school admissions. They show up in my chemistry courses every semester unable to write a complete sentence or perform a simple theoretical yield calculation. No one did these kids a favor by granting them a high school diploma when their academic skills are so poor. I am supposed to be a chemistry instructor, not a basic English, math, and computer skills instructor. But guess what I spend a lot of my time doing?

I'm more than willing to put my money where my mouth is. I have been a volunteer with underprivileged children (many of whom, but not all of whom, are URM) for most of my adult life. So here's a thought for y'all to throw around: If medical schools and the AAMC want to help disadvantaged children get on equal footing so much, why should they not require ALL pre-meds to do this kind of work? If tutoring underprivileged children were to become a requirement to get into medical school, all of a sudden you'd literally have tens of thousands of able and willing volunteer tutors across the nation. I can't always convince some of my self-centered adolescent pre-med students to work with children for altruistic reasons, but I sure can convince just about all of them to do it if I argue that doing it would help them get into medical school.

This solution is not perfect either. People should ideally help others because they want to do it and it's the right thing to do, not because they are coerced into doing it. But I do believe that the ends justify the means in this situation. I'm only one person. I can't do it all alone.

Thanks for equating URM with Ghetto.

Yet all your reasons for URMs getting lower scores has to do with being disadvantaged. :confused:

I think that this is the most sensible solution that anyone has proposed in all four pages of this thread. Here in FL, we've recently enacted voluntary pre-school for all four-year-olds. My only question is, why the h*** is it voluntary? We ought to enact MANDATORY pre-school for all children starting from when they are potty-trained. There is really no excuse for elementary school children who do not know how to read, write, or perform arithmetic. These disadvantaged students who are being passed through in grade school and high school never catch up, no matter how much preference you give them for their disadvantaged status later on in post-secondary school admissions. They show up in my chemistry courses every semester unable to write a complete sentence or perform a simple theoretical yield calculation. No one did these kids a favor by granting them a high school diploma when their academic skills are so poor. I am supposed to be a chemistry instructor, not a basic English, math, and computer skills instructor. But guess what I spend a lot of my time doing?

I'm more than willing to put my money where my mouth is. I have been a volunteer with underprivileged children (many of whom, but not all of whom, are URM) for most of my adult life. So here's a thought for y'all to throw around: If medical schools and the AAMC want to help disadvantaged children get on equal footing so much, why should they not require ALL pre-meds to do this kind of work? If tutoring underprivileged children were to become a requirement to get into medical school, all of a sudden you'd literally have tens of thousands of able and willing volunteer tutors across the nation. I can't always convince some of my self-centered adolescent pre-med students to work with children for altruistic reasons, but I sure can convince just about all of them to do it if I argue that doing it would help them get into medical school.

This solution is not perfect either. People should ideally help others because they want to do it and it's the right thing to do, not because they are coerced into doing it. But I do believe that the ends justify the means in this situation. I'm only one person. I can't do it all alone.

I'm not really sure how requiring pre-school for children will do anything to help their performance later on in their academic careers. Are these children so disadvantaged that they are already behind the curve in Kindergarden? The problem is that their is absolutely no accountability anywhere in our educational system. Parents are not accountable, schools are not accountable (sorry No Child Left Behind), teachers are not accountable, and the children themselves are not held accountable. The system is broken from top to bottom, and requiring more school and dumping more money isn't going to solve anything. The problem is systemic, and is a direct result of our culture. If you have any ideas on how to fix that, I'm all ears.

I think that this is the most sensible solution that anyone has proposed in all four pages of this thread. Here in FL, we've recently enacted voluntary pre-school for all four-year-olds. My only question is, why the h*** is it voluntary? We ought to enact MANDATORY pre-school for all children starting from when they are potty-trained. There is really no excuse for elementary school children who do not know how to read, write, or perform arithmetic. These disadvantaged students who are being passed through in grade school and high school never catch up, no matter how much preference you give them for their disadvantaged status later on in post-secondary school admissions. They show up in my chemistry courses every semester unable to write a complete sentence or perform a simple theoretical yield calculation. No one did these kids a favor by granting them a high school diploma when their academic skills are so poor. I am supposed to be a chemistry instructor, not a basic English, math, and computer skills instructor. But guess what I spend a lot of my time doing?

I'm more than willing to put my money where my mouth is. I have been a volunteer with underprivileged children (many of whom, but not all of whom, are URM) for most of my adult life. So here's a thought for y'all to throw around: If medical schools and the AAMC want to help disadvantaged children get on equal footing so much, why should they not require ALL pre-meds to do this kind of work? If tutoring underprivileged children were to become a requirement to get into medical school, all of a sudden you'd literally have tens of thousands of able and willing volunteer tutors across the nation. I can't always convince some of my self-centered adolescent pre-med students to work with children for altruistic reasons, but I sure can convince just about all of them to do it if I argue that doing it would help them get into medical school.

This solution is not perfect either. People should ideally help others because they want to do it and it's the right thing to do, not because they are coerced into doing it. But I do believe that the ends justify the means in this situation. I'm only one person. I can't do it all alone.

Early education is always going to be where the best investment is. It's like any investment - make it early and constant interest makes it pay. By the time a student gets to college, they're pretty much who they're going to be. If a student is even close to being capable of med school, they've turned out all right. The problem isn't that it doesn't start early, enough, in my opinion (which really is a form of quantity), but rather quality. I think teaching needs to become a high status job with accompanying pay and accompanying standards. I think every dollar we invest in *quality* elementary education will be saved elsewhere. We need to stop throwing our educational bucks away.

I'm not really sure how requiring pre-school for children will do anything to help their performance later on in their academic careers. Are these children so disadvantaged that they are already behind the curve in Kindergarden? The problem is that their is absolutely no accountability anywhere in our educational system. Parents are not accountable, schools are not accountable (sorry No Child Left Behind), teachers are not accountable, and the children themselves are not held accountable. The system is broken from top to bottom, and requiring more school and dumping more money isn't going to solve anything. The problem is systemic, and is a direct result of our culture. If you have any ideas on how to fix that, I'm all ears.My mom taught kindergarten. The kids who tended to do poorly on assessment were kids that had not been exposed to English before starting school or who had behavioral problems.

Academic expectations and curriculum vary from place to place. I went to a high school which had alot of kids from the inner city. Everyone had to take some college prep courses. On the other side of town there was an inner city school where my cousin went. If you showed up there you could get a C, no kidding. That place fired 5 principles one year when what they should have done was fire faculty who bought into the "if we make it hard they won't come to class" mentality. There needs to be an accountability system in place. It would help if there was a widescale curriculum standard. It is unlikely that a kid from that school could cut it at any 4 year college, unless they came out of the special ed classes, which were of higher quality than those offered to regular students.

You know, there are many educated explanations for AA in this thread. If you'd like more information you can easily access it on pubmed, AAMC.org, NIH web sites, or really just google search it. Many on this thread keep posting about how AA is racism/BS or how none of it makes sense, but no one has offered any reasonable evidence that these points are not valid. This is not because every researcher is too scared to step on the toes of powerful minority groups (as suggested before), but because the counter arguments are not backed by truth. You refuse to educate yourself because education would invalidate your close-minded opinions and you still approach me with ignorant questions like this one--expecting me to give you a reasonable answer. If you want to know what AA is really about, take the time to look at the research that I worked so hard to post on this thread. Funny how you make assumptions about URMs lacking academic ability while you refuse to even read the bits of text I've posted.

In short: No, AA does not equate URM with Ghetto. It's up to you to find out why.thats a nice bombastic post, but you will find yourself unable to find any data indicating that urms have equal academic ability as orms. PC sites do not count as data. data means numbers, not twisted words. its typical for an irrational viewpoint to explicitly label others as uneducated or ignorant without actually stating why. concerning minority voters--they do vote, and the difference between them and majority voters is that minorities, especially blacks, vote on one issue: race. democrats use this to capture 90% or more of the black vote. its true that the federal govt is now controlled by the GOP, which brings me to: give it a few years and the conservative supreme court will overturn AA. no more sandra day to save the day. roberts, alito, scalia, (the other right winger), and even thomas will see to it. i suppose you would label him, powell and condi uncle toms

thats a nice bombastic post, but you will find yourself unable to find any data indicating that urms have equal academic ability as orms. PC sites do not count as data. data means numbers, not twisted words. its typical for an irrational viewpoint to explicitly label others as uneducated or ignorant without actually stating why. concerning minority voters--they do vote, and the difference between them and majority voters is that minorities, especially blacks, vote on one issue: race. democrats use this to capture 90% or more of the black vote. its true that the federal govt is now controlled by the GOP, which brings me to: give it a few years and the conservative supreme court will overturn AA. no more sandra day to save the day. roberts, alito, scalia, (the other right winger), and even thomas will see to it. i suppose you would label him, powell and condi uncle toms
You are pretty much suggesting that URMs are just not as smart as ORMs. I can see from your posts, you obviously have preconceived, bigoted notions about certain ethnic groups and I could never convince you that AA or even diversity in medicine "makes sense". This is not about conservative vs liberal, it is about a specific topic. If you want to become informed, read. If you'd like to remain ignorant and bigoted (which it seems you do) be my guest, but don't expect me to engage you any longer.

thats a nice bombastic post, but you will find yourself unable to find any data indicating that urms have equal academic ability as orms. PC sites do not count as data. data means numbers, not twisted words. its typical for an irrational viewpoint to explicitly label others as uneducated or ignorant without actually stating why. concerning minority voters--they do vote, and the difference between them and majority voters is that minorities, especially blacks, vote on one issue: race. democrats use this to capture 90% or more of the black vote. its true that the federal govt is now controlled by the GOP, which brings me to: give it a few years and the conservative supreme court will overturn AA. no more sandra day to save the day. roberts, alito, scalia, (the other right winger), and even thomas will see to it. i suppose you would label him, powell and condi uncle toms

There might not be good data about URMs as a whole, but I definitely know individual URMs that can show that individuals can be as smart as anybody. I just read the Ben Carson story about his life story starting in a disadvantaged background in inner city Detroit and rising to be the youngest Director of Pediatric Neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins. Or two of us that are disagreeing on here both count as URMs. My grades sucked because I'm lazy, but I still scored a 36 on the MCAT, which is above average. I don't know LJ's numbers, but she got into Baylor, which I envy, so I know she's got to be pretty impressive.

You are pretty much suggesting that URMs are just not as smart as ORMs. I can see from your posts, you obviously have preconceived, bigoted notions about certain ethnic groups and I could never convince you that AA or even diversity in medicine "makes sense". This is not about conservative vs liberal, it is about a specific topic. If you want to become informed, read. If you'd like to remain ignorant and bigoted (which it seems you do) be my guest, but don't expect me to engage you any longer.that hinges on whether you would concede that urms are better in basketball, and largely football, than orms. instrinsically, that is. people are just different. its not about bigotry, its about objectivity. i will admit in a second that im simply not cut out for basketball, it would never happen. im not tall enough, quick enough, long arms enough, or jump high enough to do it, and no upbringing could have significantly changed these things about me. i have no qualms with coming to terms with these realities. nobody can account for the lack of AA in sports, and im sure you too will overlook this.

the truth is i want whats best for myself and for society and everybody. i dont think AA is an appropriate means to that end. the friction it creates is clear, on sdn and elsewhere. is that a desirable price to pay for AA? everything comes with a price tag, and all the prose and PC websites and articles in the world cannot change that, including this thread to "dispel myths". i dont see a whole lot of myths about AA. regardless of its cause, its effect is racial tension. i dont think the usa should propagate that through policies, judicial activism, and legislation. unless its a conspiracy, which ive proposed before. and its sad that people buy into it. also my notions are never preconceived, they are dynamic depending on the facts at hand. and i stress facts. its common for an unpersuasive participant in a discussion to label the other as inordinately obstinate (ignorant, uninformed, uneducated, bigoted, hateful, nazi--the grab bag of liberal escape routes). the easy way out, i know.

another phenomenon nobody can address is the success of japan, one of the most homogeneous (non-diverse, that is) areas on earth

I definitely know individual URMs that can show that individuals can be as smart as anybodyi also know of a certain chinese man playing for the houston rockets, but i dont think nba recruiters will be scouring china on a daily basis any time soon. its about distributions and anomalies, it happens but it can be calculated with statistical precision to determine likelihood.

the fact that double standards exist is a slap in the face to urms, openly admitting that they cannot compete on an equal level. i have to state sincerely that AAs existence undermines my belief in LJs belonging at baylor. im sorry lj, its nothing against you personally but you can blame it on AA. and you can defend yourself all you want, but there are still doubts. such is the result, and im stating it which many people will not do even if they feel the same way. lets just be up front about things for once. and as always its preferable to leave emotions out to have civilized discourse. emotions and rationality dont mix.

i also know of a certain chinese man playing for the houston rockets, but i dont think nba recruiters will be scouring china on a daily basis any time soon. its about distributions and anomalies, it happens but it can be calculated with statistical precision to determine likelihood.

the fact that double standards exist is a slap in the face to urms, openly admitting that they cannot compete on an equal level. i have to state sincerely that AAs existence undermines my belief in LJs belonging at baylor. im sorry lj, its nothing against you personally but you can blame it on AA. and you can defend yourself all you want, but there are still doubts. such is the result, and im stating it which many people will not do even if they feel the same way. lets just be up front about things for once. and as always its preferable to leave emotions out to have civilized discourse. emotions and rationality dont mix.

I agree about that unfortunate aspect of AA. I regret more the spiritual malaise that comes from being supported by another for too long. It's not healthy. It should always clearly be a hand up and not a handout. However, I do not agree that URMs are intrinsically poorer performing and exceptions are just statistical outliers. The fact that your supposed "outliers" are competitive with the outliers of any race is counter to that. If the URM curve was just shifted to the left, then their best would be as good as the above average of everyone else. That's not the case.

I agree about that unfortunate aspect of AA. I regret more the spiritual malaise that comes from being supported by another for too long. It's not healthy. It should always clearly be a hand up and not a handout. However, I do not agree that URMs are intrinsically poorer performing and exceptions are just statistical outliers. The fact that your supposed "outliers" are competitive with the outliers of any race is counter to that. If the URM curve was just shifted to the left, then their best would be as good as the above average of everyone else. That's not the case.

Exactly my problem. I try not to get worked up when people suggest this, but it just hurts my feelings because this idea is so damaging. When ever I let people know how I did on the MCAT and my GPA, they always try to figure out how a black girl pulled it off. I haven't made anything less than an A- since I decided to pursue medicine Fall Sophomore year. I had a professor at my school tell me that I was lucky for this reason:
I'm part white (My g-ma is 75% French) so I can get high scores on tests and do well in school but since I look mostly black, I can take advantage of AA programs. You know, because that white part of me just jumps right out when I have to take an exam or do some homework. The same guy told me that when he walks into a lecture hall to teach, he sees all the dark faces and knows they will be at the bottom of the class at the end of the semester. If educators feel this way about minority students, it probably effects the caliber of education these students can achieve. I had the highest grade out of 200 students in my orgo class and people were just phucking baffled. Even when I tutored, many students were skeptical about my abilities. I always had to work extra hard to prove I wasn't just BSing my students. When you are an URM, people don't expect certain things from you and its hard to fight those ideas through out your academic career. Since my family is middle class, I know there are things that make the URM experience different from others across all socioeconomic boundaries. There are thing's I've been through that I'm sure others don't have to deal with. Examples:

My Uncle was lynched in Washington County (Texas) when I was 5,
I went to a private (predominantly white) school because the schools in my area didn't even have text books (they had pamphlets. NO JOKE),
In elementary, the other kids used to tell me to paint myself white to be in their clubs or ask me why black people smell so bad
My college roommate asked me to move out for a few days because her G-ma was visiting and she didn't want her to know she was rooming with a black girl.
Most recently, my Grandpa died because no one in Alexandria wanted to give dialysis to a poor Katrina evacuee (sorry, is it refugee?)
I already told you the story about my professor.

The list goes on and on. Don't think that the reason why minorities choose to pursue sports over academics is because they lack the ability to achieve academically. When you are told you aren't smart and the only way for you to be successful is to pick up a football or a b-ball, it really sinks in. Social pressures have a large effect on the choices people make.

I'm not really sure how requiring pre-school for children will do anything to help their performance later on in their academic careers. Are these children so disadvantaged that they are already behind the curve in Kindergarden?
Actually, yes. When I started kindergarten, I could already read entire books. Some kids start kindergarten not even knowing their letters and numbers.

Wow what a great thread. It took me a while to get through it all, but I think I am caught up. For the most part everyone is being very civil, which is what I was hoping could happen on the thread a few days ago before it degenerated...

One thing that I might point out to everyone is the glaring discrepancy in research and references that have gone into the comments. Besides Lady_Jubliee, no one is doing their homework. Many comments have been insightful, but there are also many that are just opinions that represent common misconceptions.

Because this keeps happening for in this discussion, I have started working on putting together a website that summarizes the pertinant info dealing with URMs and healthcare. There are some sites out there but they are not in a format for general use, and I want it tailored to incoming students, since this policy has become important to all students.

A huge resource I have found is the report by the Sullivan Commision:

http://admissions.duhs.duke.edu/sullivancommission/index.cfm

Its quite long so I doubt many will read it, but if you are interested, check out the introduction (through page 13) which summarizes the major findings.

Also if anyone wants to contribute (and I want to include all viewpoints) please PM me.

Exactly my problem. I try not to get worked up when people suggest this, but it just hurts my feelings because this idea is so damaging. When ever I let people know how I did on the MCAT and my GPA, they always try to figure out how a black girl pulled it off. I haven't made anything less than an A- since I decided to pursue medicine Fall Sophomore year. I had a professor at my school tell me that I was lucky for this reason:
I'm part white (My g-ma is 75% French) so I can get high scores on tests and do well in school but since I look mostly black, I can take advantage of AA programs. You know, because that white part of me just jumps right out when I have to take an exam or do some homework. The same guy told me that when he walks into a lecture hall to teach, he sees all the dark faces and knows they will be at the bottom of the class at the end of the semester. If educators feel this way about minority students, it probably effects the caliber of education these students can achieve. I had the highest grade out of 200 students in my orgo class and people were just phucking baffled. Even when I tutored, many students were skeptical about my abilities. I always had to work extra hard to prove I wasn't just BSing my students. When you are an URM, people don't expect certain things from you and its hard to fight those ideas through out your academic career. Since my family is middle class, I know there are things that make the URM experience different from others across all socioeconomic boundaries. There are thing's I've been through that I'm sure others don't have to deal with. Examples:

My Uncle was lynched in Washington County (Texas) when I was 5,
I went to a private (predominantly white) school because the schools in my area didn't even have text books (they had pamphlets. NO JOKE),
In elementary, the other kids used to tell me to paint myself white to be in their clubs or ask me why black people smell so bad
My college roommate asked me to move out for a few days because her G-ma was visiting and she didn't want her to know she was rooming with a black girl.
Most recently, my Grandpa died because no one in Alexandria wanted to give dialysis to a poor Katrina evacuee (sorry, is it refugee?)
I already told you the story about my professor.

The list goes on and on. Don't think that the reason why minorities choose to pursue sports over academics is because they lack the ability to achieve academically. When you are told you aren't smart and the only way for you to be successful is to pick up a football or a b-ball, it really sinks in. Social pressures have a large effect on the choices people make.

Those are tough experiences, but I received a lot of the same kind of treatment as a poor white boy (I don't look Native American). I never had a family member lynched, but everything else is pretty much the same. I got accused of starting fires in grade school and I had to defend myself, because I was the kid in the shabby clothes.

My problem is that I think AA makes it worse and not better. AA basically tells people you're not smart enough. That's already what you're upset about, so how is it helpful?

The professor, what he said was wrong. He probably shouldn't have said that to you about the students at the bottom of the class, but at the same time, an observation isn't necessarily racists if he has seen it over and over. His comments on a white ancestor show that he thought it was genetic, which is stupid, but the simple phenemenon with no cause attributed is just an observation. It shows something needs to be done for those kids earlier, most likely. Maybe they can be helped in college, but help earlier will pay more, because it will keep them from ever getting behind.

Shredder: ive had tons of experience in my earlier schooling with minorities--"fun" in other words. im sure much more than yourself. ive ridden buses with gang members and participated in cinco de mayo song and dance, valuable indeed. im not too interested in hearing stories from the hood when i go to med school, i go there to learn medicine. i think intellectual diversity is far more important

I think these types of attitudes are another reason why many minorities are discouraged and choose not to pursue higher degrees or honors courses in high school. Some just don't want to have to battle day in and day out with ppl who think so little of them simply because of their race. Whether or not you believe it, it is a huge deterrent. Please dont mistake me. There are certainly other factors involved and I acknowledge that. But everyone who holds these discriminatory attitudes is collectively responsible (in part, not entirely) for the disadvantages experienced by minorities. And YES, there are more ways than one to be disadvantaged. THIS IS CERTAINLY ONE OF THEM.

I think there are enough intelligent minds in the government who are capable of distinguishing between a BS policy and one that is necessary for the time being. No, it is not the best solution, but the other options that many of you have presented do not serve to eradicate these discriminatory attitudes. Lady J provided a study that showed that students at Standford and UCSF (i think) found racial diveristy to be a blessing. Wouldn't be suprised if these same individuals who found merit in diversity had the same attitude you did at one point in time. I only hope that you're future experiences at a (hopefully) diverse university will change your mind.

The fact that your supposed "outliers" are competitive with the outliers of any race is counter to that.moose some outliers are more outlying than others. for example the guy from (air hits your brain is it? i read it long ago) must be a super outlier, a real rarity and he should be thankful for that blessing. im sure his hard work played into it but also his innate talent, which made it possible to begin with. curves and distributions are really useful when assessing large sets of data, i like them a lot. they dont tell the whole story but they make good guesses at it, the best guesses you can possibly make basically. just like economic analysts make predictions about the future economy--they may not be perfect or they may be flat out bad, but theyre the best method at hand. so no you cant use curves to evaluate individuals, but you can use them fairly well to evaluate groups.

Lj those experiences sound rough, sorry to hear about them. i dont think people should be criticized for things that are out of their control, its unreasonable. at the same time, AA creates tension. i dont like the tension and i wish it werent there. i dont like having to say of a classmate, oh hes smart and highly qualified...for a (x race) person. you should be able to say it without qualification. medical school trains people to save lives, and politics should not put those lives in danger. of all places medical school is the worst to impose double standards.

does anyone think that AA for indians or chinese would get them into the nba, that is the question. and its on that foundation that all AA systems are based. and missmary im not discriminatory, its AA thats discriminatory. i just see things as they are. lately i admire bill cosby a lot, i think hes a real role model that people should heed. you say the ppl running the country are smart and i suspect as much--which is why i also suspect either brainwashing or a conspiracy

Exactly my problem. I try not to get worked up when people suggest this, but it just hurts my feelings because this idea is so damaging. When ever I let people know how I did on the MCAT and my GPA, they always try to figure out how a black girl pulled it off. I haven't made anything less than an A- since I decided to pursue medicine Fall Sophomore year. I had a professor at my school tell me that I was lucky for this reason:
I'm part white (My g-ma is 75% French) so I can get high scores on tests and do well in school but since I look mostly black, I can take advantage of AA programs. You know, because that white part of me just jumps right out when I have to take an exam or do some homework. The same guy told me that when he walks into a lecture hall to teach, he sees all the dark faces and knows they will be at the bottom of the class at the end of the semester. If educators feel this way about minority students, it probably effects the caliber of education these students can achieve. I had the highest grade out of 200 students in my orgo class and people were just phucking baffled. Even when I tutored, many students were skeptical about my abilities. I always had to work extra hard to prove I wasn't just BSing my students. When you are an URM, people don't expect certain things from you and its hard to fight those ideas through out your academic career. Since my family is middle class, I know there are things that make the URM experience different from others across all socioeconomic boundaries. There are thing's I've been through that I'm sure others don't have to deal with. Examples:

My Uncle was lynched in Washington County (Texas) when I was 5,
I went to a private (predominantly white) school because the schools in my area didn't even have text books (they had pamphlets. NO JOKE),
In elementary, the other kids used to tell me to paint myself white to be in their clubs or ask me why black people smell so bad
My college roommate asked me to move out for a few days because her G-ma was visiting and she didn't want her to know she was rooming with a black girl.
Most recently, my Grandpa died because no one in Alexandria wanted to give dialysis to a poor Katrina evacuee (sorry, is it refugee?)
I already told you the story about my professor.

The list goes on and on. Don't think that the reason why minorities choose to pursue sports over academics is because they lack the ability to achieve academically. When you are told you aren't smart and the only way for you to be successful is to pick up a football or a b-ball, it really sinks in. Social pressures have a large effect on the choices people make.
I'm sorry about some of these experiences that you've had, Lady, and I echo Moose in saying that you have my respect for your accomplishments. From all I know about you, you are an impressive person, and that would be true no matter what race you were. I for one would be proud to have you as my classmate if we both end up at Baylor. :cool:

This issue of changing people's perceptions of URM students' capabilities is an important one. I believe that the most important people whose perceptions need to be changed are the URM students' themselves. A person can't control what other people do or think, but he *can* control what *he* does and thinks. I sometimes do science demos for the kids at the elementary school where I volunteer. I have also discussed with them several times how much education is necessary to become a "research doctor." (We figured out that I am in the 25th grade. :p ) My group is currently in the fourth grade, and I don't know how many of them will ultimately go to college or even finish high school. Their lives will get much more complicated once they start middle school. But for now, several of them have said that they want to be chemists when they grow up (at least this week ;) ).

Shredder which is why i also suspect either brainwashing or a conspiracy[/B]

Not sure what you mean by a conspiracy? Elaboration...?

Those are tough experiences, but I received a lot of the same kind of treatment as a poor white boy (I don't look Native American). I never had a family member lynched, but everything else is pretty much the same. I got accused of starting fires in grade school and I had to defend myself, because I was the kid in the shabby clothes.

My problem is that I think AA makes it worse and not better. AA basically tells people you're not smart enough. That's already what you're upset about, so how is it helpful?

The professor, what he said was wrong. He probably shouldn't have said that to you about the students at the bottom of the class, but at the same time, an observation isn't necessarily racists if he has seen it over and over. His comments on a white ancestor show that he thought it was genetic, which is stupid, but the simple phenemenon with no cause attributed is just an observation. It shows something needs to be done for those kids earlier, most likely. Maybe they can be helped in college, but help earlier will pay more, because it will keep them from ever getting behind.

I agree that AA is not the ultimate answer to educational disparities, but I don't feel it should be abandoned at this point while nothing else is being done to fix the education system. The physician population needs to be diverse. If there are no other immediate ways to promote diversity, then the ends justify the means in my book. Besides, the thresholds set for MCAT and GPA seem to be doing a decent job of making sure only those who can do the work are accepted. In the long-run, however, something needs to be done to correct educational disparities. These programs should work to improve education from preschool to high school. I think one thing that would help is to get rid of the districting system. If people in the surrounding districts pay to keep the immediate schools open, those schools in poorer areas will receive less funding. Consequently poorer children will get an inferior education. Even though I grew up in a middle-class African American neighborhood, the areas in my school district were much poorer than my neighborhood. Because of this, the high school I would have attended (had my parents not chosen private school) gives its students pamphlets instead of text books.

That being said, one thing I've learned is that racism needs no real excuse. People thought minorities lacked intellectual ability WAY before Affirmative Action. Since these injurious ideas are pervasive in every aspect of society, health care providers, students, teachers and professors have all been indoctrinated with the idea that certain races play specific roles in society. I think this, in and of itself, produces many of the educational disparities in America.

I think these types of attitudes are another reason why many minorities are discouraged and choose not to pursue higher degrees or honors courses in high school. Some just don't want to have to battle day in and day out with ppl who think so little of them simply because of their race. Whether or not you believe it, it is a huge deterrent. Please dont mistake me. There are certainly other factors involved and I acknowledge that. But everyone who holds these discriminatory attitudes is collectively responsible (in part, not entirely) for the disadvantages experienced by minorities. And YES, there are more ways than one to be disadvantaged. THIS IS CERTAINLY ONE OF THEM.

I think there are enough intelligent minds in the government who are capable of distinguishing between a BS policy and one that is necessary for the time being. No, it is not the best solution, but the other options that many of you have presented do not serve to eradicate these discriminatory attitudes. Lady J provided a study that showed that students at Standford and UCSF (i think) found racial diveristy to be a blessing. Wouldn't be suprised if these same individuals who found merit in diversity had the same attitude you did at one point in time. I only hope that you're future experiences at a (hopefully) diverse university will change your mind.

I think there are enough intelligent minds in government to have decided that a war in Iraq was the best way to insure our peace and to defeat the terrorists before they have a chance to strike the US directly.

Do you like that argument? What about the US government prior to President Lincoln? I think they had glaring holes in their policies and no amount of respect for their authority will change that.

Stanford and UCSF... intellectual freedom to say anything other than "diversity is wonderful" in a zombie voice? I don't think so...

I think there are enough intelligent minds in government to have decided that a war in Iraq was the best way to insure our peace and to defeat the terrorists before they have a chance to strike the US directly.

Do you like that argument? What about the US government prior to President Lincoln? I think they had glaring holes in their policies and no amount of respect for their authority will change that.

Stanford and UCSF... intellectual freedom to say anything other than "diversity is wonderful" in a zombie voice? I don't think so...
I agree that the example's you bring up represent glaring mistakes on the part of the government, but in those instances, one can identify specific ulterior motives for the government to take those stances. There are many non-PC motives that could have provoked us to go to war in Iraq (I'll leave you to think of those on your own time, don't want to get off topic). Also there were lots of political and economical reasons for the government to preserve slavery. In this case, what is the ulterior motive? What does the government have to gain by promoting diversity in medical school? Why don't you believe having a diverse physician population is best?

moose some outliers are more outlying than others. for example the guy from (air hits your brain is it? i read it long ago) must be a super outlier, a real rarity and he should be thankful for that blessing. im sure his hard work played into it but also his innate talent, which made it possible to begin with. curves and distributions are really useful when assessing large sets of data, i like them a lot. they dont tell the whole story but they make good guesses at it, the best guesses you can possibly make basically. just like economic analysts make predictions about the future economy--they may not be perfect or they may be flat out bad, but theyre the best method at hand. so no you cant use curves to evaluate individuals, but you can use them fairly well to evaluate groups.


This one that I just read is "Gifted Hands", but he may well have written the other one, too. It sounds like some of the type of surgery he does.

Statistics are great, but they don't give causes. So the researchers speculate on causes. That's one thing I haven't liked about much of the research LJ has presented. The speculation is taken as scientifically as the facts, but has nothing to back it. Most of the time that means the speculation is politically correct. Your speculation is politically incorrect and I think more erroneous. I used some outliers to show that minorities could reach the intellectual peaks of whites. It might not prove anything, but I think it points to there not being any genetic limitations on minority intelligence.

My personal opinion is mutts will someday rule the world, because genetic diversity is the healthiest. I might be biased, though. ;)

I agree that the example's you bring up represent glaring mistakes on the part of the government, but in those instances, one can identify specific ulterior motives for the government to take those stances. There are many non-PC motives that could have provoked us to go to war in Iraq (I'll leave you to think of those on your own time, don't want to get off topic). Also there were lots of political and economical reasons for the government to preserve slavery. In this case, what is the ulterior motive? What does the government have to gain by promoting diversity in medical school? Why don't you believe having a diverse physician population is best?

Votes. Whites aren't voting against politicians due to AA, but minorities will vote for politicians they think support them most strongly.

Because in the tradeoff between highest achievement (standard adcom measures of acceptance minus racially based AA) and an artificial mix of racial backgrounds, I favor highest achivement. I thought that was pretty apparent.

No I don't agree with all the decisions the government has made, but I don't think that necesarily discredits every decision they have ever made. The war in Iraq is a very different subject. The war in iraq was based on faulty documents and hidden agendas. AA policies have been supported time and time again by research and statistics. Furthermore, the need for it is evidenced in ppl's racists/prejudicial attitudes . Eliminating AA now, during a time when medicine still lacks racial diversity and ppl think all minorities are gang bangers and incapable of contributing to an intelligent environment, would certainly be dangerous. I think encouraging non-URMs to work alongside URMs can minimize these attitudes. We can all learn a lot from each other.

Moosepilot but minorities will vote for politicians they think support them most strongly.

seems like a real roundabout way to secure votes, and as long as AA has been in use, can't say that it's been all that effective. there's no real proof that even minorities, who do not benefit from AA, actually vote for these government officals. i cant recall a time that AA was used as part of a political campaign (correct me if im wrong), so how would they know who to vote for?

and with so few minorities even pursing medical school (or other universities for that matter), why would this be a logical way to secure votes? not a whole lot of ppl "benefitting" from it

No I don't agree with all the decisions the government has made, but I don't think that necesarily discredits every decision they have ever made. The war in Iraq is a very different subject. The war in iraq was based on faulty documents and hidden agendas. AA policies have been supported time and time again by research and statistics. Furthermore, the need for it is evidenced in ppl's racists/prejudicial attitudes . Eliminating AA now, during a time when medicine still lacks racial diversity and ppl think all minorities are gang bangers and incapable of contributing to an intelligent environment, would certainly be dangerous. I think encouraging non-URMs to work alongside URMs can minimize these attitudes. We can all learn a lot from each other.

Oh, so you're saying each decision the government makes should be evaluated on it's own merits? I agree.

You seem to define "racist" as anyone who doesn't agree with you. So as long as there is disagreement, you're going to call for AA.

I wonder why people think minorities are gang bangers? The same reason people think Iraqis are insurgents or Arabs are terrorists? There are genuine problems that need to be fixed that aren't non-minorities faults and which AA isn't going to fix. Promoting minorities ahead of non-minorities with better qualifications isn't going to erase racism, because it is racism and inspires more.

seems like a real roundabout way to secure votes, and as long as AA has been in use, can't say that it's been all that effective. there's no real proof that even minorities, who do not benefit from AA, actually vote for these government officals. i cant recall a time that AA was used as part of a political campaign (correct me if im wrong), so how would they know who to vote for?

and with so few minorities even pursing medical school (or other universities for that matter), why would this be a logical way to secure votes? not a whole lot of ppl "benefitting" from it

AA is wide spectrum of programs. Opposition to AA programs is news, people see it, and there are political ramifications. Politicians take care of themselves, so unfortunately, this never gets addressed.

It's not only pre-meds who vote based on AA. I think most minorities vote mostly on racial issues or pet issues (immigration, Cuba, etc.). That's why they, like women, are courted as a voting block and not as individuals.

Votes. Whites aren't voting against politicians due to AA, but minorities will vote for politicians they think support them most strongly.

Because in the tradeoff between highest achievement (standard adcom measures of acceptance minus racially based AA) and an artificial mix of racial backgrounds, I favor highest achivement. I thought that was pretty apparent.


You know, only 56% of minorities voted in last presidential election. As we all know, presidential elections command the highest voter turnout, so it follows that fewer minorities vote in other elections. So you are suggesting AA is a massive ploy for politicians to secure (at best) half of the votes of 30% of the population? Also, the AMA, AAMC, NIH, and Congress along with countless academic institutions have all fabricated statistics showing that diversity is needed in the medical/professional community. Furthermore, these prominent individuals allocate large sums of money and hold yearly conferences aimed at finding solutions to increase diversity--all as part of a massive conspiracy to secure the minority vote. Please forgive me if I'm not able to suspend my disbelief.

Many of the studies I posted did have statistics backing them. The ones that didn't show the numbers are studies that I'd have to buy in order to share them with you. I refuse to spend my money to "prove a point" that will never be accepted (most people probably wouldn't even read the studies). As I posted before, studies show that only 26% of the variation regarding who gets accepted and who does not can be accounted for by MCAT and GPA. It seems from our discussion that you believe best qualified= highest numbers. I have also posted evidence showing that most schools use thresholds because students who can score above a certain threshold will probably succeed in medical school. It seems pretty clear that non-number based qualifications are coveted by adcoms also. Ethnic diversity just happens to be one of those qualifications. Also, as I posted before, people who score the highest on the MCAT are only 2.5% likely to choose a primary care specialty. Choosing people with only extremely high numbers would result in an over saturation of highly specialized residency programs while draining primary care of qualified physicians. This would reduce access to healthcare. Eventually, there would have to be more economic incentives for physicians to work in primary care which would drive up the cost of health care. This would again reduce accessibility. Tell me again why choosing those with the highest numbers is better?

Also, you call my studies pure speculation and at the same time, you spout off unsupported arguments. Aren't your arguments speculation? You haven't even tried to back your opinions with fact because THEY don’t want you to know that all this diversity crap is BS. So why should I believe your grandiose conspiracy theory? I don't need some study to prove to me that there are racially related educational disparities because I've lived it. For the benefit of others, however, I've posted the studies and for some reason they have been deemed insufficient. Again I say to you, prove to me you are right and I am wrong. At least try.

i don't think every idea that is contra to my own is racist. i think assuming every minority you meet is a gang banger is racist. that's my opinion. we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Beyond that, I agree with you somewhat. There are problems that need to be fixed, yes. The assumptions that have been made about Arabs and Iraqis are equally racist and inappropriate. But you dont hold individuals accountable for making these assumptions. How can that be? You can make the choice to educate yourself about other cultures/people and learn from them. Society does not coerce individuals to feel a certain way about a class of ppl. Ultimately, it is a choice.

Secondly, I don't think AA is about promoting unqualified URMs and I really resent that ppl feel that way particularly since Lady J has already made the argument that threshold values are used to ensure that all accepted candidates (URM and non-URM) are capable of handling the med school curriculum and becoming competent doctors. No unqualified URMs are getting into medical school, so please for the luv of God let that go.

Have you thought for a moment that other non-URMS who dont have great scores might be "bumping" ( to use your term) other non-URMs with higher stats because they have the potential to contribute to the diversity of medicine in some other way? Med schools like to diversify on many levels. nonURMs who have gone thru some sort of adversity and who have lower scores are getting in instead of higher scoring nonURMs, yet this doesnt seem to bother you. How can we say that the adversity this nonURM person experienced is much more significant than the adversity experienced by URMs on a daily basis?

Finally, I think we are forgetting that AA was created not just for minorities but women as well. It is not used as much now b.c women make up nearly 50% of most med schools and make up a good portion of the workforce. I'm sure that certain qualified women were given a second look PARTLY because of the diversity they would be adding. Was this use of AA wrong as well? AA based on race will be phased out when it is no longer needed (much in the same way AA based on gender was/is).


affirmative action, in the United States, programs to overcome the effects of past societal discrimination by allocating jobs and resources to members of specific groups, such as minorities and women.

Also, as I posted before, people who score the highest on the MCAT are only 2.5% likely to choose a primary care specialty. Choosing people with only extremely high numbers would result in an over saturation of highly specialized residency programs while draining primary care of qualified physicians. This would reduce access to healthcare.

Maybe it is time to reconsider the role of a doctor as a PCP. PA's and other mid-level providers are already infringing on the territory.

Perhaps we change the role of physicians to being specialists only and pass the torch of FP to PA's. FP are already the least filled residencies. I'm sure it wouldn't be popular with many docs in PCP but a PA is cheaper and easier to train and does much of the same work. That would increase access.

Maybe it is time to reconsider the role of a doctor as a PCP. PA's and other mid-level providers are already infringing on the territory.

Perhaps we change the role of physicians to being specialists only and pass the torch of FP to PA's. FP are already the least filled residencies. I'm sure it wouldn't be popular with many docs in PCP but a PA is cheaper and easier to train and does much of the same work. That would increase access.
but would a PA be willing to go thru the years of training? Granted much of what medical personnel learn is on the job (reading cases in a textbook is nothing compared to experiencing them), but I like the idea that my FP went thru the rigors of medical school and may very well be more informed. I understand that PAs do much of what doctors do, but I don't know that a lot of ppl would buy that idea as much sense as it may make.

but would a PA be willing to go thru the years of training? Granted much of what medical personnel learn is on the job (reading cases in a textbook is nothing compared to experiencing them), but I like the idea that my FP went thru the rigors of medical school and may very well be more informed. I understand that PAs do much of what doctors do, but I don't know that a lot of ppl would buy that idea as much sense as it may make.
For FP, there are two types of patients it seems.
The people who have a cold, want their Z pack and want to get on their way b/c they are busy.

The others are the "boutique" patients that want to spend a lot of time with their doc and establish a relationship.

PA's or NP's could def. serve the first type.

Maybe it is time to reconsider the role of a doctor as a PCP. PA's and other mid-level providers are already infringing on the territory.

Perhaps we change the role of physicians to being specialists only and pass the torch of FP PA's. FP are already the least filled residencies. I'm sure it wouldn't be popular with many docs in PCP but a PA is cheaper and easier to train and does much of the same work. That would increase access.
This is an interesting idea. Lots of the reasons for limited access is because the number of practicing doctors is artificially limited by the relative scarcity of medical school seats. I believe the US has the lowest doctor to patient ratio of any first-world nation. Also, those who want to be primary care specialist could seek training as PAs instead of going to medical school. This would be cheaper for them and put less application pressure on medical school admissions. Less application pressure= easier to get in= less animosity against groups who are thought to have an advantage. I've never considered this, but it seems like a good solution to relieve some of the pressure and provide better health care.

This is an interesting idea. Lots of the reasons for limited access is because the number of practicing doctors is artificially limited by the relative scarcity of medical school seats. I believe the US has the lowest doctor to patient ratio of any first-world nation. Also, those who want to be primary care specialist could seek training as PAs instead of going to medical school. This would be cheaper for them and put less application pressure on medical school admissions. Less application pressure= easier to get in= less animosity against groups who are thought to have an advantage. I've never considered this, but it seems like a good solution to relieve some of the pressure and provide better health care.
i agree that it does hold some merit, but I dont know.....think many ppl would still be opposed to this. Some ppl will prefer seeing a medical doctor for their ailments, no matter how small. Would these PAs, who have less training than FPs, be referring their patients to specialists? Do PAs who are doing the work of an FP want to make PA money?

Brett: There are already little boutiques in place that are staffed by RNs and PAs who see patients who just want to come in for their Z pack. Some of these boutiques are in supermarkets. I even read the other day in the paper that an over-the phone system like this is in place. Things like this are already popping up. What about the other ppl, like myself, who appreciate a good relationship with my FP? and who want dont want to go to a little boutique?

Would patient care suffer? PAs, i think, are just as competent as FPs (to some extent...i guess), but if patients are allowed to decide for themselves which type of care they want 1. some quick pick u your med place or 2. an FP that knows their history, has a strong TRUSTING relationship with them (which, to me, is more likely to translate into better care), dont you think there is the potential for health care to suffer?

Brett: There are already little boutiques in place that are staffed by RNs and PAs who see patients who just want to come in for their Z pack. Some of these boutiques are in supermarkets. I even read the other day in the paper that an over-the phone system like this is in place. Things like this are already popping up. What about the other ppl, like myself, who appreciate a good relationship with my FP? and who want dont want to go to a little boutique?


You mixed the two. The places you stop in the supermarket aren't the boutiques. Those are where I see PC medicine going since sadly many people value their time more than their health. Deciding on a check up while already out to the grocery might actually be a good thing for public health.

A boutique (like in the fashion stores) would be smaller establishments where the owner creates a good relationship with and caters to the clientele.

I'm sure there is some discepancies in the training of a PA and a primary care doc. Perhaps maybe a PA fellowship in FP to get script rights? The pay scale would be determined by patient load and procedures not so much the "salary of a FP doc."

There is also at atleast one med school an option to forgo your forth year of med and enter the first year of FP residency thus finishing it all in 6 rather than 7.

i agree that it does hold some merit, but I dont know.....think many ppl would still be opposed to this. Some ppl will prefer seeing a medical doctor for their ailments, no matter how small. Would these PAs, who have less training than FPs, be referring their patients to specialists? Do PAs who are doing the work of an FP want to make PA money?

Brett: There are already little boutiques in place that are staffed by RNs and PAs who see patients who just want to come in for their Z pack. Some of these boutiques are in supermarkets. I even read the other day in the paper that an over-the phone system like this is in place. Things like this are already popping up. What about the other ppl, like myself, who appreciate a good relationship with my FP? and who want dont want to go to a little boutique?

Would patient care suffer? PAs, i think, are just as competent as FPs (to some extent...i guess), but if patients are allowed to decide for themselves which type of care they want 1. some quick pick u your med place or 2. an FP that knows their history, has a strong TRUSTING relationship with them (which, to me, is more likely to translate into better care), dont you think there is the potential for health care to suffer?

Maybe the solution is to offer both. Do not make the FP physician obsolete, but have more clinics where PAs can perform simple procedures that FPs would normally perform. If the PA can't handle something, he or she could refer patients to a FP doc or a specialist as needed. FPs (having more training) could command more money while the PAs could give people more economically sensible options. Its a good way to provide people with basic health care and maybe it will keep people who don't have insurance out of emergency rooms when they are really seeking primary care. I think another good idea is to open more student run clinics. Many medical schools have started free student run clinics in communities where many can't afford health care. The students get a great learning tool that will not only grant them more hands-on experience but teach them cultural competence. In exchange, the community has its health care needs taken care of for free. Enough programs like these could take some of the burden off the uninsured populations.

if we keep both PC-PAs and FP, we are taking a huge source of income away from FPs. I dont know about you, but I have dealt with too many FPs who are forever rushing me out. They try to cramp in as many ppl as they can. Some of this is a desire to make that "Doctor's Salary" and the other part of it is the high costs (liability insurance and other overhead) that they have to deal with. I can't envision a good result from this. Furthermore, there would be too many middlemen. PC-PA refers to FP who refers to Specialist. Too much i think. I think there are too many factors to take into consideration. not being pessimistic, just cautious.

Brett: You mixed the two. true. true.


and i agree with you on making PC more accessible. Maybe this needs to be the focus and not dividing FP into two personnel. Free clinics, supermarket PC etc.....

What's the education requirement for RNs and PAs? Which one gets Rx rights? I forget...

if we keep both PC-PAs and FP, we are taking a huge source of income away from FPs. I dont know about you, but I have dealt with too many FPs who are forever rushing me out. They try to cramp in as many ppl as they can. Some of this is a desire to make that "Doctor's Salary" and the other part of it is the high costs (liability insurance and other overhead) that they have to deal with. I can't envision a good result from this. Furthermore, there would be too many middlemen. PC-PA refers to FP who refers to Specialist. Too much i think. I think there are too many factors to take into consideration. not being pessimistic, just cautious.

true. true.


and i agree with you on making PC more accessible. Maybe this needs to be the focus and not dividing FP into two personnel. Free clinics, supermarket PC etc.....

What's the education requirement for RNs and PAs? Which one gets Rx rights? I forget...

The thing is that in FP it is getting harder to make a "doctor's salary". After 7 years of med school/residency, they have loans to pay and such and aren't making the kind of money they should be to justify the debt.

The malpractice and overhead are minor compared to other specialties. There isn't anything more than an exam table and a diagnostic set in most exam rooms.

RN is 4 years. PA I'm unsure of. Take into account though these degrees are very specialized as opposed to the general liberal arts degrees that pre-meds do. They learn job skills while in their schooling.

wait! why dont FP just get paid more? I think this could solve a lot of problems: 1. less economic pressure to see 100 Pts a day, so they send more time with Pts and can provide more thorough care and 2. more ppl would want to go into PC. althought most docs want to help ppl, they also want to be adequately compensated for the time they put in. plus they deserve it, they have to know so much more about basic care 3. more FPs =more americans with access to PC....

wait! why dont FP just get paid more? I think this could solve a lot of problems: 1. less economic pressure to see 100 Pts a day, so they send more time with Pts and can provide more thorough care and 2. more ppl would want to go into PC. althought most docs want to help ppl, they also want to be adequately compensated for the time they put in. plus they deserve it, they have to know so much more about basic care 3. more FPs =more americans with access to PC....
Each procedure has a certain compensation. FP's just don't do the high ticket procedures.

The thing is that in FP it is getting harder to make a "doctor's salary". After 7 years of med school/residency, they have loans to pay and such and aren't making the kind of money they should be to justify the debt.

The malpractice and overhead are minor compared to other specialties. There isn't anything more than an exam table and a diagnostic set in most exam rooms.

RN is 4 years. PA I'm unsure of. Take into account though these degrees are very specialized as opposed to the general liberal arts degrees that pre-meds do. They learn job skills while in their schooling.
You know, Brett, I've read your post before in other threads on SDN and I always thought you were an ass. Even though I'm pretty sure you don't agree with AA, you haven't been disrespectful at all. It turns out, you're a really reasonable and intelligent guy. I am also very impressed with bananaface (even though she doesn't agree with AA either). Guess this thread is also dispelling a few myths about SDNers.

edit: sorry bananaface :o

Threshold values = approximately what I got on my two best sections = worthless. Someone can succeed in med school because they can get a 25? :laugh:

That's the sort of BS that I'm talking about. It manages to get the program through a court that said strict racial quotas weren't allowed, but it doesn't mean anything.

To reiterate:

I don't think there's a vast conspiracy, but if politicians can support AA and get 15% of the vote at minor to no expense of the majority vote, yes, I think they'll do it.

I think that Arabs and Iraqis have done a lot to earn the current distrust they suffer under. Gang members have done a lot to ruin the reputation of minorities, just like the Klan has done for whites. It's no surprise that gangs are associated with minorities. Don't blame people who see an obvious association, blame the gang members and work towards a solution to street crime.

The whole argument has reached the point of agree to disagree. I don't think anything beyond qualifications should be looked at and I don't think skin color counts as a qualification. If an adopted white child grew up in a black household, would he add to diversity? Would AA help him? Ask yourself that and then ask whether it's a good policy or not.

wait! why dont FP just get paid more? I think this could solve a lot of problems: 1. less economic pressure to see 100 Pts a day, so they send more time with Pts and can provide more thorough care and 2. more ppl would want to go into PC. althought most docs want to help ppl, they also want to be adequately compensated for the time they put in. plus they deserve it, they have to know so much more about basic care 3. more FPs =more americans with access to PC....

:laugh:

Economic incentives are a solution I proposed pages ago.

You know, Brett, I've read your post before in other threads on SDN and I always thought you were an ass. Even though I'm pretty sure you don't agree with AA, you haven't been disrespectful at all. It turns out, you're a really reasonable and intelligent guy. I am also very impressed with bananaface (even though he doesn't agree with AA either). Guess this thread is also dispelling a few myths about SDNers.
I think I hold a perspective that isn't common on SDN.
I'm an acquired taste.

You know, Brett, I've read your post before in other threads on SDN and I always thought you were an ass. Even though I'm pretty sure you don't agree with AA, you haven't been disrespectful at all. It turns out, you're a really reasonable and intelligent guy. I am also very impressed with bananaface (even though he doesn't agree with AA either). Guess this thread is also dispelling a few myths about SDNers.

That's funny. Brett is usually one of the more well liked pre-allo posters that I've seen. Bananaface is a female. She was a pharmacy mod and now is a super moderator. She's so inoffensive it's not even funny (except to Okies who abhore her evil liberal ways). :laugh:

Threshold values = approximately what I got on my two best sections = worthless. Someone can succeed in med school because they can get a 25? :laugh:

That's the sort of BS that I'm talking about. It manages to get the program through a court that said strict racial quotas weren't allowed, but it doesn't mean anything.

To reiterate:

I don't think there's a vast conspiracy, but if politicians can support AA and get 15% of the vote at minor to no expense of the majority vote, yes, I think they'll do it.

I think that Arabs and Iraqis have done a lot to earn the current distrust they suffer under. Gang members have done a lot to ruin the reputation of minorities, just like the Klan has done for whites. It's no surprise that gangs are associated with minorities. Don't blame people who see an obvious association, blame the gang members and work towards a solution to street crime.

The whole argument has reached the point of agree to disagree. I don't think anything beyond qualifications should be looked at and I don't think skin color counts as a qualification. If an adopted white child grew up in a black household, would he add to diversity? Would AA help him? Ask yourself that and then ask whether it's a good policy or not.
Why do you laugh at the notion that people who get 25s can succeed in medical school? Researchers noted the correlation between the passing value for important medical school exams and certain MCAT scores. The data is based on what happens in real-life medical schools. The requirement for extremely high MCAT scores has been artificially inflated by application pressure; you don't need a 40 and a 4.0 to succeed in medical school. You may think this notion is laughable, but considering actually studied data it seems to be true. If you find a better source that proves other wise, I'm all ears.

About the mass voter grab: The minority vote is split anyway. Blacks vote D. because democrats pushed the majority of the important civil rights legislation. Most minorities who actually vote are old enough to remember this. This is why Dems don't work to court the black vote--they know they already have it. Republicans don't try to court the black vote because to most blacks, Rep= racist. Reps would have to spend too much time, energy, and money for very little pay off. As for Hispanics, they tend to vote on morality issues because most Hispanics are Catholic. The abortion issue is what seals their loyalty to the right. Politicians do not need to cling to AA in order to secure votes. This notion is laughable; might I add :laugh:

You really lost me at the gang member, terrorist, KKK comments. The vast majority Arabs and Iraqis do not deserve to be treated like terrorist despite the actions of a few deranged individuals on 911. Likewise, equating all minorities with violent gang members is just racism--its not a valid observation. Contrary to popular belief, most minorities are not selling crack and hanging out of low-rider windows with various automatic weapons. Its interesting how you use the example of the KKK. People aren't scared for their lives because they think every white person who passes by is a KKK member. Though minority groups are associated with a few irrational and injurious individuals, somehow whites escape this stereotype despite the existence of the KKK. When it comes down to it, noting that some destructive individuals happen to be of certain ethnic backgrounds does not give you the right to assume all members of that background are destructive. This reminds me of justification of hate crimes against gays because, "If they weren't gay, people wouldn't be so hateful." When it comes down to it, the problem is not with different ethnic groups, but with the bigotry/racism.

MossePilot Economic incentives are a solution I proposed pages ago.

opps..must have overlooked that one.

I don't think there's a vast conspiracy, but if politicians can support AA and get 15% of the vote at minor to no expense of the majority vote, yes, I think they'll do it.


I would agree with you if I actually thought AA was a huge issue in campaigns like RELIGION has been in the past several elections. It hasn't been. So I'm not really following you here.

I think that Arabs and Iraqis have done a lot to earn the current distrust they suffer under. Gang members have done a lot to ruin the reputation of minorities, just like the Klan has done for whites. It's no surprise that gangs are associated with minorities. Don't blame people who see an obvious association, blame the gang members and work towards a solution to street crime.

wow. like i've said before: i take personal responsibility seriously. i think all blacks should be held accountable for their own actions as well as the assumptions they make about groups of ppl. i dont think all white are evil b.c the KKK is. its a faction with views that are not necessarily representative of the views held by all whites. i really dont think all ppl should suffer b/c there are groups within their population that do things and say things that are radical and outrageous. i'm not sure why you would feel that way. and you ought to know, that a solution does not come with denoucing every other member of that population or justifying the negative views about them.

I don't think anything beyond qualifications should be looked at and I don't think skin color counts as a qualification.

well the ppl that matter in this admission process do.

If an adopted white child grew up in a black household, would he add to diversity? Would AA help him? Ask yourself that and then ask whether it's a good policy or not.


AA wont help him, but that doesnt mean that his unique situation wont make an impression on adcoms. i think adcoms will consider whether this is a worth or unworthy quality for diversification. understand that not all minorites are "helped" by AA, not all of them get in or even have the chance of getting in. only the QUALIFIED applicants are. he would need to be qualified first and foremost

That's funny. Brett is usually one of the more well liked pre-allo posters that I've seen. Bananaface is a female. She was a pharmacy mod and now is a super moderator. She's so inoffensive it's not even funny (except to Okies who abhore her evil liberal ways). :laugh:
Yeah? I think I just got the wrong idea about him. I should have known bananaface is female, no male could possibly be that rational :p

Additionally Moosepilot: I would like to know your views on AA's role in encouraging women into the workforce and into institutions of higher learning. I'm sure women had to go thru the same things minorities are going thru now with proving themselves and discrediting faulty claims, but they persevered and now they have come much further than they were 50 years ago.

LJ,
Although you have the studies, I will point out two issues I have with the assertion of the minimum criteria.

A) DO schools have averages of less than the 25 Minimum MCAT yet don't have 50% failure rates.

B) Yes the 25 MCAT is the minimum MCAT to pass, but I would like to think people aren't expected to "just pass". I realize that someone always has to be at the bottom, but that is almost expecting mediocrity out of those people.

Brett:DO schools have averages of less than the 25 Minimum MCAT yet don't have 50% failure rates.


A) are you suggesting that URMs have a 50% failure rate? i must have missed that in her research. please enlighten me.

B) is the assumption that those ppl who are "just passing" are URMs? i think data that explores how well these ppl with around 25s on their MCAT are doing in med school would be more telling. Regardless, i think the pass/fail system used in most med schools allows high MCATers to "just pass" and still become doctors. nearly the same thing to me

LJ,
Although you have the studies, I will point out two issues I have with the assertion of the minimum criteria.

A) DO schools have averages of less than the 25 Minimum MCAT yet don't have 50% failure rates.

B) Yes the 25 MCAT is the minimum MCAT to pass, but I would like to think people aren't expected to "just pass". I realize that someone always has to be at the bottom, but that is almost expecting mediocrity out of those people.

I believe what the study is trying to say is that within a reasonable confidence interval, one can assume that those with at least a 25 on the MCAT can pass their exams and go on to be practicing physicians. I think the fact that DO schools often have averages below 25 yet they don't have 50% failure rates reiterates the fact that individuals with 25s can do well in medical school. Just because someone got a 25 on the MCAT does not necessarily mean that they will barely pass their exams. I think med schools use thresholds to make sure people who are admitted can at least handle the work load. I don't think the students with lower MCAT scores are expected to then be mediocre students (in fact MCAT scores probably don't matter at all once you are already in), but the probability that they will make lower passing scores on the boards is higher. This does not mean that these students will necessarily make poorer clinicians since it takes different skills to be a clinician than it takes to succeed at basic sciences. It seems the best predictor of how well students will do on exams during the clinical years is the MCAT writing sample. There are thresholds for that too. I think the purpose of the minimum requirements is to separate those who can cut it and those who cant. After that distinction is made, adcoms are free to look at other qualities they feel are desirable for that specific class.

A) are you suggesting that URMs have a 50% failure rate? i must have missed that in her research. please enlighten me.

B) is the assumption that those ppl who are "just passing" are URMs? i think data that explores how well these ppl with around 25s on their MCAT are doing in med school would be more telling. Regardless, i think the pass/fail system used in most med schools allows high MCATers to "just pass" and still become doctors. nearly the same thing to me
It had no relation to URMs. Only to the provided study saying the minimum for success in medical school.

I believe what the study is trying to say is that within a reasonable confidence interval, one can assume that those with at least a 25 on the MCAT can pass their exams and go on to be practicing physicians. I think the fact that DO schools often have averages below 25 yet they don't have 50% failure rates reiterates the fact that individuals with 25s can do well in medical school. Just because someone got a 25 on the MCAT does not necessarily mean that they will barely pass their exams. I think med schools use thresholds to make sure people who are admitted can at least handle the work load. I don't think the students with lower MCAT scores are expected to then be mediocre students (in fact MCAT scores probably don't matter at all once you are already in), but the probability that they will make lower passing scores on the boards is higher. This does not mean that these students will necessarily make poorer clinicians since it takes different skills to be a clinician than it takes to succeed at basic sciences. It seems the best predictor of how well students will do on exams during the clinical years is the MCAT writing sample. There are thresholds for that too. I think the purpose of the minimum requirements is to separate those who can cut it and those who cant. After that distinction is made, adcoms are free to look at other qualities they feel are desirable for that specific class.
Another study correlated MCAT performance to performance in the first two years and on the USMLE.

By drawing conclusions wouldn't that mean that most likely the people who score lower on the MCAT score lower on their exams?

Also, it seems that clinical years don't determine the quality of the physician since you are still not in the leadership role.

Residency performance would much better correlate to your term "poorer clinicians"

It had no relation to URMs. Only to the provided study saying the minimum for success in medical school.
ooooooooooo

Another study correlated MCAT performance to performance in the first two years and on the USMLE.

By drawing conclusions wouldn't that mean that most likely the people who score lower on the MCAT score lower on their exams?
They are statistically more likely to score lower on their exams, yes, but they are still very very likely to pass the exams. This correlation does not mean that everyone who got a 25 on the MCAT will barely scrape by on the boards. Using my SAT score as a predictor, I should have gotten a 28 on the MCAT but really I scored much higher than that. Even if they can "just pass" they can still go on to practice medicine. I hardly think anyone who can pass the USMLE is unintelligent.

They are statistically more likely to score lower on their exams, yes, but they are still very very likely to pass the exams. This correlation does not mean that everyone who got a 25 on the MCAT will barely scrape by on the boards. Using my SAT score as a predictor, I should have gotten a 28 on the MCAT but really I scored much higher than that. Even if they can "just pass" they can still go on to practice medicine. I hardly think anyone who can pass the USMLE is unintelligent.
I added onto my post you quoted.
I would like to see your comments on the addition.

Another study correlated MCAT performance to performance in the first two years and on the USMLE.

By drawing conclusions wouldn't that mean that most likely the people who score lower on the MCAT score lower on their exams?

Also, it seems that clinical years don't determine the quality of the physician since you are still not in the leadership role.

Residency performance would much better correlate to your term "poorer clinicians"
That's probably true, residency data would serve us better than assuming the MCAT determines achievement in all facets of medicine. I also think that at a certain point, high MCAT scores have diminishing marginal returns. Maybe there's a big difference between a 25 and a 28 but is there really much of a difference between a 35 and a 38? Is the student with the 38 much more qualified? I wish I had the full study about thresholds, but I don't want to pay $24. I'm broke :(

For FP, there are two types of patients it seems.
The people who have a cold, want their Z pack and want to get on their way b/c they are busy.

The others are the "boutique" patients that want to spend a lot of time with their doc and establish a relationship.

PA's or NP's could def. serve the first type.Hell, I could serve the first type. No antibiotics for you! Move along! :laugh:

That's probably true, residency data would serve us better than assuming the MCAT determines achievement in all facets of medicine. I also think that at a certain point, high MCAT scores have diminishing marginal returns. Maybe there's a big difference between a 25 and a 28 but is there really much of a difference between a 35 and a 38? Is the student with the 38 much more qualified? I wish I had the full study about thresholds, but I don't want to pay $24. I'm broke :(
No doubt there is diminishing return. In verbal the difference between a few points can be only 5% more correct.

You know, Brett, I've read your post before in other threads on SDN and I always thought you were an ass. Even though I'm pretty sure you don't agree with AA, you haven't been disrespectful at all. It turns out, you're a really reasonable and intelligent guy. I am also very impressed with bananaface (even though she doesn't agree with AA either). Guess this thread is also dispelling a few myths about SDNers.

edit: sorry bananaface :o :thumbup:

No doubt there is diminishing return. In verbal the difference between a few points can be only 5% more correct.
I think this also takes away from the "highest score wins" notion. At a certain point, I think its safe to say that student will make a quality physician. Filling a class with 40+ MCATers who have few non-numerical qualifications or who are not very diverse (ethnically or otherwise) is probably not more effective than admitting students with slightly lower scores who are more well-rounded.

I think this also takes away from the "highest score wins" notion. At a certain point, I think its safe to say that student will make a quality physician. Filling a class with 40+ MCATers who have few non-numerical qualifications or who are not very diverse (ethnically or otherwise) is probably not more effective than admitting students with slightly lower scores who are more well-rounded.
What scale are you measuring this "effective" quality?

What scale are you measuring this "effective" quality?
I guess by effective I mean a physician population that is culturally competent, well educated, empathetic, and competent. In my book, "effective" means as close to ideal as possible.

I guess by effective I mean a physician population that is culturally competent, well educated, empathetic, and competent. In my book, "effective" means as close to ideal as possible.
This will probably anger you but why the push MAKE people culturally competant? Isn't the whole point of the URM programs to make physicians to serve their minority that they are already culturally competent?

For example many colleges are integrating these type courses into the gen ed requirements. Not only are the ridiculously easy but no one WANTS to take them. Waste of tuition money.

I would like to think my definition of culturally competent is knowing that cultural differences exist and accept them as other peoples culture.

If you disagree with this definition then the above applies.

Just because someone with a 25 MCAT is capable of becoming a doctor, doesn't mean that they should be admitted. A similar argument could be said about competitive residencies. Sure the majority of med students are capable of becoming dermatologists, but they all won't get the chance. You have to find someway to reduce the applicant pool. Numerical cutoffs is the easiest way to do this. And even after you make the cut, you still have to exclude many qualified people.

This will probably anger you but why the push MAKE people culturally competant? Isn't the whole point of the URM programs to make physicians to serve their minority that they are already culturally competent?

For example many colleges are integrating these type courses into the gen ed requirements. Not only are the ridiculously easy but no one WANTS to take them. Waste of tuition money.
No, I'm not angered by this :)

I think it's important to stress cultural competence because it allows people of all backgrounds to be more adept at serving a variety of people. Because you are more in touch with your own ethnic group does not make you culturally competent; URMS could be culturally incompetent with regard to ORMs for example. When you interact with patients who differ in ethnic background (which you invariably will) it is best to have an understanding of their culture or to at least shed yourself of preconceived notions that may effect how you treat that person. I used the diabetic study of an example of this earlier. I'll repost for convenience:

When I was at HCEM we were talking about health disparities and we started discussing the issue of getting minorities on organ donor lists. We watched a video about how in a community of blacks in Chicago, very few diabetics were ever put on the donor list to receive a new kidney at their local hospital. When they did research to figure out why, it turns out that the clinicians thought blacks would just go back and eat the wrong foods and screw up the kidneys again. They felt since there were a limited number of kidneys, they should give them to the more appreciative whites who would make sure they stayed healthy afterwards. These stereotypes do affect access to health care; they could mean the difference between life and death for some patients.

At some point, people are going to come in contact with members of varying ethnic backgrounds. Teaching cultural competence decreases the probability that racially influenced tragedies will occur. (have you ever seen the movie crash?)

No, I'm not angered by this :)

I think it's important to stress cultural competence because it allows people of all backgrounds to be more adept at serving a variety of people. Because you are more in touch with your own ethnic group does not make you culturally competent; URMS could be culturally incompetent with regard to ORMs for example. When you interact with patients who differ in ethnic background (which you invariably will) it is best to have an understanding of their culture or to at least shed yourself of preconceived notions that may effect how you treat that person. I used the diabetic study of an example of this earlier. I'll repost for convenience:

When I was at HCEM we were talking about health disparities and we started discussing the issue of getting minorities on organ donor lists. We watched a video about how in a community of blacks in Chicago, very few diabetics were ever put on the donor list to receive a new kidney at their local hospital. When they did research to figure out why, it turns out that the clinicians thought blacks would just go back and eat the wrong foods and screw up the kidneys again. They felt since there were a limited number of kidneys, they should give them to the more appreciative whites who would make sure they stayed healthy afterwards. These stereotypes do affect access to health care; they could mean the difference between life and death for some patients.

At some point, people are going to come in contact with members of varying ethnic backgrounds. Teaching cultural competence decreases the probability that racially influenced tragedies will occur. (have you ever seen the movie crash?)
I edited above to define what I think is cultural competence. I think as long as you are able to identify differences, accept them as their culture (not as inferior but just a unique aspect to theirs) then you are culturally competent.

I can do that without taking 6 hours of classes trying to give me "white guilt".

When I was at HCEM we were talking about health disparities and we started discussing the issue of getting minorities on organ donor lists. We watched a video about how in a community of blacks in Chicago, very few diabetics were ever put on the donor list to receive a new kidney at their local hospital. When they did research to figure out why, it turns out that the clinicians thought blacks would just go back and eat the wrong foods and screw up the kidneys again. They felt since there were a limited number of kidneys, they should give them to the more appreciative whites who would make sure they stayed healthy afterwards. These stereotypes do affect access to health care; they could mean the difference between life and death for some patients.


These disparities happen in part because of epidemiological data. For example, if you happen to cut off your fingers and need them re-attached, you won't be able to find a surgeon to do it if you were a smoker. Nicotine would cause clots in the vascular tissue, resulting in improper blood flow. So smokers get the shaft, and the hospital/insurance doesn't spend the thousands of dollars that the surgery requires. Sure, you can promise and plead that you won't smoke a single cigarette, but the answer is in the data.

So the odds that a black diabetic in a certain chicago community would be able to sustain the necessary follow-up regimen for a kidney replacement is too low to make the surgery cost-effective.

I edited above to define what I think is cultural competence. I think as long as you are able to identify differences, accept them as their culture (not as inferior but just a unique aspect to theirs) then you are culturally competent.

I can do that without taking 6 hours of classes trying to give me "white guilt".
No one is trying to spread "white guilt" but you'd be surprised what people think of others because of their ethnic background. Having classes to make people more familiar and comfortable about different groups of people is positive IMO. You hear all kinds of off the wall things from people who have few interactions with members of other backgrounds. Some kid in my history class is convinced that Mexicans carry their 10 kids over the boarder and put them all on medicare (without social security numbers) and then we have to spend our tax money (THAT WE EARNED) on thousands illegal children getting health care every month. I mean, if they are so poor, why do they have so many kids? Like I said before, a professor (with a PHD) at my University told me that the reason I score so well on tests is because I'm part white (barely). If people are ignorant enough to think statements like this are appropriate in an academic setting, I'm sure people are ignorant enough to take these ideas to the bed side. I think cultural competence classes are beneficial.

No one is trying to spread "white guilt" but you'd be surprised what people think of others because of their ethnic background. Having classes to make people more familiar and comfortable about different groups of people is positive IMO. You hear all kinds of off the wall things from people who have few interactions with members of other backgrounds. Some kid in my history class is convinced that Mexicans carry their 10 kids over the boarder and put them all on medicare (without social security numbers) and then we have to spend our tax money (THAT WE EARNED) on thousands illegal children getting health care every month. I mean, if they are so poor, why do they have so many kids? Like I said before, a professor (with a PHD) at my University told me that the reason I score so well on tests is because I'm part white (barely). If people are ignorant enough to think statements like this are appropriate in an academic setting, I'm sure people are ignorant enough to take these ideas to the bed side. I think cultural competence classes are beneficial.
If people willingly went into them with an open mind then yes they could learn a lot.

The fact remains that they are required. Thus forcing people to sit through lectures. This leads to even more resentment IMO.

These disparities happen in part because of epidemiological data. For example, if you happen to cut off your fingers and need them re-attached, you won't be able to find a surgeon to do it if you were a smoker. Nicotine would cause clots in the vascular tissue, resulting in improper blood flow. So smokers get the shaft, and the hospital/insurance doesn't spend the thousands of dollars that the surgery requires. Sure, you can promise and plead that you won't smoke a single cigarette, but the answer is in the data.

So the odds that a black diabetic in a certain chicago community would be able to sustain the necessary follow-up regimen for a kidney replacement is too low to make the surgery cost-effective.

I don't think these examples are comparable. Anyone with type two diabetes and needs a kidney transplant has probably had a history of poor diet. Why is the white diabetic more likely to change his habits than the black diabetic? There is no data saying that blacks just can't control themselves around the chicken and kool-aid. Why would one assume whites would be more appreciative? When it's a matter of life and death, people are usually more inclined to change their habits.

If people willingly went into them with an open mind then yes they could learn a lot.

The fact remains that they are required. Thus forcing people to sit through lectures. This leads to even more resentment IMO.
Nah, you're required to do lots of things in school. It is especially important to be culturally competent when you will most likely hold someone's life in your hands at some point. Classes in cultural competence are just as important (if not more) as basic science classes like biochem. People may not want to be forced to learn anatomy, but it is necessary for them to become quality physicians. Cultural competence classes are no different. Someone just rationalized giving a kidney transplant to white patients over black patients even though both have been known to have poor diets. If these blatant disparities can be construed as reasonable, then cultural competence classes are sorely needed.

Does your definition of cultural competence agree with mine that I layed out above?

How would you define it?

Does your definition of cultural competence agree with mine that I layed out above?

How would you define it?
I think cultural competence definitely includes your definition but I also think it has to do with how you regard those differences. I could believe that black people are culturally different because they tend to eat traditional foods that are unhealthy, and I could choose to respect that difference. With this understanding and respect, I could still decide that these bad foods make blacks unworthy recipients of organs and refuse to perform transplants for black patients. Though I accept the differences and respect them, I have used this difference to discriminate and I have added to health disparities. I think it is important to understand cultural differences, respect them, learn not to discriminate because of them, and learn how to interact with patients accordingly. For example people who are Sikhs do not believe in cutting their hair or finger nails (etc.). Say for some reason I, as a physician, feel a Sikh would avoid some disease by cutting his or her hair. If that person refuses to follow my order, I could mark them as "noncompliant". Noncompliant patients are not put on donor lists and are less likely to get proper treatments. Because I didn't act properly considering that person's culture, I've limited his or her access to healthcare.

Does your definition of cultural competence agree with mine that I layed out above?

How would you define it?
I'm going to bed. 'til tomorrow, Mr. Batchelor

I'm going to bed. 'til tomorrow, Mr. Batchelor
Indeed. It's 3AM EST. Im out as well.

Why do you laugh at the notion that people who get 25s can succeed in medical school? Researchers noted the correlation between the passing value for important medical school exams and certain MCAT scores. The data is based on what happens in real-life medical schools. The requirement for extremely high MCAT scores has been artificially inflated by application pressure; you don't need a 40 and a 4.0 to succeed in medical school. You may think this notion is laughable, but considering actually studied data it seems to be true. If you find a better source that proves other wise, I'm all ears.

About the mass voter grab: The minority vote is split anyway. Blacks vote D. because democrats pushed the majority of the important civil rights legislation. Most minorities who actually vote are old enough to remember this. This is why Dems don't work to court the black vote--they know they already have it. Republicans don't try to court the black vote because to most blacks, Rep= racist. Reps would have to spend too much time, energy, and money for very little pay off. As for Hispanics, they tend to vote on morality issues because most Hispanics are Catholic. The abortion issue is what seals their loyalty to the right. Politicians do not need to cling to AA in order to secure votes. This notion is laughable; might I add :laugh:

You really lost me at the gang member, terrorist, KKK comments. The vast majority Arabs and Iraqis do not deserve to be treated like terrorist despite the actions of a few deranged individuals on 911. Likewise, equating all minorities with violent gang members is just racism--its not a valid observation. Contrary to popular belief, most minorities are not selling crack and hanging out of low-rider windows with various automatic weapons. Its interesting how you use the example of the KKK. People aren't scared for their lives because they think every white person who passes by is a KKK member. Though minority groups are associated with a few irrational and injurious individuals, somehow whites escape this stereotype despite the existence of the KKK. When it comes down to it, noting that some destructive individuals happen to be of certain ethnic backgrounds does not give you the right to assume all members of that background are destructive. This reminds me of justification of hate crimes against gays because, "If they weren't gay, people wouldn't be so hateful." When it comes down to it, the problem is not with different ethnic groups, but with the bigotry/racism.

I don't doubt that someone with a 25 can succeed in medical school, but I think it's around that score that the MCAT basically loses predictive value. Getting a 25 or higher basically means you took a science curriculum and might speak English at home. Nothing else. Why take it if you're going to use such a low threshold? I think using at least a few points higher to get into the average range would be a good start. Don't you want your doctor to be at least an average tester?

As for what I said that confused you, I mean that some groups bring discrimination on themself and the group that they're associated with. I'm not saying this is totally right, but I am definitely saying it's not totally wrong. People have to make pre-judgements. If you see a cherry red metallic spiral on top of a cooktop, do you touch it? If you see a man in dirty clothes walking along the sidewalk, alternating between muttering to himself and screaming obscenities, do you get close? Those are extreme examples, but without even reading the details, I'll make a wager with you today that any terrorist that attacks the U.S. is Islamic, that any Crip or Blood is African American, and that any Klan member is white, as long as you'll take all those bets without researching individual cases prior. Sure, I'll lose on the occasional Tim McVeigh, but I'll end up rich and you'll end up bankrupt before it's all over.

Nah, you're required to do lots of things in school. It is especially important to be culturally competent when you will most likely hold someone's life in your hands at some point. Classes in cultural competence are just as important (if not more) as basic science classes like biochem. People may not want to be forced to learn anatomy, but it is necessary for them to become quality physicians. Cultural competence classes are no different. Someone just rationalized giving a kidney transplant to white patients over black patients even though both have been known to have poor diets. If these blatant disparities can be construed as reasonable, then cultural competence classes are sorely needed.

What?

You take the "culturally competent" doctor.

I'll take any relatively humane doctor who knows his science and especially his diagnostic skills.

I don't doubt that someone with a 25 can succeed in medical school, but I think it's around that score that the MCAT basically loses predictive value. Getting a 25 or higher basically means you took a science curriculum and might speak English at home. Nothing else. Why take it if you're going to use such a low threshold? I think using at least a few points higher to get into the average range would be a good start. Don't you want your doctor to be at least an average tester?
I took Princeton review and all the people in my class (including me) took diagnostic tests. We all took the science curriculum and spoke English at home, but everyone (except the girl who was retaking) scored lower than a 25. I got a 21 (though I pulled this number up 12 points. Thanks Prenceton Review ;) ). For the last MCAT the average score was a 24 (8 in every section). 25 is better than average. Furthermore, as Brett pointed out earlier, many DO schools have averages far below 25 but they don't have 50% failure rates. So I guess someone with a 25 can succeed in medical school. The problem is, you don't think someone with a 25 can succeed, but you don't look at the information that tells you these individuals can. Usually when I think something, I try to verify. If I'm wrong, I change what I think. Because of application pressure, schools are able to choose people who have higher MCAT scores than the threshold for success. This inflates the minimum MCAT requirement. Not everyone can get in, so some qualified applicants are passed up.

As for what I said that confused you, I mean that some groups bring discrimination on themself and the group that they're associated with. I'm not saying this is totally right, but I am definitely saying it's not totally wrong. People have to make pre-judgements. If you see a cherry red metallic spiral on top of a cooktop, do you touch it? If you see a man in dirty clothes walking along the sidewalk, alternating between muttering to himself and screaming obscenities, do you get close? Those are extreme examples, but without even reading the details, I'll make a wager with you today that any terrorist that attacks the U.S. is Islamic, that any Crip or Blood is African American, and that any Klan member is white, as long as you'll take all those bets without researching individual cases prior. Sure, I'll lose on the occasional Tim McVeigh, but I'll end up rich and you'll end up bankrupt before it's all over.

I still don't think this is a good example. Sure, if you limit the definition of "gang members" to people who are in traditionally black street gangs (Crips and Bloods), the members will probably be black. This is not because all gang members are black, but because you chose black street gangs. Guess what? There are OTHER street gangs that are made up of different races. If you take a sample of all the street gangs, you'd start losing money really fast. Here's a list of NY street gangs starting with A:

* African Mafia
* American Guards
* Albanian Boys Incorporated
* Atlantic Guards
* American Born Chinese (ABC)
* Asian Boyz Gang (ABZ)
* Assyrian-Arab Soljaz
* Almighty_Gaylords
* Agat Blood Town
* ARMENIAN POWER (A.P)
For a comprehensive list of all street gangs in NY, you can visit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_street_gangs
Here you can see there are Asian gangs, Armenian, Albanian, Arab, and (yes) Black gangs. And this is just the As of one city! Just think of the diversity you would find if you looked at ALL street gangs all across America--all the colors of the rainbow! But because you subscribe to stereotypes, you think all gang members are black and you treat all black people accordingly.

As for the terrorism, there are many non-Arab terrorist. People are terrorists for all sorts of reasons: here are a few terrorist groups who are not Arab:

:) Ku Klux Klan A racist organisation of mainly Anglosaxon Protestant Christians with a history of violence against Afro-Americans, Jewish People, and Catholics.

:) Lord's Resistance Army Christian/Pagan terrorist group

:) Jewish Defense League - United States

:) Shiv Sena A Hindu militant group, Shiv Sena or "The Army of Shiva the Destroyer"

:) Jemaah Islamiyah - Southeast Asia

:) Anti-Abortion Terrorists - United States

:) Aryan Nations

Most of the Arab terrorist groups on the list were just fronts for Al-Qaeda. Isn't learning fun? For a more comprehensive list of terrorist groups of all backgrounds go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_groups#Left-wing_terrorists

So you see, it's not that all terrorist are Arabs, it's just that the terrorist groups you think of first are Arabs. Better watch your back around all those Hindus, Sikhs, Extreme left wing Whites, Extreme right wing Whites, Indians, Africans, and Southeast Asians too. Or you could just treat everyone like a human being and understand most people aren't out to blow $hit up. As you can see, stereotypes do not justify negative racially related judgments.

What?

You take the "culturally competent" doctor.

I'll take any relatively humane doctor who knows his science and especially his diagnostic skills.
If I was a diabetic and I walked into the office of a doc who was relatively human and really knew his diagnostic tests but who felt blacks shouldn't get kidney transplants because they'll eat bad things and screw up the new kidney, where would that leave me? Dead. Why is everything such a zero sum game? Why can't there be docs who are culturally competent who also really know their science.

From AMSA's Website:

WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE CULTURALLY COMPETENT?
Cultural competency is "a set of academic and personal skills that allow us to increase our understanding and appreciation of cultural differences between groups."25 Becoming culturally competent is a developmental process

Culture is a predominant force in shaping behavior, values and institutions. Not only do cultural differences exist, but they also impact health care delivery. Culturally competent providers appreciate family ties and realize that they are defined differently for each culture.8 Rather than being insulted by another culture's perspective, culturally competent providers welcome collaboration and cooperation. For example, a culturally competent physician who had been taking care of a Native American family for about five years noticed that the wife was depressed. The wife slowly revealed that she had been sexually assaulted by her uncle when she was young. The doctor started her on psychotherapy and antidepressants, which helped but did not resolve the underlying problems. After consulting with a Native American medicine man, who then met with the family, the physician and the patient learned that the woman had acquired a bad spirit from the incest. A traditional purification ceremony was performed that released the woman of the spirit and her depression.10

The website also talked about a Hmong child with epilepsy. The parents wanted to pursue tradiational Hmong methods of care and the physican, who was horrified, called CPS on them. The child ended up in foster care.

These are the types of situations indicate that more culturally sensitive physicans are needed. America will only become more and more diverse. When I was in high school, I was a member of the school's health occupation student association and we did a unit on cultural awareness. I remember hearing about cases where the health care provider unknowingly engaged in activities that were considered disrespectful to the patient and their family. There is no reason why doctor's shouldn't have to take a cultural competency course. It certainly won't hurt them in any way and it would be a shame for them to enter the class with resentment because **gasp** they have to learn about other cultures. Can it really be that bad? This type of training will help them develop skills that will teach them how to build a stronger relationship with their ethnic patients, which may result in better care.

I've become a bit confused by the turn this thread has taken with regards to "cultural compentence." I thought the purpose of granting URM status was to bring in more minorities in underserved areas, because intrinsically they know more about a certain culture. However, the direction we seem to be going here is that all you really need is a "culturally competent" doctor to go serve in these areas. Wouldn't that negate the necessity of URM status? As long as you could find competent doctors to practice in these areas (perhaps a signed argeement stating such), couldn't we do away with race-based admissions standards?

I've become a bit confused by the turn this thread has taken with regards to "cultural compentence." I thought the purpose of granting URM status was to bring in more minorities in underserved areas, because intrinsically they know more about a certain culture. However, the direction we seem to be going here is that all you really need is a "culturally competent" doctor to go serve in these areas. Wouldn't that negate the necessity of URM status? As long as you could find competent doctors to practice in these areas (perhaps a signed argeement stating such), couldn't we do away with race-based admissions standards?
Not necessarily. I think the idea is that physicans who develop a sense of cultural sensitivity will be able to provide better care for their "ethnic" patients.

However, this does not guarantee that physicans even would be willing to develop these skills or implement any of the suggested stategies. And it doesn't mean that patients' skepticism for a doctor of a different ethnic background would automatically disappear. Furthermore, cultural comp. classes are a nice supplement to what physicans-in training can learn from their ethnic colleagues.

But it does seem to be a step in the right direction. Many institutions are already using workshops and incentives to encourage this.

Not necessarily. I think the idea is that physicans who develop a sense of cultural sensitivity will be able to provide better care for their "ethnic" patients.

However, this does not guarantee that physicans even would be willing to develop these skills or implement any of the suggested stategies. And it doesn't mean that patients' skepticism for a doctor of a different ethnic background would automatically disappear. Furthermore, cultural comp. classes are a nice supplement to what physicans-in training can learn from their ethnic colleagues.

But it does seem to be a step in the right direction. Many institutions are already using workshops and incentives to encourage this.


But what I asked was if we could develop these "culturally competent" doctors (and you have to assume for the purpose of this line of thought that we can), then would we need to continue with URM status?

My thinking is going like this: We need URMs to practice in areas that are underserved for the myriad of cultural reasons stated in numerous posts above. If we could train groups of doctors (or all doctors, I'm an optimist :) ) to be just as culturally aware/competent, and have them agree to serve in this needy areas, then couldn't we just do away with differing standards for different races.

Unless this isn't really about cultural understanding at all, and we are just using this "competence" arguement as a straw man.

What?

You take the "culturally competent" doctor.

I'll take any relatively humane doctor who knows his science and especially his diagnostic skills.That may work for you. But it doesn't work for everyone. Some patients have special needs. Those special needs people come from all walks of life, not just URM groups. Cultural competence entails things like understanding addiction, realizing that some patients do not have access to certain resources, understanding what keeps geriatric patients from adhering to their medication regimen, realizing and that some patients from certain groups expect to have family members higly involved in medical decisions and accomodating them, not looking certain people directly in the eye, knowing who may be offended when you point with your index finger, expecting that some people will use traditional remedies in addition to western medicine, and not automatically assuming that because someone falls into a racial/ethnic group that they will require accomodations. It's all about barrier awareness and knowing how to get around them. And, not resenting your patients for not fitting into the mold that you may have expected.

In my response, I listed a few reasons why training cultural comp. doctors could not replace URM recruitment. I will make them more clear for you here:

1. Cultural competency training at universities is already being implemented. I am not sure how wide-spread this is or if this is required or voluntary. The ability to train cul. comp. doctors is there, but what is unknown is how many of these physicans in training actually want to attend these classes and how many intend to implement these skills. Brett suggested above that requiring these types of course may increase resentment. We know we don't need anymore of that.

2. Some patients will still prefer a physican from a similar ethnic background regardless. If all culturally competent physicans were White, where would this leave those patients?

3. What can be learned in a class room is limited. I doubt that the URM physican's ability to understand his/her minority patients' background can be duplicated 100% in a semester course. Nothing can compare to years of first-hand experience. So many URM physicans are still desperately needed. Furthermore, nonURMs can stand to learn a lot from their URM colleagues during medical school and residency with regard to cultural awareness.

This does not discredit the importance of cross-cultural training. The training received in these types of courses will no doubt help in cross-cultural communicatiuon and developing a more understanding relationship between the nonURM physican and the minority patient.

Anyway: URM recruitment increases the number of minorities in medicine.
Cultural Competency courses increases physicans' understanding of other cultures.
I'm still trying to understand a few things:

1. What makes you think there are different standards for URMs? Do URMs not have to work just as hard? What is this assumption that URMs are getting into med school with 20s and 2.5s? Are not all students (Black, White, Red, Blue..) who get into medical school qualified?

2. Why are ppl are so offended by race-based AA and not by gender-based AA? Furthermore, there are other groups that suffered under social discrimination in the past, who benefit from AA. Why does AA = leniency for URMs to you?

hmmmmm.....

I took Princeton review and all the people in my class (including me) took diagnostic tests. We all took the science curriculum and spoke English at home, but everyone (except the girl who was retaking) scored lower than a 25. I got a 21 (though I pulled this number up CONSIDERABLY after the prep course). For the last MCAT the average score was a 24 (8 in every section). 25 is better than average. Furthermore, as Brett pointed out earlier, many DO schools have averages far below 25 but they don't have 50% failure rates. So I guess someone with a 25 can succeed in medical school. The problem is, you don't think someone with a 25 can succeed, but you don't look at the information that tells you these individuals can. Usually when I think something, I try to verify. If I'm wrong, I change what I think. Because of application pressure, schools are able to choose people who have higher MCAT scores than the threshold for success. This inflates the minimum MCAT requirement. Not everyone can get in, so some qualified applicants are passed up.



I still don't think this is a good example. Sure, if you limit the definition of "gang members" to people who are in traditionally black street gangs (Crips and Bloods), the members will probably be black. This is not because all gang members are black, but because you chose black street gangs. Guess what? There are OTHER street gangs that are made up of different races. If you take a sample of all the street gangs, you'd start losing money really fast. Here's a list of NY street gangs starting with A:

* African Mafia
* American Guards
* Albanian Boys Incorporated
* Atlantic Guards
* American Born Chinese (ABC)
* Asian Boyz Gang (ABZ)
* Assyrian-Arab Soljaz
* Almighty_Gaylords
* Agat Blood Town
* ARMENIAN POWER (A.P)
For a comprehensive list of all street gangs in NY, you can visit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_street_gangs
Here you can see there are Asian gangs, Armenian, Albanian, Arab, and (yes) Black gangs. And this is just the As of one city! Just think of the diversity you would find if you looked at ALL street gangs all across America--all the colors of the rainbow! But because you subscribe to stereotypes, you think all gang members are black and you treat all black people accordingly.

As for the terrorism, there are many non-Arab terrorist. People are terrorists for all sorts of reasons: here are a few terrorist groups who are not Arab:

:) Ku Klux Klan A racist organisation of mainly Anglosaxon Protestant Christians with a history of violence against Afro-Americans, Jewish People, and Catholics.

:) Lord's Resistance Army Christian/Pagan terrorist group

:) Jewish Defense League - United States

:) Shiv Sena A Hindu militant group, Shiv Sena or "The Army of Shiva the Destroyer"

:) Jemaah Islamiyah - Southeast Asia

:) Anti-Abortion Terrorists - United States

:) Aryan Nations

Most of the Arab terrorist groups on the list were just fronts for Al-Qaeda. Isn't learning fun? For a more comprehensive list of terrorist groups of all backgrounds go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_groups#Left-wing_terrorists

So you see, it's not that all terrorist are Arabs, it's just that the terrorist groups you think of first are Arabs. Better watch your back around all those Hindus, Sikhs, Extreme left wing Whites, Extreme right wing Whites, Indians, Africans, and Southeast Asians too. Or you could just treat everyone like a human being and understand most people aren't out to blow $hit up. As you can see, stereotypes do not justify negative racially related judgments.

You're right that the average is 24. That surprises me every time I hear it. Sometimes I wonder why I put out effort on the damn thing. I could have skipped the biology section and gotten the average. I could have skipped the PS section and made your threshold. Why did I bother?

If you haven't caught on by now, the first TPR diag is incredibly hard relative to any valid measure. I got a 27 on it and it was probably the third or fourth MCAT I'd ever taken, so I was very accustomed to the test. I got a 31 on the MCAT cold the first time I took it, prior to studying at all for it, so I'm well aware that, at least for me, the first diagnostic is deceiving.

See, you start to make a point and then you wander off into political correctness. Ok, I picked some traditionally black street gangs. Are the Albanians the most common? As for the terrorists, that one especially cracks me up. Just tell me, is my point valid or not? If I hear that American interests were attacked last night and I guess it was Islamic terrorists, what do you think my percent chance is of being right? 99%? More? So if I keep a completely neutral view of who these terrorists are that are attacking the U.S., am I increasing my chance of being right or decreasing? If I'm decreasing, is that smart? In exchange for what? Not making the good Muslims feel bad? Stereotypes are sometimes there for a reason. You take your cultural competency. I'm going to use reason.

That may work for you. But it doesn't work for everyone. Some patients have special needs. Those special needs people come from all walks of life, not just URM groups. Cultural competence entails things like understanding addiction, realizing that some patients do not have access to certain resources, understanding what keeps geriatric patients from adhering to their medication regimen, realizing and that some patients from certain groups expect to have family members higly involved in medical decisions and accomodating them, not looking certain people directly in the eye, knowing who may be offended when you point with your index finger, expecting that some people will use traditional remedies in addition to western medicine, and not automatically assuming that because someone falls into a racial/ethnic group that they will require accomodations. It's all about barrier awareness and knowing how to get around them. And, not resenting your patients for not fitting into the mold that you may have expected.

I've heard the politically correct speil before. I'm sure I'll have to read that damn book "The spirit made me fall down" or whatever it is sometimes in that interest too. You define that as cultural competency. LJ thinks it's as important as biochem. I think it's important, but a lot of it is common sense and thus, not to be idealized. It takes 5 minutes to teach an enlisted airman most of the important customs needed to be able to function around Muslims. Which hand to use, what gestures not to make, what to do with your feet, how to behave towards women and children... it's not rocket science. Would I trade that for biochemistry? Would I rather have a doctor that knows why I'm non-compliant, or one that knows what to prescribe in the first place, should I care to take the medicine? Hmmmm... let me get back to you.

In my response, I listed a few reasons why training cultural comp. doctors could not replace URM recruitment. I will make them more clear for you here:


3. What can be learned in a class room is limited. I doubt that the URM physican's ability to understand his/her minority patients' background can be duplicated 100% in a semester course. Nothing can compare to years of first-hand experience. So many URM physicans are still desperately needed. Furthermore, nonURMs can stand to learn a lot from their URM colleagues during medical school and residency with regard to cultural awareness.

My isssue here is that URM status is not based on the "awareness" of their "culture" by the minority candidate. It is based on skin color. While I'm not going to bring my own race into this, I can absolutely guarantee you that there are many black, indian, and latino folks who know as much about their cultural heritage as the white guy down the street does. That's the great thing about America, IMHO. We can quit identifying ourselves by the countries we've never been to, but are somewhere on our family tree, and embrace a collective identity known as American.


Anyway: URM recruitment increases the number of minorities in medicine.
I'm all for that, but I think Affirmative Action of any sort is a poor poor solution. It treats the symptoms, not the disease.


1. What makes you think there are difference standards for URMs? Do URMs not have to work just as hard? What is this assumption that URMs are getting into med school with 20s and 2.5? Are not all students (Black, White, Red, Blue..) who get into medical school qualified? or just the nonURM ones?
I would think that by definition AA programs create different standards. That checkbox isn't there for statistical purposes only. Do I think all students who get into medical school are qualified to be physicians? Absolutely not, but that has to do with the arbitrary nature of admissions, and not URM status. What bugs me is stratifying admissions standards by race. Whether people are willing to admit it or not, it exacerbates racial tensions in this country. It doesn't bring us together as a people, it sets us at each other's throats. It gets the fingers pointing, and the voices raised. True, AA status gets more minorities into medicine, but at what cost to our societal fabric?

2. Why are ppl are so offended by race-based AA and not by gender-based AA? Furthermore, there are other groups that suffered under social discrimination in the past, who benefit from AA. Why does AA = leniency for URMs to you?

It's not that AA=leniency, it's that AA creates different standards for different sets of people. AA action doesn't care a whit for cultural differences. It uses race to make up for decades discrimination. If that's our goal, then fine, so-be-it. But let's not put the guise of "cultural understanding" on it. I find that as distasteful as when people are pro-death penalty for its "deterrant value." Study after study has shown that the death penalty does not act as a significant deterrant. Call a spade, a spade. It's for vengence. Likewise, let's not paint a pretty face on affirmative action programs. They're there to equal out the numbers, and that's it. All this post-hoc ergo propter hoc analysis rationalizing it as anything else just serves to cover up the paternalistic nature of the program. At the end of the day, the rich white guys are still pulling the strings, no matter how many minorities we get in medicine. As a said before, AA is treating the symptoms, not the disease.

Anyway: URM recruitment increases the number of minorities in medicine.
Cultural Competency courses increases physicans' understanding of other cultures.
I'm still trying to understand a few things:

1. What makes you think there are different standards for URMs? Do URMs not have to work just as hard? What is this assumption that URMs are getting into med school with 20s and 2.5s? Are not all students (Black, White, Red, Blue..) who get into medical school qualified?

2. Why are ppl are so offended by race-based AA and not by gender-based AA? Furthermore, there are other groups that suffered under social discrimination in the past, who benefit from AA. Why does AA = leniency for URMs to you?

hmmmmm.....

1. Look at the numbers. Here's a place we could refer you to studies out the whazoo. If you don't think there are different standards for URMs, then what is this "AA" that we're talking about? Why are we wasting our time yacking?

http://home.sandiego.edu/~e_cook/vault/medical/losangeles/ucla-med-97.html
http://home.sandiego.edu/~e_cook/vault/medical/sanfrancisco/ucsf-med-97.html

(Edit: SDN tends to snip long links... anyway we can fix that so it doesn't happen so often? It puts ellipses in the middle, which break the links.)

So there are URMs being admitted with sub-24, sub 3.0 in conjunction. Not just one measure of potential academic problems, but pretty much the whole show.

I'll tell you whether all students are qualified, when you define qualified to me.

2. There is no gender based AA in med school admissions.

[/QUOTE][QUOTE]MoosepilotSee, you start to make a point and then you wander off into political correctness. Ok, I picked some traditionally black street gangs. Are the Albanians the most common? As for the terrorists, that one especially cracks me up. Just tell me, is my point valid or not? If I hear that American interests were attacked last night and I guess it was Islamic terrorists, what do you think my percent chance is of being right? 99%? More? So if I keep a completely neutral view of who these terrorists are that are attacking the U.S., am I increasing my chance of being right or decreasing? If I'm decreasing, is that smart? In exchange for what? Not making the good Muslims feel bad? Stereotypes are sometimes there for a reason. You take your cultural competency. I'm going to use reason.


I think her objection (and mine as well) to your comments is that you seem to be suggesting that it is okay to treat all blacks like gang members or all arabs like terrorists. would it be appropriate to treat all whites as if they are members of the KKK? No, it would be completely inappropriate.


If I hear that American interests were attacked last night and I guess it was Islamic terrorists, what do you think my percent chance is of being right? 99%? More?

There is a difference between being aware of current events and stereotyping. Stereotyping is ugly. I'm shocked that you are still defending those comments. I suppose we are all lucky that not everyone thinks this way. No racial groups would get along at all. We would all take the worst things about each community and use it as a blanket approach to all inidividuals of that community. What an ugly world that would be.

To Little Late: I agree. AA is about increasing the numbers of minorities. But it also helps minorities prevail over racism, creates more diversity in medical school and in Medicine, and offers nonURMs and URMs the opportunity to learn from each other in this setting. It isnt solving the problem, but women have come very far with the help of AA. As for URMs, our time hasnt come yet. There will be a day when AA is no longer needed, that time is not now.


To MoosePilot: 1. Your links don't work. 2. There are nonURMs being admitted with low scores as well. 3. There was a time when women did not have the same educational opportunities as men. AA helped them overcome the sexism that hindered their access to these resources. 4. Are you only concerned about AA in medicine? Or are all forms of AA wrong, according to u?

1. Look at the numbers. Here's a place we could refer you to studies out the whazoo. If you don't think there are different standards for URMs, then what is this "AA" that we're talking about? Why are we wasting our time yacking?

http://home.sandiego.edu/~e_cook/va...csf-med-97.html
http://home.sandiego.edu/~e_cook/va...cla-med-97.html

So there are URMs being admitted with sub-24, sub 3.0 in conjunction. Not just one measure of potential academic problems, but pretty much the whole show.

I'll tell you whether all students are qualified, when you define qualified to me.

2. There is no gender based AA in med school admissions.

I can't open your links. Anyway, I doubt most URMs are being admitted with sub 24 and sub 3.0 in conjunction. The average MCAT scores for URM matriculates ranges from approximately 25-30. http://www.aamc.org/data/facts/2005/mcatgparaceeth.htm. I know there are students above and below the average, but I doubt large numbers of minorities are being admitted with very low scores. The reason why there is no gender bias in admissions NOW is because the number of women in medical school reflects the number of women in the population (50/50 women and men). When this goal is reached for minorities, racial bias will become obsolete also. Is AA a great tool to achieve this goal? No, but it's a start. Ultimately, educational reform will have to actually fix the problem.

AA does work to fix the symptoms and not the disease, but when there needs to be immediate change, sometimes you have to fake it 'till you make it (as Tyra Banks would say. I watch too much ANTM)

See, you start to make a point and then you wander off into political correctness. Ok, I picked some traditionally black street gangs. Are the Albanians the most common? As for the terrorists, that one especially cracks me up. Just tell me, is my point valid or not? If I hear that American interests were attacked last night and I guess it was Islamic terrorists, what do you think my percent chance is of being right? 99%? More? So if I keep a completely neutral view of who these terrorists are that are attacking the U.S., am I increasing my chance of being right or decreasing? If I'm decreasing, is that smart? In exchange for what? Not making the good Muslims feel bad? Stereotypes are sometimes there for a reason. You take your cultural competency. I'm going to use reason.

I am shocked that you are still defending these racist generalizations! NO, MOST GANG MEMBERS AREN'T BLACK. They are not, THEY'RE NOT. I'm sorry, but this is a wrong assumption. Did you look at the list? Haven't you ever seen "Gangs of NY"?

Currently, Arab groups (specifically Al Qaeda) are the ones behind most major terrorist attacks. This is not always the case, nor will it always be the case. If you look at all terrorist attacks in history, you will find that there is much less of a change that Arab people were behind them. Besides, most Arabs are not terrorist. Treating ALL Arab people as though they were terrorist is wrong and racist. I'm not saying this because my view is irrational or because I'm trying to be PC, I'm saying it because it's true.

Besides walking down the street and being frightened because some guy has a disheveled appearance and is yelling obscenities is HARDLY comparable to walking down the street and being frightened because some guy is black. When the kids at school blamed you for setting those fires because you were the white kid in shabby clothes (and there were no black kids around), was that ok? Should they have judged you because you didn't appear to be as rich as the others? Looks like someone needs a course in cultural competence.

MoosepilotSee, you start to make a point and then you wander off into political correctness. Ok, I picked some traditionally black street gangs. Are the Albanians the most common? As for the terrorists, that one especially cracks me up. Just tell me, is my point valid or not? If I hear that American interests were attacked last night and I guess it was Islamic terrorists, what do you think my percent chance is of being right? 99%? More? So if I keep a completely neutral view of who these terrorists are that are attacking the U.S., am I increasing my chance of being right or decreasing? If I'm decreasing, is that smart? In exchange for what? Not making the good Muslims feel bad? Stereotypes are sometimes there for a reason. You take your cultural competency. I'm going to use reason.


I think her objection (and mine as well) to your comments is that you seem to be suggesting that it is okay to treat all blacks like gang members or all arabs like terrorists. would it be appropriate to treat all whites as if they are members of the KKK? No, it would be completely inappropriate.


If I hear that American interests were attacked last night and I guess it was Islamic terrorists, what do you think my percent chance is of being right? 99%? More?

There is a difference between being aware of current events and stereotyping. Stereotyping is ugly. I'm shocked that you are still defending those comments. I suppose we are all lucky that not everyone thinks this way. No racial groups would get along at all. We would all take the worst things about each community and use it as a blanket approach to all inidividuals of that community. What an ugly world that would be.

Did you think that perhaps there was a reason I included the KKK in there? That was the hint to you PC thralls that I wasn't suggesting anyone treat every person of a certain race like the worst examples, because I thought all of you knew that white people can't be discriminated against. Right? White's aren't ever all thought to be racist, just like men aren't all ever thought to be potential rapists. Oh, wait, yes we are :rolleyes:

The point is that it's not wrong to use your brain. If that's steretyping, then fine, I'm a horrible racist and I hate black people for maybe being in gangs, white people for maybe being the Klan, hispanic people for maybe being illegal immigrants, native indians for maybe being unemployed alcoholics, and asian indians for all being geeky virgins. The truth is that we've gotten to the point where it's against cultural standards to point out the elephant standing in the living room. I hate that kind of crap.

I am shocked that you are still defending these racist generalizations! NO, MOST GANG MEMBERS AREN'T BLACK. They are not, THEY'RE NOT. I'm sorry, but this is a wrong assumption. Did you look at the list? Haven't you ever seen "Gangs of NY"?

Currently, Arab groups (specifically Al Qaeda) are the ones behind most major terrorist attacks. This is not always the case, nor will it always be the case. If you look at all terrorist attacks in history, you will find that there is much less of a change that Arab people were behind them. Besides, most Arabs are not terrorist. Treating ALL Arab people as though they were terrorist is wrong and racist. I'm not saying this because my view is irrational or because I'm trying to be PC, I'm saying it because it's true.

Besides walking down the street and being frightened because some guy has a disheveled appearance and is yelling obscenities is HARDLY comparable to walking down the street and being frightened because some guy is black. When the kids at school blamed you for setting those fires because you were the white kid in shabby clothes (and there were no black kids around), was that ok? Should they have judged you because you didn't appear to be as rich as the others? Looks like someone needs a course in cultural competence.

:laugh:

Ok, do you have a study for that? Seriously, maybe my assumption is wrong, but just shouting about it doesn't mean it's so. If it's not African Americans right now, then do you think it's whites? Do you think whites comprise the majority of street gangs in the U.S. right now?

Is there a difference between number of gangs and numbers of members of the gangs?

I take your point about times changing. During the "Gangs of New York" time setting, gang members were mostly European immigrants. Some change like that may again occur. There are some serious terrorist groups that aren't Islamic. S. America has a real problem with kidnapping. Groups like FARC are a problem. Great Britain had a problem with IRA. I think Basque separtists were a problem in Spain. I realize those things and I think that's the difference. I don't think that Muslims are innately terrorists or guaranteed to always be the majority of anti-American terrorists, just that they are now. I'll keep informed and when that changes, I'll stop thinking it. The information is true now and if I was going to bet on the religious identity of an anti-American terrorist, I'm not going to make a stupid guess just because it's more politically correct.

LJ is right and I'm wrong, as far as I can tell. Most gang members seem to be Hispanic.

http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/pubs/96natyouthgangsrvy/images/fig_11.gif

http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/pubs/96natyouthgangsrvy/surv_6c.html

This is an older study, but I'm still looking for newer studies. Signs point to increased caucasian gang activity, but I haven't found any recent figures that are this clear.

Looks like someone needs a course in cultural competence.

Yes, that's exactly what I need.

1. Do you think a class that I think is retarded to begin with is going to radically reshape 31 years of opinions?

2. If I'm such a racist, why did you just discover it now, in an open conversation about race? Have I ever treated anyone differently on SDN because of their race?

I haven't. This is why I feel higher education sucks today. Bring up a controversial topic and there is only one right answer, only one expressable side of any discussion, and anyone deviating from the approved script will get called names at some point.

My ultimate opinion is that each person is unique and should be judged on themselves. Any other judgement is prejudice. Assuming an African American is culturally competent is prejudice and assuming a white isn't is prejudice. If you want to encourage these things, ask questions in the interview, but just favoring minorities because they're culturally sensitive and more likely to go back to their community is like just admitting white people without requiring them to submit GPA and MCAT, because statistically they're the high scorers anyway.

Yes, that's exactly what I need.

1. Do you think a class that I think is retarded to begin with is going to radically reshape 31 years of opinions?

2. If I'm such a racist, why did you just discover it now, in an open conversation about race? Have I ever treated anyone differently on SDN because of their race?

I haven't. This is why I feel higher education sucks today. Bring up a controversial topic and there is only one right answer, only one expressable side of any discussion, and anyone deviating from the approved script will get called names at some point.

My ultimate opinion is that each person is unique and should be judged on themselves. Any other judgement is prejudice. Assuming an African American is culturally competent is prejudice and assuming a white isn't is prejudice. If you want to encourage these things, ask questions in the interview, but just favoring minorities because they're culturally sensitive and more likely to go back to their community is like just admitting white people without requiring them to submit GPA and MCAT, because statistically they're the high scorers anyway.

I don't follow your posts closely, but I would think you don't go around posting derogatory things about other SDNer's racial backgrounds because

1) We have screen names so you really can't tell who is what unless they say it

2) You would get banned

The best way to find out how someone feels about race is to talk about race. If someone tends to make racist remarks, chances are they are racist. I don't think you are a flaming racist, but I do think you have some inaccurate ideas about certain groups of people. I believe you when you tell me what your ultimate opinion is.

That being said, this is not about who is racist and who isn't or what group comprises the highest percentage of gang members, it is about what works in medicine. No medical school assumes URMs are culturally competent while every other group is not. Every medical student has to take the classes; URMs don't get a free pass to go get ice cream during that time. The bold print is the exact reason why cultural competence classes can never replace URM recruitment. Many people won't understand the value of these classes and they won't take this knowledge to the bed side. Also, people tend to learn more about different cultures by interacting with members of these groups. Having a diverse class does volumes to promote cultural competence.

Making the assumption that URMs are more culturally sensitive to those who share their cultural background is not the same as admitting whites on the assumption that they will have higher scores anyway. Each ethnic group is probably more sensitive to members of their own ethnicity. Since Whites comprise about the same percentage in medical school as they do in the total population, we can be more confident that there are enough white doctors to take care of white patients. Since Asians are about four times more prevalent in medical school, we can be very confident that there are enough Asians to take care of Asian patients. Ideally, each doc will be culturally competent enough to care for any sort of patient, but if we can't depend on this, it's nice to know each American has the option of seeing a doc with whom they are comfortable. The problem with UNDER REPRESENTED minorities is that there aren't enough physicians of these groups to care for patients of these groups.

Moose, quick question. If you do not believe in the URM system the way it is, why claim URM status on your application? (This is not meant to be offensive, there are definitely legitimate reasons, I would just like to hear yours.)

No medical school assumes URMs are culturally competent while every other group is not. Every medical student has to take the classes; URMs don't get a free pass to go get ice cream during that time. The bold print is the exact reason why cultural competence classes can never replace URM recruitment. Many people won't understand the value of these classes and they won't take this knowledge available to them to the bed side. Also, people tend to learn more about different cultures by interacting with members of these groups. Having a diverse class does volumes to promote cultural competence.

Why is race the be-all and end-all of cultural differences? I don't really think that has been addressed in this thread. Let's take a broad definition of the word "culture." Should doctors have to take classes about the finance industry, automobile repair, italian cooking, or acrobatics, because there is a very real chance that they would have to interact with these "cultures," and their patients would feel more comfortable talking with someone who understands where they are coming from. Should medical schools actively recruit investment bankers, mechanics, chefs, and contortionists to increase diversity of all kinds? What kind of cultures wil qualify for this overarching "awareness" program? Who will makes those decisions?

Now that I think about it, I'll be sure to find an accountant who is familiar with my cultural heritage, because Lord knows my bookkeeping depends on it. You may think I'm being silly, but really, why is medicine different than any other profession?

I don't follow your posts closely, but I would think you don't go around posting derogatory things about other SDNer's racial backgrounds because

1) We have screen names so you really can't tell who is what unless they say it

2) You would get banned

The best way to find out how someone feels about race is to talk about race. If someone tends to make racist remarks, chances are they are racist. I don't think you are a flaming racist, but I do think you have some inaccurate ideas about certain groups of people. I believe you when you tell me what your ultimate opinion is.

That being said, this is not about who is racist and who isn't or what group comprises the highest percentage of gang members, it is about what works in medicine. No medical school assumes URMs are culturally competent while every other group is not. Every medical student has to take the classes; URMs don't get a free pass to go get ice cream during that time. The bold print is the exact reason why cultural competence classes can never replace URM recruitment. Many people won't understand the value of these classes and they won't take this knowledge to the bed side. Also, people tend to learn more about different cultures by interacting with members of these groups. Having a diverse class does volumes to promote cultural competence.

Making the assumption that URMs are more culturally sensitive to those who share their cultural background is not the same as admitting whites on the assumption that they will have higher scores anyway. Each ethnic group is probably more sensitive to members of their own ethnicity. Since Whites comprise about the same percentage in medical school as they do in the total population, we can be more confident that there are enough white doctors to take care of white patients. Since Asians are about four times more prevalent in medical school, we can be very confident that there are enough Asians to take care of Asian patients. Ideally, each doc will be culturally competent enough to care for any sort of patient, but if we can't depend on this, it's nice to know each American has the option of seeing a doc with whom they are comfortable. The problem with UNDER REPRESENTED minorities is that there aren't enough physicians of these groups to care for patients of these groups.

1. It's pretty easy. Except for unusual instances like Shredder, people usually give their race away. However, by the time I know what race someone is on SDN, I know much more about them than that, so it's too late.

2. I've been on this site long enough and I'm perceptive enough that I think I know what's bannable and what's not. The mods try to do a good job warning people that they're approaching bannable territory and prefer to use a graduated response where they warn people, post hold, then ban. I could be pretty nasty and skate the line. Several posters have made an art of that, which I found despicable, but there you have it.

Name some inaccurate ideas. If you can point to facts, I'll change my opinions. I don't consider the musings of researchers, unsupported by their numbers "facts", but if you pull up a study that says in 2005 most gang members are white, I'll change my view. I've already changed it once today based on research.

Have you taken these courses? I'm constantly taking cultural and sexual awareness classes in the military. They dumb down the information to the point that it's no longer valuable and is just annoying. If it was at the same high standard as most education is held to, I'd be happy to learn more. I'm happy to learn more about people from them (but not enough to favor admitting them to med school just for that, I can learn from my patients as well as I can learn from other med students). So I agree that having a diverse class promotes cultural awareness (I hate the term cultural competence and will not use it for anything I value, so please realize that everytime you use it with me, it's got seriously negative connotations), but don't think that's worth racial discrimination to achieve.

Am I so weird? I learned early that discrimination solely on racial lines was wrong. I internalized that and believe it. I have some exceptions, including being willing to make very superficial judgements when the outcome is vital, I don't have the real in-depth information I need to make a better judgement, and the cost to the judged is minimal, so I do favor increased screening for Middle Easterners by airport security. For the most part, though, I don't think we should advance or hold back people based on their race. AA is a serious exception. It's the pendulum swinging the other way, when we want to stop it all together.

This is why I feel higher education sucks today. Bring up a controversial topic and there is only one right answer, only one expressable side of any discussion, and anyone deviating from the approved script will get called names at some point.

I never called you a racist, I did say you were supporting racist generalizations. The suggestions that most gang members are black and that most terrorists are Arab are racist generalizations. Neither of these assertions are true. As we've seen, most gang members are not blacks. Also, most gang members are not Hispanic (most meaning over 50%), Hispanics just comprise a plurality of the gang members (or at least they did in 1996). Besides, I have been called names and my assertions have been rejected during this discussion also. You're just more aware of the derogatory notions that fly your way.

Moose, quick question. If you do not believe in the URM system the way it is, why claim URM status on your application? (This is not meant to be offensive, there are definitely legitimate reasons, I would just like to hear yours.)

Several reasons.

1. I'm a pragmatist. I don't believe in the system. Does that mean I should put myself in the "discriminated against" category rather than the "discriminated for" category? I don't like any category. Would putting "other" be some sort of great protest against the system, worthy of hurting my chances of getting into medical school?

2. One pathway just required honesty. The other required me to twist my background to avoid being part of a system I disagree with. I checked white and I checked Native American. They can decide what to do with that true information. I'm pretty sure my long time top choice did nothing with it. I don't think they favor URMs except in recruiting. I'm equally sure that it helped me at a couple of schools, which bothers me.

3. I question what I did, especially now. I'm bothered by the fact that despite having a 36 MCAT, I'll always wonder whether I just got in because I checked that box.

I never called you a racist, I did say you were supporting racist generalizations. The suggestions that most gang members are black and that most terrorists are Arab are racist generalizations. Neither of these assertions are true. As we've seen, most gang members are not blacks. Also, most gang members are not Hispanic (most meaning over 50%), Hispanics just comprise a plurality of the gang members (or at least they did in 1996). Besides, I have been called names and my assertions have been rejected during this discussion also. You're just more aware of the derogatory notions that fly your way.

What names have you been called in this discussion? I'm fairly sure I haven't called you anything, except PC. Do you find that offensive?

Ok, what if I said that URMs (the topic of this thread) made up the majority of gang members in that research? Does that make it less racist? It's wholly factual. Can something be totally factual and still racist? Would you avoid the truth because it's painful?

If I randomly picked 10 gang members in 1996, chances were that over 3 of them would have been black, over 4 of them would have been Hispanic, leaving 2 of them to be something else. Is that racist?

Name some inaccurate ideas. If you can point to facts, I'll change my opinions. I don't consider the musings of researchers, unsupported by their numbers "facts", but if you pull up a study that says in 2005 most gang members are white, I'll change my view. I've already changed it once today based on research.

1. Most gang members are black
2. Most terrorists are Arab
3. You can't succeed in medical school with a 25 MCAT
4. Those with the highest numbers are the best qualified to be clinicians and to serve the US population
5. Cultural competence (yeah I said it :p ) is not needed.

Have you taken these courses? I'm constantly taking cultural and sexual awareness classes in the military. They dumb down the information to the point that it's no longer valuable and is just annoying. If it was at the same high standard as most education is held to, I'd be happy to learn more. I'm happy to learn more about people from them (but not enough to favor admitting them to med school just for that, I can learn from my patients as well as I can learn from other med students). So I agree that having a diverse class promotes cultural awareness (I hate the term cultural competence and will not use it for anything I value, so please realize that everytime you use it with me, it's got seriously negative connotations), but don't think that's worth racial discrimination to achieve.Am I so weird? I learned early that discrimination solely on racial lines was wrong. I internalized that and believe it. I have some exceptions, including being willing to make very superficial judgements when the outcome is vital, I don't have the real in-depth information I need to make a better judgement, and the cost to the judged is minimal, so I do favor increased screening for Middle Easterners by airport security. For the most part, though, I don't think we should advance or hold back people based on their race. AA is a serious exception. It's the pendulum swinging the other way, when we want to stop it all together.

I have not taken these courses, but then again I'm not in the military. You seem to resent having to take courses about cultural and sexual awareness. Have you ever been raped? Anyone you know been killed because of racism? The point is, it's never a bad idea to teach a large group of men who are trained to be violent (for whatever purpose) to be aware of cultural and sexual boundaries. You talk about the pendulum swinging the other way, so you admit there were literally centuries where these groups (URMs) were actively stifled. Until 1965 most blacks weren't even allowed in the nice hospitals, let alone able to pursue medicine. If you spend 300+ years disrupting the achievement of a certain group, it will take some work to repair the damage done. Is it any wonder that without real programs to actively remedy these past scars, 40 years hasn’t been enough to make the corrections? The problem is that AA is too little too late. Anything that works to correct disparities isn't a bad thing in my book. It's not racism, it's a measure of correcting past ailments. Unfortunately, these ailments were imposed along racial lines.

What names have you been called in this discussion? I'm fairly sure I haven't called you anything, except PC. Do you find that offensive?

Ok, what if I said that URMs (the topic of this thread) made up the majority of gang members in that research? Does that make it less racist? It's wholly factual. Can something be totally factual and still racist? Would you avoid the truth because it's painful?

If I randomly picked 10 gang members in 1996, chances were that over 3 of them would have been black, over 4 of them would have been Hispanic, leaving 2 of them to be something else. Is that racist?
(10-4-3=3 by the way)

I have been called irrational, brainwashed, narrow-minded, and a drone who buys into conspiracies. Someone even doubted that I deserve to be at Baylor BECAUSE I AM A URM. All this in one thread! Look, if you showed the table and said that the majority of gang members were URMs that would be true and not racist, but this is not what you said. I never made the assertion that most gang members were white. Again, I reiterate: this is not about what groups are most likely to be gang members, it is about medicine...a topic in medicine even.

Would putting "other" be some sort of great protest against the system, worthy of hurting my chances of getting into medical school?

I believe it would have been a great protest. Change happens first on the individual level. Now you leave yourself open to question because outwardly it appears that your are saying "well it is ok for me but not everyone else."

3. I question what I did, especially now. I'm bothered by the fact that despite having a 36 MCAT, I'll always wonder whether I just got in because I checked that box.

You are speaking as if you are 1 dimensional. There is much more to each applicant than his/her MCAT score, and that is why there is a push for less reliance on standardized test scores and med schools are responding.

I am glad that you did check URM because obviously your background was a factor in your life making it all the more impressive that you are even in the position to pursue medicine at all. Lets not shut the door on others that may not be able to overcome the same obstacles, ay?

1. Most gang members are black
2. Most terrorists are Arab
3. You can't succeed in medical school with a 25 MCAT
4. Those with the highest numbers are the best qualified to be clinicians and to serve the US population
5. Cultural competence (yeah I said it :p ) is not needed.

I have not taken these courses, but then again I'm not in the military. You seem to resent having to take courses about cultural and sexual awareness. Have you ever been raped? Anyone you know been killed because of racism? The point is, it's never a bad idea to teach a large group of men who are trained to be violent (for whatever purpose) to be aware of cultural and sexual boundaries. You talk about the pendulum swinging the other way, so you admit there were literally centuries where these groups (URMs) were actively stifled. Until 1965 most blacks weren't even allowed in the nice hospitals, let alone able to pursue medicine. If you spend 300+ years disrupting the achievement of a certain group, it will take some work to repair the damage done. Is it any wonder that without real programs to actively remedy these past scars, 40 years hasn’t been enough to make the corrections? The problem is that AA is too little too late. Anything that works to correct disparities isn't a bad thing in my book. It's not racism, it's a measure of correcting past ailments. Unfortunately, these ailments were imposed along racial lines.

1. I've changed my opinion on that. Mea culpa.
2. I've qualified it numerous times with most current anti-American terrorists are Muslims. I doubt there is an accurate census and I don't know the proportion of European separatists, S. American narco-terrorists, and Islamic fundies. You're more than welcome to correct me. How many anti-American terrorists have been non-Muslim in the last 20 years?
3. I never said that you *can't* succeed. As a matter of fact, I've said that you clearly *can* succeed. I just believe that the MCAT loses predictive power at around that point. I could take a random guy out of a class, offer him a million bucks if he passed medical school, and without taking the MCAT he *could* succeed. Without any science pre-reqs you *can* succeed. Over 90% of people that get into med school pass. Just getting in is the best predictor of who's going to finish and it has greater than .9 correlation.
4. Ok, what if I turned it around. Prove that those without the best numbers are more likely to succeed? Even among URMs, the adcoms pick those with the best numbers. Why is that? Why don't they just take a certain number out of the middle? For that matter, since there have been so many appeals to authority in this thread, why aren't there totally representative numbers right now in med school? The Adcoms could do it, couldn't they? Why don't they?
5. Prove that it is. Hell, I'd wager you couldn't define cultural competency in a way that you could pass a test written on it and I couldn't. If you can't prove that you have it and I don't without looking at us, how is that fair?

As for whether I've been raped or someone I know has been killed for their race, no. I've never had a vagina, either, but med school is still going to require me to learn to treat the 50% of the population who does. Empathy doesn't require that you experience something to understand it. Have you ever spent food stamps on groceries? Have you ever stood in a line outside the same church where you went to scouts for free cheese and peanut butter? Have you ever had to present a card in a crowded elementary lunch line to get your free meal? Do you need to do those things before you can empathize with me?

Do I admit that there were centuries that URMs were stifled? :laugh:

Dude, I disagree with you, I'm not one of those people who denies the holocaust and thinks the lunar landing was done in a Hollywood set. I read a book about a young man who got pulled away from his family and forcibly reconditioned to favor white ways over Native American. He couldn't even stay with his family when he wanted to, let alone go to medical school. Hell, yes, URMs have faced nasty conditions in America in the past. I'm for fixing that and erasing it. You don't eliminate racial discrimination by institutionalizing it in the reverse of the historical precedent.

Define racism and define AA. It's not fair of me to ask something of you that I won't do, so:

Racism: Discrimination or prejudice based on race. (2nd definition found at http://www.answers.com/racism&r=67, picked the 2nd, because it's closer to my personal definition).

AA in med school: Actively admitting URMs over others based solely on their race and specifically when they probably wouldn't have gotten in due to MCAT, GPA, ECs, and LORs.

That's discrimination and racism.

Why is race the be-all and end-all of cultural differences? I don't really think that has been addressed in this thread. Let's take a broad definition of the word "culture." Should doctors have to take classes about the finance industry, automobile repair, italian cooking, or acrobatics, because there is a very real chance that they would have to interact with these "cultures," and their patients would feel more comfortable talking with someone who understands where they are coming from. Should medical schools actively recruit investment bankers, mechanics, chefs, and contortionists to increase diversity of all kinds? What kind of cultures wil qualify for this overarching "awareness" program? Who will makes those decisions?

Now that I think about it, I'll be sure to find an accountant who is familiar with my cultural heritage, because Lord knows my bookkeeping depends on it. You may think I'm being silly, but really, why is medicine different than any other profession?

Racial identities are important because people make them so. It's for the same reason that money is important--because people make it so. We happen to live in a society that has allways and will always be obsessed with race. Race and ethnicity matters to people before all other differences--especially because this difference will never change. I am an artist, I am a student, I am pre-med, I am a young, I am politically aware--but any of these attributes could (and probably will change) in the next ten years. I have always been and I will always be black. I have been raised in a certain culture and I have experienced certain things because I am black. If we had a group meeting today and I walked into the room, the first thing you would notice is that I'm black. It's how people function in this country. Race is important because it's like that and that's the way it is (in the words of RUN DMC). We all know it.

As for other forms of diversity, medical schools do try to recruit students of diverse experiences. They encourage students with different majors to apply. They ask all kinds of questions in interviews and on secondaries about your unique, individual experience. They even include a PERSONAL statement. As mentioned before 26% of admissions is determined by numbers. the other 76% could not possibly be determined ONLY by race.

(10-4-3=3 by the way)

I have been called irrational, brainwashed, narrow-minded, and a drone who buys into conspiracies. Someone even doubted that I deserve to be at Baylor BECAUSE I AM A URM. All this in one thread! Look, if you showed the table and said that the majority of gang members were URMs that would be true and not racist, but this is not what you said. I never made the assertion that most gang members were white. Again, I reiterate: this is not about what groups are most likely to be gang members, it is about medicine...a topic in medicine even.

Smart ass. 10 - 4.4 - 3.5 = 2.1, by the way. I'm disappointed that you made that comment when the source of my numbers was posted and I quite clearly said "over 4" and "over 3", giving you the subtle hint to the fractional difference.

I believe it would have been a great protest. Change happens first on the individual level. Now you leave yourself open to question because outwardly it appears that your are saying "well it is ok for me but not everyone else."

You are speaking as if you are 1 dimensional. There is much more to each applicant than his/her MCAT score, and that is why there is a push for less reliance on standardized test scores and med schools are responding.

I am glad that you did check URM because obviously your background was a factor in your life making it all the more impressive that you are even in the position to pursue medicine at all. Lets not shut the door on others that may not be able to overcome the same obstacles, ay?

I think it would have been a crappy protest. Akin to not voting in an election. Nobody sees the point, nothing happens.

Ah. I use shorthand. I always expect people to follow me. Also, my MD applicants profile is attached. My GPA was below average at many medical schools. My ECs were probably average. My life experiences were well above average. In my opinion, I would have gotten into allo schools without checking the box, but it doesn't matter anymore. No way to test my theory (although I've heard that a school I'm very likely to go to allows access to your records a few years into your education there, so I can see if any commments were made about my racial background).

My point is that it's the background that makes me unique. I want the kid who is the poor white part of me to have the same chance as the kid who is the poor Indian part of me. It's important to me to note what the applicant has gone through. My children hopefully won't have the same background I do, I don't want them to have the same consideration for it that I did.

1. I've changed my opinion on that. Mea culpa.
2. I've qualified it numerous times with most current anti-American terrorists are Muslims. I doubt there is an accurate census and I don't know the proportion of European separatists, S. American narco-terrorists, and Islamic fundies. You're more than welcome to correct me. How many anti-American terrorists have been non-Muslim in the last 20 years?
3. I never said that you *can't* succeed. As a matter of fact, I've said that you clearly *can* succeed. I just believe that the MCAT loses predictive power at around that point. I could take a random guy out of a class, offer him a million bucks if he passed medical school, and without taking the MCAT he *could* succeed. Without any science pre-reqs you *can* succeed. Over 90% of people that get into med school pass. Just getting in is the best predictor of who's going to finish and it has greater than .9 correlation.
4. Ok, what if I turned it around. Prove that those without the best numbers are more likely to succeed? Even among URMs, the adcoms pick those with the best numbers. Why is that? Why don't they just take a certain number out of the middle? For that matter, since there have been so many appeals to authority in this thread, why aren't there totally representative numbers right now in med school? The Adcoms could do it, couldn't they? Why don't they?
5. Prove that it is. Hell, I'd wager you couldn't define cultural competency in a way that you could pass a test written on it and I couldn't. If you can't prove that you have it and I don't without looking at us, how is that fair?
2. Look how we start to add qualifiers: most terrorists who have attacked the US from foreign nations in very recent history. (yes there are terrorist groups who attack US citizens from US soil).
3. You make it sound like people with 25 could, on an off chance, succeed but they are not likely to do so. The point of the thresholds is to pick people who will almost definitely succeed. What would adcoms have to gain by picking a bunch of people who can't do the work and who will not eventually become docs? All I'm saying is, I trust the judgment of the AMA, AAMC, and all the adcomes who decided this was the proper plan of action over you. I'm sorry if that offends you, but when people with more education, more resources, a vested interest in the subject, and have done more research have a different viewpoint than you do--you probably aren't correct.
4. People who have higher MCAT scores are more likely to have higher USMLE scores and do better on written tests. This is not the same thing as being more likely to have satisfied patients, being more able to inspire trust and loyalty from patients, being more open to the needs of others, having the drive to do whatever it takes to further the needs of health care, or being culturally competent enough to disregard prejudice when treating certain patients.
5. Is there evidence that cultural competence is needed? yes. Have there been instances where culturally incompetent doctors have compromised patient health and have cost people's lives? yes. Do I have some "Cultural Competence" quiz from quizland.com so that I can prove I have it and you don't? No Would it make you happier if I said "culturally competent doctors are 95% more qualified to serve the US population"? Again, very intelligent people subscribe to this idea (but maybe they are just trying to secure the minority vote again).

As for whether I've been raped or someone I know has been killed for their race, no. I've never had a vagina, either, but med school is still going to require me to learn to treat the 50% of the population who does. Empathy doesn't require that you experience something to understand it. Have you ever spent food stamps on groceries? Have you ever stood in a line outside the same church where you went to scouts for free cheese and peanut butter? Have you ever had to present a card in a crowded elementary lunch line to get your free meal? Do you need to do those things before you can empathize with me?
I wasn't suggesting that people have to experience everything in order to be empathetic, I was suggesting that if teaching cultural competence and sexual awareness can potentially prevent individuals from participating in these heinous acts, having to sit through a boring class is a small price to pay. The person who is raped or killed because of discrimination suffers much more than the person who has to sit through an hour long class.

Do I admit that there were centuries that URMs were stifled? :laugh:
Why is that funny? 200 years of slavery followed by 100 years of segrigation (and rampant lynchings) aren't funny to me. That's one...two...three centuries. That counts as centuries, right? And stifling right? Native Americans can claim similar setbacks. The US just hasn't been kind to certain groups

Dude, I disagree with you, I'm not one of those people who denies the holocaust and thinks the lunar landing was done in a Hollywood set. I read a book about a young man who got pulled away from his family and forcibly reconditioned to favor white ways over Native American. He couldn't even stay with his family when he wanted to, let alone go to medical school. Hell, yes, URMs have faced nasty conditions in America in the past. I'm for fixing that and erasing it. You don't eliminate racial discrimination by institutionalizing it in the reverse of the historical precedent.
You're just one of those people who laughs at the notion that slavery and segregation/inequality ever existed? So how do you eliminate the disparities created by racial injustice if not by trying to rebuild the same specific racial communities? Can you find a better solution that does not have to target race specifically even though the prejudice did? You can't subjugate people based on race but then ignore race in the solution.

Define racism and define AA. It's not fair of me to ask something of you that I won't do, so:

Racism: Discrimination or prejudice based on race. (2nd definition found at http://www.answers.com/racism&r=67, picked the 2nd, because it's closer to my personal definition).

AA in med school: Actively admitting URMs over others based solely on their race and specifically when they probably wouldn't have gotten in due to MCAT, GPA, ECs, and LORs.

That's discrimination and racism.

Nice how you tried to be so accurate with the Racism definition, but not with the definition of AA. I'll help:

Affirmative Action as explained by the AAMC:

The Association of American Medical Colleges is deeply committed to increasing diversity in medical schools. This commitment extends to increasing the number of minority physicians available to serve the nation's ever-growing minority population, expanding areas of research undertaken by medical academics, and raising the general cultural competence of all physicians.

On June 23, 2003, the United States Supreme Court upheld affirmative action in university admissions, permitting the nation's medical schools to continue developing a physician workforce that truly mirrors our society. The AAMC has analyzed the implications for medical schools and offers guidance to help schools enhance diversity.

Let me guess, too PC?

Smart ass. 10 - 4.4 - 3.5 = 2.1, by the way. I'm disappointed that you made that comment when the source of my numbers was posted and I quite clearly said "over 4" and "over 3", giving you the subtle hint to the fractional difference.
I was just screwing with you. I guess now I've been called a smart ass too :p

2. Look how we start to add qualifiers: most terrorists who have attacked the US from foreign nations in very recent history. (yes there are terrorist groups who attack US citizens from US soil).
3. You make it sound like people with 25 could, on an off chance, succeed but they are not likely to do so. The point of the thresholds is to pick people who will almost definitely succeed. What would adcoms have to gain by picking a bunch of people who can't do the work and who will not eventually become docs? All I'm saying is, I trust the judgment of the AMA, AAMC, and all the adcomes who decided this was the proper plan of action over you. I'm sorry if that offends you, but when people with more education, more resources, a vested interest in the subject, and have done more research have a different viewpoint than you do--you probably aren't correct.
4. People who have higher MCAT scores are more likely to have higher USMLE scores and do better on written tests. This is not the same thing as being more likely to have satisfied patients, being more able to inspire trust and loyalty from patients, being more open to the needs of others, having the drive to do whatever it takes to further the needs of health care, or being culturally competent enough to disregard prejudice when treating certain patients.
5. Is there evidence that cultural competence is needed? yes. Have there been instances where culturally incompetent doctors have compromised patient health and have cost people's lives? yes. Do I have some "Cultural Competence" quiz from quizland.com so that I can prove I have it and you don't? No Would it make you happier if I said "culturally competent doctors are 95% more qualified to serve the US population"? Again, very intelligent people subscribe to this idea (but maybe they are just trying to secure the minority vote again).


I wasn't suggesting that people have to experience everything in order to be empathetic, I was suggesting that if teaching cultural competence and sexual awareness can potentially prevent individuals from participating in these heinous acts, having to sit through a boring class is a small price to pay. The person who is raped or killed because of discrimination suffers much more than the person who has to sit through an hour long class.


Why is that funny? 200 years of slavery followed by 100 years of segrigation (and rampant lynchings) aren't funny to me. That's one...two...three centuries. That counts as centuries, right? And stifling right? Native Americans can claim similar setbacks. The US just hasn't been kind to certain groups


You're just one of those people who laughs at the notion that slavery and segregation/inequality ever existed? So how do you eliminate the disparities created by racial injustice if not by trying to rebuild the same specific racial communities? Can you find a better solution that does not have to target race specifically even though the prejudice did? You can't subjugate people based on race but then ignore race in the solution.



Nice how you tried to be so accurate with the Racism definition, but not with the definition of AA. I'll help:

Affirmative Action as explained by the AAMC:

The Association of American Medical Colleges is deeply committed to increasing diversity in medical schools. This commitment extends to increasing the number of minority physicians available to serve the nation's ever-growing minority population, expanding areas of research undertaken by medical academics, and raising the general cultural competence of all physicians.

On June 23, 2003, the United States Supreme Court upheld affirmative action in university admissions, permitting the nation's medical schools to continue developing a physician workforce that truly mirrors our society. The AAMC has analyzed the implications for medical schools and offers guidance to help schools enhance diversity.

Let me guess, too PC?
I would say it is too PC. It doesn't explain the mechanism for the goal.

2. Look how we start to add qualifiers: most terrorists who have attacked the US from foreign nations in very recent history. (yes there are terrorist groups who attack US citizens from US soil).
3. You make it sound like people with 25 could, on an off chance, succeed but they are not likely to do so. The point of the thresholds is to pick people who will almost definitely succeed. What would adcoms have to gain by picking a bunch of people who can't do the work and who will not eventually become docs? All I'm saying is, I trust the judgment of the AMA, AAMC, and all the adcomes who decided this was the proper plan of action over you. I'm sorry if that offends you, but when people with more education, more resources, a vested interest in the subject, and have done more research have a different viewpoint than you do--you probably aren't correct.
4. People who have higher MCAT scores are more likely to have higher USMLE scores and do better on written tests. This is not the same thing as being more likely to have satisfied patients, being more able to inspire trust and loyalty from patients, being more open to the needs of others, having the drive to do whatever it takes to further the needs of health care, or being culturally competent enough to disregard prejudice when treating certain patients.
5. Is there evidence that cultural competence is needed? yes. Have there been instances where culturally incompetent doctors have compromised patient health and have cost people's lives? yes. Do I have some "Cultural Competence" quiz from quizland.com so that I can prove I have it and you don't? No Would it make you happier if I said "culturally competent doctors are 95% more qualified to serve the US population"? Again, very intelligent people subscribe to this idea (but maybe they are just trying to secure the minority vote again).

2. There are qualifiers, but only so the data will be unquestionable. I'm only concerned with terrorism vs. North America, but I'd get the same result if I said all terrorism except S. American narco-terrorism and European separatist terrorism. Show me anything that says that most terrorists in the world aren't Muslims right now. Do you believe that?

3. Ok, if URMs have about an 88% grad rate and all others have a greater than 95% grad rate, how would you account for the difference? The lower stats have nothing to do with it, I'm sure. It's probably all the discrimination they face in the medical school. All of your classmates asking if you're a gang member has to get distracting.

4. You said I had factually incorrect statements. We are distinguishing between facts and your opinions still, aren't we? Or is my every disagreement with your opinion a factually incorrect statement?

5. Listen to my point. I don't think you can come up with any objective measure to show who is culturally competent and who isn't. Subjective measures are unfair, because of the political climate. The white boys are going to get labeled as "incompetent" (do you get why I don't like cultural competence now? what is the opposite of competent?). That subjectivity is what I object to in all those smart people who think cultural competence is so important. They'll sit up there and lecture at me about something, without taking into account the fact that I might have thought about it before.


I wasn't suggesting that people have to experience everything in order to be empathetic, I was suggesting that if teaching cultural competence and sexual awareness can potentially prevent individuals from participating in these heinous acts, having to sit through a boring class is a small price to pay. The person who is raped or killed because of discrimination suffers much more than the person who has to sit through an hour long class.

Ok, do you really think a cultural competence class is going to make it less likely for a med student to rape or kill someone?

Why is that funny? 200 years of slavery followed by 100 years of segrigation (and rampant lynchings) aren't funny to me. That's one...two...three centuries. That counts as centuries, right? And stifling right? Native Americans can claim similar setbacks. The US just hasn't been kind to certain groups

You're just one of those people who laughs at the notion that slavery and segregation/inequality ever existed? So how do you eliminate the disparities created by racial injustice if not by trying to rebuild the same specific racial communities? Can you find a better solution that does not have to target race specifically even though the prejudice did? You can't subjugate people based on race but then ignore race in the solution.

It's funny that you'd see the need to ask the question. I thought I made that clear with the comments about the holocaust and the moon landing.

No, I'm not one of those people and your accusation is. You got a better start than I did, quit acting like you've been so put upon.

How do you eliminate disparities? By eliminating disparities, not by creating offsetting disparities. Don't build or rebuild separatist groups. Let people associate with whomever they choose to, but give every citizen an equal chance. "You can't subjugate..."? Well, since I didn't, I'm pretty comfortable with that. Since I didn't sujugate anyone, I'm pretty happy just making sure I don't participate in their subjugation (by assumptions that they're incapable and need assistance to achieve) today.

Nice how you tried to be so accurate with the Racism definition, but not with the definition of AA. I'll help:

Affirmative Action as explained by the AAMC:

The Association of American Medical Colleges is deeply committed to increasing diversity in medical schools. This commitment extends to increasing the number of minority physicians available to serve the nation's ever-growing minority population, expanding areas of research undertaken by medical academics, and raising the general cultural competence of all physicians.

On June 23, 2003, the United States Supreme Court upheld affirmative action in university admissions, permitting the nation's medical schools to continue developing a physician workforce that truly mirrors our society. The AAMC has analyzed the implications for medical schools and offers guidance to help schools enhance diversity.

Let me guess, too PC?

Nope. Mine wasn't two paragraphs long. Theirs is fine, but it still boils down to, "Allow race as a qualification apart from any measure of achievement." and that's what I see as bull****.

Every qualification needed to get into med school is something the applicant had to do. The applicant had to earn a GPA, had to take the MCAT, had to volunteer, shadow, lead, whatever. Some of them had to do all that while facing opposition. He didn't have to be born with black skin, red skin, or light brown skin. Which one of these is different from the others?

Heck, I'd be ok with a racial paragraph. Do you know that when I checked disadvantaged, I had to write a paragraph explaining how. When I checked Native American, that was the end of it. I never had to say that I knew anything about Native Americans, that I'd ever experienced racism, or anything.

You know the best protest? Encouraging everyone to check a URM box. They're freebies, no proof generally required. Pick the one closest to your skin tone and destroy the program.

Mossepilot:AA in med school: Actively admitting URMs over others based solely on their race and specifically when they probably wouldn't have gotten in due to MCAT, GPA, ECs, and LORs.


Every comment you make about AA suggests that you believe that URMs who are accpeted in med school are largely unqualified or inferior to nonURMs. Do you really think that? Do you think that adcoms are incapable of determining for themselves if a candidate is a good fit for med school and their institution? You do realize that URMs have to go thru the same process as nonURMs to even be considered for placement. You act as tho spots are handed down to URMs.

And all the discsussion on gangs and terrorists really needs to stop. You made a very ugly and racist comment and then proceeded to try to justify it by likening it to being up-to-date on matters of US security. No one denies that some blacks are involved in gang-related activity and some arabs in terrorist activities, but to suggest, even for a moment, that its okay to treat ppl according to prominent stereotypes is wrong and unfortunate. Shame on you for even attempting to justify that idea.

I was just screwing with you. I guess now I've been called a smart ass too :p

Definitely. That one is a term of endearment ;)

Every comment you make about AA suggests that you believe that URMs who are accpeted in med school are largely unqualified or inferior to nonURMs. Do you really think that? Do you think that adcoms are incapable of determining for themselves if a candidate is a good fit for med school and their institution? You do realize that URMs have to go thru the same process as nonURMs to even be considered for placement. You act as tho spots are handed down to URMs.

And all the discsussion on gangs and terrorists really needs to stop. You made a very ugly and racist comment and then proceeded to try to justify it by likening it to being up-to-date on matters of US security. No one denies that some blacks are involved in gang-related activity and some arabs in terrorist activities, but to suggest, even for a moment, that its okay to treat ppl according to prominent stereotypes is wrong and unfortunate. Shame on you for even attempting to justify that idea.

I'm fairly familiar with the admissions process for URM. Caught up to the conversation, yet?

I don't think they're (WE ARE, whatever you want me to say) unqualified or inferior. I think that a large percentage of applicants to med schools are qualified. Right now med schools skim the cream off the top of the pool, leading to extremely high graduation rates. My problem is that they take into account unearned qualifications for URMs. How did you earn your URM status? It's also a qualification that's largely to wholly irrelevant to being a doctor. We've already established that you don't have to undergo something in order to understand or empathize with it, but somehow you have to be a URM to understand the minority experience?

It really needs to stop, huh? That's my frickin' problem. If I say anything that's not factual, I'll accept correction. I have shown that by changing my opinion when merited. Why are you afraid to face the truth? I've documented that in 1996 most gang members qualified as URMs for med school admission. I've claimed that most terrorists are Muslim without reference, but I don't believe anyone has really disputed that. If you'd like to go hunting for a terrorist census, you're more than welcome.

What about those things is racist? Can the truth be racist?

huh? im talking about how you choose to TREAT people, not what the numbers are. treating all arabs like terrorists is wrong and discriminatory. no matter what the numbers are. not all arabs are terrorists and some of us choose to acknowledge that.

something tells me you would be singing a different tune if you were an arab. being treated like a criminal just because you were poor, didnt make you feel good, yet you think its okay to treat others that way. like i said: shame on you.

hey all,
NO AA:
http://home.sandiego.edu/~e_cook/vault/medical/irvine/uci-med-97.html

AA:http://home.sandiego.edu/~e_cook/vault/medical/irvine/uci-med-94.html

You decide!!!

Is it worth it???
UCLA before AA was cancled:

http://home.sandiego.edu/~e_cook/vault/medical/losangeles/ucla-med-95.html

2. There are qualifiers, but only so the data will be unquestionable. I'm only concerned with terrorism vs. North America, but I'd get the same result if I said all terrorism except S. American narco-terrorism and European separatist terrorism. Show me anything that says that most terrorists in the world aren't Muslims right now. Do you believe that?

3. Ok, if URMs have about an 88% grad rate and all others have a greater than 95% grad rate, how would you account for the difference? The lower stats have nothing to do with it, I'm sure. It's probably all the discrimination they face in the medical school. All of your classmates asking if you're a gang member has to get distracting.

4. You said I had factually incorrect statements. We are distinguishing between facts and your opinions still, aren't we? Or is my every disagreement with your opinion a factually incorrect statement?

5. Listen to my point. I don't think you can come up with any objective measure to show who is culturally competent and who isn't. Subjective measures are unfair, because of the political climate. The white boys are going to get labeled as "incompetent" (do you get why I don't like cultural competence now? what is the opposite of competent?). That subjectivity is what I object to in all those smart people who think cultural competence is so important. They'll sit up there and lecture at me about something, without taking into account the fact that I might have thought about it before.




Ok, do you really think a cultural competence class is going to make it less likely for a med student to rape or kill someone?



It's funny that you'd see the need to ask the question. I thought I made that clear with the comments about the holocaust and the moon landing.

No, I'm not one of those people and your accusation is. You got a better start than I did, quit acting like you've been so put upon.

How do you eliminate disparities? By eliminating disparities, not by creating offsetting disparities. Don't build or rebuild separatist groups. Let people associate with whomever they choose to, but give every citizen an equal chance. "You can't subjugate..."? Well, since I didn't, I'm pretty comfortable with that. Since I didn't sujugate anyone, I'm pretty happy just making sure I don't participate in their subjugation (by assumptions that they're incapable and need assistance to achieve) today.



Nope. Mine wasn't two paragraphs long. Theirs is fine, but it still boils down to, "Allow race as a qualification apart from any measure of achievement." and that's what I see as bull****.

Every qualification needed to get into med school is something the applicant had to do. The applicant had to earn a GPA, had to take the MCAT, had to volunteer, shadow, lead, whatever. Some of them had to do all that while facing opposition. He didn't have to be born with black skin, red skin, or light brown skin. Which one of these is different from the others?

Heck, I'd be ok with a racial paragraph. Do you know that when I checked disadvantaged, I had to write a paragraph explaining how. When I checked Native American, that was the end of it. I never had to say that I knew anything about Native Americans, that I'd ever experienced racism, or anything.

You know the best protest? Encouraging everyone to check a URM box. They're freebies, no proof generally required. Pick the one closest to your skin tone and destroy the program.

You take things very personally. By "You can't subjugate..." I meant people or nations--not you specifically. Sorry if my language was unclear. When you say you eliminate disparities by eliminating disparities, I'd say you haven't outlined a clear mechanism for eliminating racially based disparities without addressing race. How can you say I had a better start than you did? Was I raised in a middle class home, yes, but apart from that you know nothing about me. My parents could be horrible alcoholics who were verbally and physically abusive. I could have been molested or raped. I could also have grown up in a healthy, middle class family with 2.5 kids and endless opportunities. The point is, you have no idea. And I have no idea about you; I would not make the assumption that you had it better than me for any reason or that I had it better than you. Fortunately, for the purposes of AA in medical admissions, the goal is not to help the individual applicant, it’s to help society as a whole. It isn’t about who had it better or worse--it’s about what can be done to produce a physician population that is best able to serve the community. I guess where our opinions differ is whether or not the ends justify the means. In any case, this has been a huge sink-hole of time and I have to get some work done. Maybe we'll continue later.

huh? im talking about how you choose to TREAT people, not what the numbers are. treating all arabs like terrorists is wrong and discriminatory. no matter what the numbers are. not all arabs are terrorists and some of us choose to acknowledge that.

something tells me you would be singing a different tune if you were an arab. being treated like a criminal just because you were poor, didnt make you feel good, yet you think its okay to treat others that way. like i said: shame on you.

How do I choose to treat people? Do you know? Do you know me?

Treating all Arabs like terrorists is wrong. I'd agree.

A little off topic, but it might be worth it to elucidate on how I think.

Americans are Americans. In my opinion, if you want to be American, you need to prioritize that over whatever you were prior to you or your ancestors coming here. Right now, America is at war with Muslim fundamentalist terrorists and our way of life is at stake. Our enemy is mostly using recognizeably Middle Eastern terrorists to do the attacks.

I think we should ask the Americans of Middle Eastern background to tolerate more frequent security checks for the safety of everyone. Everyone shares the inconvenience of random checks and I think that should continue.

I wouldn't favor rounding up all the Americans of Middle Eastern background and putting them in camps. A little security screen (that I get every time I go without being on orders, despite showing my military ID) is a minor inconvenience.

Shame on you for being unthinking and a sheep.

hey all,
NO AA:
http://home.sandiego.edu/~e_cook/vault/medical/irvine/uci-med-97.html

AA:http://home.sandiego.edu/~e_cook/vault/medical/irvine/uci-med-94.html

You decide!!!

Is it worth it???
UCLA before AA was cancled:

http://home.sandiego.edu/~e_cook/vault/medical/losangeles/ucla-med-95.html
i dont think you can actually come to a worthwile conclusion based on data from one school that only takes into consideration MCAT and GPA.

I would say it is too PC. It doesn't explain the mechanism for the goal.
Welcome back :) , sorry I have to go. Maybe it was too PC. We'll talk about the mechanism later

You take things very personally. By "You can't subjugate..." I meant people or nations--not you specifically. Sorry if my language was unclear. When you say you eliminate disparities by eliminating disparities, I'd say you haven't outlined a clear mechanism for eliminating racially based disparities without addressing race. How can you say I had a better start than you did? Was I raised in a middle class home, yes, but apart from that you know nothing about me. My parents could be horrible alcoholics who were verbally and physically abusive. I could have been molested or raped. I could also have grown up in a healthy, middle class family with 2.5 kids and endless opportunities. The point is, you have no idea. And I have no idea about you; I would not make the assumption that you had it better than me for any reason or that I had it better than you. Fortunately, for the purposes of AA in medical admissions, the goal is not to help the individual applicant, it’s to help society as a whole. It isn’t about who had it better or worse--it’s about what can be done to produce a physician population that is best able to serve the community. I guess where our opinions differ is whether or not the ends justify the means. In any case, this has been a huge sink-hole of time and I have to get some work done. Maybe we'll continue later.

I took it personally on purpose. There is no nation apart from the people. We're not even requiring the Iraqi people to pay for the war crimes they committed 10 years ago (a group of POWs who were tortured during Desert Storm won damages against Iraq in a US court, while the US held all of their assets, but President Bush wouldn't award the money, because it would hurt their chances of rebuilding). If I didn't subjugate the people and the average applicant didn't subjugate the people, how can you make them pay for the fix? I don't believe the ends justify the means.

You're right, I don't know you. Your middle class background immediately puts you ahead of me in many ways. As to the rest, we could compare war stories, but I'm basing it primarily on your financial advantages.

I think it would have been a crappy protest. Akin to not voting in an election. Nobody sees the point, nothing happens.
Well we disagree. Protests are limited by the protestor. But I do "see" it. I see that you had a chance to stand up for something you believed in. You are cynical, but you should not underestimate the impact of leading by example. At the least, your arguments here would have much more weight if you hadn't checked URM.

My point is that it's the background that makes me unique. I want the kid who is the poor white part of me to have the same chance as the kid who is the poor Indian part of me. It's important to me to note what the applicant has gone through. My children hopefully won't have the same background I do, I don't want them to have the same consideration for it that I did.
The URM checkbox is there b/c they are looking to recruit you for your "NA" background, not your "poor" background. (i.e. if you were poor and white you'd be left out. I know you know this, I am just making my point explicit). Med schools are looking to recruit people who are disadvantaged because of race and are aiming to serve people who are disadvantaged because of race, your income does not directly play in as a factor.

Disadvantaged is not the best word because people always want to equate it to socioeconomic status, but it is much more than that. The disadvantages of URMs are the myriad of factors (discrimination, present and historical, conscious and unconscious, unequal resources, lack of role models, distrust of the system, etc.) that are leading to minorities not pursuing medical education (for students) or not have adequate healthcare (for patients). If being part NA is a big part of your life, and specifically if you plan to work in underserved areas or turn around and help other URMs like you pursue medicine, than checking off URM is appropriate. But if you are doing it only because you were poor growing up, than in fact you are someone that this system did not intend to check URM.

What I am leading to is that URM recruitment is vastly different than AA. Like AA, URM recruitment aims at dealing with underlying discrepancies in student access to medical education; but, more importantly, it is a step towards dealing with a larger healthcare issue. This is such a huge issue that has sociological and economical implications that I can't even begin to get into b/c I could not do it justice. But if we are going to understand the problem we should be educated about the problem beforehand. As I pointed out before, a good resource is the report by the Sullivan commission.

http://admissions.duhs.duke.edu/sullivancommission/index.cfm

It is a result of discussions like these (except of people more experienced in the health care industry, not lowly applicants as ourselves) and large amount of research. I am going to have a summary of it up soon, but I will hope people will go look at it on their own. But as budding Drs, we need to understand the future of healthcare in order to fill the changing health needs of our society, and this is the future of healthcare in the US.

http://home.sandiego.edu/~e_cook/vault/medical/sanfrancisco/ucsf-med-97.html

would it not be better to have a class which looked more like this... :) If all schools were like this AA would not even be debated :thumbup:

i dont think you can actually come to a worthwile conclusion based on data from one school that only takes into consideration MCAT and GPA.

No, because there's nothing to cloak the favoritism. That's why I focus on MCAT and GPA. Why assume that a certain group of pre-meds do radically more non-numerical work when it's not documented? Yet that's always what happens. People assume they must have been off running hospitals or something :rolleyes:

http://home.sandiego.edu/~e_cook/vault/medical/sanfrancisco/ucsf-med-97.html

would it not be better to have a class which looked more like this... :) If all schools were like this AA would not even be debated :thumbup:

You think? Even though the URM percent chance of admissions is so much higher and their qualifications as show there are noticeably lower? It's better than some of the others, but still ugly.

Well we disagree. Protests are limited by the protestor. But I do "see" it. I see that you had a chance to stand up for something you believed in. You are cynical, but you should not underestimate the impact of leading by example. At the least, your arguments here would have much more weight if you hadn't checked URM.


The URM checkbox is there b/c they are looking to recruit you for your "NA" background, not your "poor" background. (i.e. if you were poor and white you'd be left out. I know you know this, I am just making my point explicit). Med schools are looking to recruit people who are disadvantaged because of race and are aiming to serve people who are disadvantaged because of race, your income does not directly play in as a factor.

I am racially NA, I am not culturally NA. I have no NA background. I don't look NA. I don't know where a reservation is, let alone what it's like there (except through talking with people who do know). So what did they get for their AA?

You think? Even though the URM percent chance of admissions is so much higher and their qualifications as show there are noticeably lower? It's better than some of the others, but still ugly.

but at least they are all within the white/asian range...It is easier to draw a circle around the accepted range and not notice many URMs outside of it...

but at least they are all within the white/asian range...It is easier to draw a circle around the accepted range and not notice many URMs outside of it...

I agree. It's much better, but even the circles are black and white. It's just pathetic that's all we can judge each other on.

I am racially NA, I am not culturally NA. I have no NA background. I don't look NA. I don't know where a reservation is, let alone what it's like there (except through talking with people who do know). So what did they get for their AA?

people like you are the reason why AA sux... You are the low of low when it comes to people that claim AA b/c, you can claim it and, live like a regular white guy... What makes it worse is that you are againt it which is pretty annoying :mad: :mad:

I think we should ask the Americans of Middle Eastern background to tolerate more frequent security checks for the safety of everyone. Everyone shares the inconvenience of random checks and I think that should continue.

Sorry to post this when I said I was going to go but I couldn’t phucking resist (but then this is the reason why I haven’t done much work all day)

Ok, so Americans are Americans. Right now, many Americans suffer from health disparities because all Americans are not equally represented in medicine. These disparities threaten our way of life. It has been studied and shown that we can correct many of these disparities by admitting more of certain Americans into US medical schools. I think we should ask Americans of ORM background to tolerate more frequent admission of URMs into medicine to promote the health of everyone. Everyone shares the inconvenience of having more qualified applicants than seats in medical school and I think that should continue.

Sorry to post this when I said I was going to go but I couldn’t phucking resist (but then this is the reason why I haven’t done much work all day)

Ok, so Americans are Americans. Right now, many Americans suffer from health disparities because all Americans are not equally represented in medicine. These disparities threaten our way of life. It has been studied and shown that we can correct many of these disparities by admitting more of certain Americans into US medical schools. I think we should ask Americans of ORM background to tolerate more frequent admission of URMs into medicine to promote the health of everyone. Everyone shares the inconvenience of having more qualified applicants than seats in medical school and I think that should continue.

No, you're trying to separate them. All Americans are at risk from terrorism. It's not at all the same.

Imagine you're the last guy who doesn't get selected to any allo med school. Would you regard that as equivalent to getting screened at the airport? It's no big deal, right? You just move on to a career as a PA, a lawyer, a scientist...

people like you are the reason why AA sux... You are the low of low when it comes to people that claim AA b/c, you can claim it and, live like a regular white guy... What makes it worse is that you are againt it which is pretty annoying :mad: :mad:

Tough luck, buddy. That's my protest.

"...live like a regular white guy..."? How is that, exactly? I think someone needs cultural competence training.

people like you are the reason why AA sux... You are the low of low when it comes to people that claim AA b/c, you can claim it and, live like a regular white guy... What makes it worse is that you are againt it which is pretty annoying :mad: :mad:
This is not a flame war thread. While I can understand your frustrations, it's unfair to make personal attacks. I'd like this to be the one relatively civil AA thread.

Tough luck, buddy. That's my protest.

"...live like a regular white guy..."? How is that, exactly? I think someone needs cultural competence training.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

ok good bye...

This is not a flame war thread. While I can understand your frustrations, it's unfair to make personal attacks. I'd like this to be the one relatively civil AA thread.

Thanks. I added to my explanation of why I didn't think your analogy was good. It's parallel, but I think the costs levvyed against the group of Americans who have to pay for the correction are different in the two examples.

No, you're trying to separate them. All Americans are at risk from terrorism. It's not at all the same.
So the sacrifice is not worth promoting the good health of a large chunk of the American population? Who cares how many minorities suffer (or die) because no one wants to provide them health care?

I would argue that all Americans suffer when disparities effect a certain group. When people don't have resources, they take them from those who do. You say all Americans are at risk from terrorism, but is that true? Are terrorist more likely to attack some random place in Arizona or Washington DC? Why should the Arabs and Iraqis have to settle for random security checks in Arizona?

So the sacrifice is not worth promoting the good health of a large chunk of the American population? Who cares how many minorities suffer (or die) because no one wants to provide them health care?

I would argue that all Americans suffer when disparities effect a certain group. When people don't have resources, they take them from those who do. You say all Americans are at risk from terrorism, but is that true? Are terrorist more likely to attack some random place in Arizona or Washington DC? Why should the Arabs and Iraqis have to settle for random security checks in Arizona?

Why is their health at risk? Is it race or is it socioeconomic status? There are successful URMs. Is their health at risk? So what is the actual causal factor of the risk? Is it the racial background or the socioeconomic status? There is an undeniable correlation, but if we separate them to whatever extent that's possible, I think we find that poor whites and poor minorities suffer from lack of health care, while richer whites and minorities have fewer problems.

As for the terrorist issue, I think suiting the number of checks to the risk level of the location is smart. Keep it random so the terrorists have less opportunity to use it against us, but I don't think we need as stringent security for the interior. However, someone could board a jet full of fuel bound from Phoenix (a hub) to somewhere distant and run it into something that would make a lot of publicity (like the Luxor... imagine the pics). Do you know some of the 911 hijackers trained in OK? They don't ignore the middle of the country altogether.

Moosepilot:I think that Arabs and Iraqis have done a lot to earn the current distrust they suffer under. Gang members have done a lot to ruin the reputation of minorities, just like the Klan has done for whites. It's no surprise that gangs are associated with minorities. Don't blame people who see an obvious association, blame the gang members and work towards a solution to street crime.


In case you have forgetten, you made this comment after Lady J and I questioned another poster about his assumption that all minorities are gang members.

In any case, I don't know how you treat ppl, but I do know that you have suggested that arabs (because some arabs are involved in terrorism) deserve to be treated the way they are and that its appropriate to assume that all minorities are gang members just because many of them are.

Like I told you before, I don't treat all ppl from a racial group a certain way because of the acts of some of their members. That goes for whites, abrabs, native americans...... Anyone that does, is unfortunate

Shame on you for being unthinking and a sheep.

Funny how no one on this thread resorted to calling you names. You would think that a 31 year old man would be above that by now...guess not.


You never really told me if you were opposed to gender-based AA and its role in providing access to educational and financial resources to women. You did state that gender-based AA is not used in medical school, but after you were promptly corrected, you never offered any further comments.

The reason I don't think assessments made solely on numbers is sufficient is because these numbers have not been directly correlated to the quality of a physcian. BY quality i mean factors such as: patient satisfaction, ability to develop trusting relationships with patients, competency in reading diagnostic tests and diagnosing illnesses.....etc

Your middle class background immediately puts you ahead of me in many ways.

Some people feel that whites are immediately put ahead of minorities in many ways because historically they have not been denied access to resources and did not suffer under racism for centeries. Is your assumption more valid than this one?

Racial identities are important because people make them so. It's for the same reason that money is important--because people make it so. We happen to live in a society that has allways and will always be obsessed with race. Race and ethnicity matters to people before all other differences--especially because this difference will never change. I am an artist, I am a student, I am pre-med, I am a young, I am politically aware--but any of these attributes could (and probably will change) in the next ten years. I have always been and I will always be black. I have been raised in a certain culture and I have experienced certain things because I am black. If we had a group meeting today and I walked into the room, the first thing you would notice is that I'm black. It's how people function in this country. Race is important because it's like that and that's the way it is (in the words of RUN DMC). We all know it.

You are so right here that it isn't even funny. The reason race is important at all is because we make it important. Identity politics are destroying the very fabric of this country. Unfortunately, you are falling into the very pattern of behaviour that propagates it. Every policy that favors one group over another, gives special consideration to one group over another, gives preferences to arbitrary genetic mutations eats away at the notion of "America" that we all pay lipservice to. Unless you were raised in another country, I'm not quite sure how your culture is any different than the white guy down the street. And if you walked into a meeting with me, I can guarantee you I wouldn't give a whit about your skin color. Most likely the first thing I would notice is whether or not you were good looking. Sorry, it's in my male chromosomes.

Why does race matter? Because the same people who say that it shouldn't matter are the usually the first ones to defend their race.


Also, just a small correction. Michael Jackson has gone from one of the darkest brothers I have known to whiter than a February morning. There is no guarantee that you will still be black in 10 years :)


As for other forms of diversity, medical schools do try to recruit students of diverse experiences. They encourage students with different majors to apply. They ask all kinds of questions in interviews and on secondaries about your unique, individual experience. They even include a PERSONAL statement. As mentioned before 26% of admissions is determined by numbers. the other 76% could not possibly be determined ONLY by race.

Yes, but there is no field on any application that I know of that says "Other Diversity: Please check one: __Libertarian __Acrobat __Vegetarian __Salsa Dancer" Cleary more attention is paid to race than any other factor in the diversity genre. Funny, since race is the one thing applicants cannot control.

Moosepilot:I think that Arabs and Iraqis have done a lot to earn the current distrust they suffer under. Gang members have done a lot to ruin the reputation of minorities, just like the Klan has done for whites. It's no surprise that gangs are associated with minorities. Don't blame people who see an obvious association, blame the gang members and work towards a solution to street crime.


In case you have forgetten, you made this comment after Lady J and I questioned another poster about his assumption that all minorities are gang members.

In any case, I don't know how you treat ppl, but I do know that you have suggested that arabs (because some arabs are involved in terrorism) deserve to be treated the way they are and that its appropriate to assume that all minorities are gang members just because many of them are.

Like I told you before, I don't treat all ppl from a racial group a certain way because of the acts of some of their members. That goes for whites, abrabs, native americans...... Anyone that does, is unfortunate

Funny how no one on this thread resorted to calling you names. You would think that a 31 year old man would be above that by now...guess not.

You never really told me if you were opposed to gender-based AA and its role in providing access to educational and financial resources to women. You did state that gender-based AA is not used in medical school, but after you were promptly corrected, you never offered any further comments.

The reason I don't think assessments made solely on numbers is sufficient is because these numbers have not been directly correlated to the quality of a physcian. BY quality i mean factors such as: patient satisfaction, ability to develop trusting relationships with patients, competency in reading diagnostic tests and diagnosing illnesses.....etc

Some people feel that whites are immediately put ahead of minorities in many ways because historically they have not been denied access to resources and did not suffer under racism for centeries. Is your assumption more valid than this one?

I said they (as a race) did a lot to earn the distrust they're under. Is it any different than the whites having earned the turnaround they're experiencing now? You are advocating that, aren't you? By their ancestors actions they've earned the chance for their kids to have to acheive more in order to get into med school? Or is that not what you're saying.

I feel so guilty about calling you a name. After all, you telling me shame on me is somehow different than calling me shameful :laugh: I would have thought you would have learned differently... no, I wouldn't, because I've already seen your behavior in the other thread.

Promptly corrected? I didn't see a correction. Was there ever gender based AA like the current mode of racially based AA? Or were women just allowed in when they had been kept out?

Do you actually think that the fairly light color of my skin is as valuable as the difference between poverty level income and middle class income? If you think so, say so. Maybe I miss stuff like that, looking white (actually mostly a pinkish tan, but whatever), but I don't think I could have gotten treated much worse as a kid beyond being actually lynched, so I don't think so. My class president was probably 100% Native American. He didn't seem to have any problems.

Some people feel that whites are immediately put ahead of minorities in many ways because historically they have not been denied access to resources and did not suffer under racism for centeries. Is your assumption more valid than this one?

:thumbup: :thumbup:

I am racially NA, I am not culturally NA. I have no NA background. I don't look NA. I don't know where a reservation is, let alone what it's like there (except through talking with people who do know).
NAs are recruited to improve the care of NAs specifically through cultural understanding. More often than not racially NA = culturally NA. Your situation is the exception, not the rule. This shows that URM recruitment is not perfect (in fact URM recruitment alone has not been enough, URMs in medicine have been going down). Along with other measures that are being instituted, it will work towards its intended goal.

But I might venture to say the fact that you are not culturally NA, as you say, has an affect on your opinion towards URM recruitment.

So what did they get for their AA?
Please clarify this statement. :o

Unless you were raised in another country, I'm not quite sure how your culture is any different than the white guy down the street.
So b/c you are not sure how cultures are different means they are not different? This exact lack of cross cultural understanding is why the recruitment of URMs is being emphasized.

FYI - many people living in the states were raised in another country, or raised by parents raised in another country.

You are so right here that it isn't even funny. The reason race is important at all is because we make it important. Identity politics are destroying the very fabric of this country. Unfortunately, you are falling into the very pattern of behaviour that propagates it. Every policy that favors one group over another, gives special consideration to one group over another, gives preferences to arbitrary genetic mutations eats away at the notion of "America" that we all pay lipservice to. Unless you were raised in another country, I'm not quite sure how your culture is any different than the white guy down the street. And if you walked into a meeting with me, I can guarantee you I wouldn't give a whit about your skin color. Most likely the first thing I would notice is whether or not you were good looking. Sorry, it's in my male chromosomes.

Why does race matter? Because the same people who say that it shouldn't matter are the usually the first ones to defend their race.


Also, just a small correction. Michael Jackson has gone from one of the darkest brothers I have known to whiter than a February morning. There is no guarantee that you will still be black in 10 years :)

The MJ comment was cute.

Anyway, though I agree race matters because people make it matter, I don't agree we should get rid of programs like AA because having AA adds to discrimination or perpetuates awareness of race. The rest of the country is not going to ignore race because we got rid of AA. Racial discrimination is not going to end, and Blacks and Hispanics certainly are not going to stop being subject to racially-based health disparities because adcoms decided to erase the universal color line. If you and I were in a gun fight and suddenly in the middle, I decided I didn't agree with violence and I threw away my gun knowing you still intended on shooting me, I'd be in a world of trouble. There is a problem that needs to be addressed BECAUSE of racial discrimination. Why do we have to start ignoring race now that the effort is to correct the maladies left by racism?

Yes, but there is no field on any application that I know of that says "Other Diversity: Please check one: __Libertarian __Acrobat __Vegetarian __Salsa Dancer" Cleary more attention is paid to race than any other factor in the diversity genre. Funny, since race is the one thing applicants cannot control.
Right because the applications would be freakin long and you'd spend hours trying to wade through the hundreds of "diversity" boxes. This is impractical. It is more practical to just mention how you are unique in personal statements, essays, experience sections, and interviews. They don't leave space for these things for no reason.

NAs are recruited to improve the care of NAs specifically through cultural understanding. More often than not racially NA = culturally NA. Your situation is the exception, not the rule. This shows that URM recruitment is not perfect (in fact URM recruitment alone has not been enough, URMs in medicine have been going down). Along with other measures that are being instituted, it will work towards its intended goal.

But I might venture to say the fact that you are not culturally NA, as you say, has an affect on your opinion towards URM recruitment.


Please clarify this statement. :o

I think the fact that I'm not culturally NA does affect my opinion, but I'm glad. I think it detracts from a cultural group's success when they get together and decide that they deserve preference due to their membership. I'm glad I have not been indoctrinated into that, except to some extent due to financial hardships. I do feel like I overcame something in overcoming my economic background, but I regret that I feel like I deserve special consideration for it, because I think "special consideration" generally handicaps more than it helps.

What did they get if they admitted me when they would not have if I had not checked the NA box? Most of my NA knowledge comes more from being an Oklahoman, taking college courses in the subject, and not being prejudiced against the Native American.

I think my situation is going to become more common as time goes on. My mom grew up in a much, much rougher world than I did. She was severely abused, mistreated, and didn't graduate HS. She had my oldest sister when she was 16 after getting married at 14 or 15. Her brothers would be arrested for vagrancy if they left the house without money in their pockets. My main experience was the poverty that comes down through the years. The NA background was a rumor, but how is that a surprise when I've only met 1 of my 4 grandparents? Some of you obviously think growing up "white" is somehow an enormously empowering experience, but I'm not culturally NA because my family was in pieces, not because we could "pass" as white!

All I know is what I've been alive for and snippets I've heard from my mother. I know I've never oppressed anyone and I don't feel like I owe anything to anyone. You all seem to have a different experience and it's so far from what I understand of equity as to be a different philosophical system, where races make deposits and withdrawals from a karmic treasury...

Americans are Americans. In my opinion, if you want to be American, you need to prioritize that over whatever you were prior to you or your ancestors coming here.

I think this comment is a bit crude. As a very proud Nigerian I don't think its necessary for individuals with ethnic backgrounds to deny this part of themselves because we live in America. Its funny because your comment is not very "American" if you ask me. One of the beautiful things about this country is that there is a wealth of cultures here. I live in NYC and I love that I can walk down the street and hear 5 different languages before I even hit the end of the block. I consider myself an American AND a Nigerian. I dont feel compelled in any way to prioritize one over the other.

This country will only become more diverse culturally. There must be enough culturally aware doctors to be able to treat them. I work at Columbia NYPH (which is in Washington Heights, a largely Spanish neighborhood) and every time I go to consent patients I wish I spoke Spanish as many of them are Spanish speaking. I am determined to become fluent in Spanish and maybe other languages because it will make me more capable of dealing with this increasingly diverse patient population. The thing is not all current physicans are dedicated to making personal changes in order to care for ethinic populations better, so there is still a need for physicans from diverse backgrounds and who are willing to take the courses needed to make them more cultually sensitive.

The MJ comment was cute.

Anyway, though I agree race matters because people make it matter, I don't agree we should get rid of programs like AA because having AA adds to discrimination or perpetuates awareness of race. The rest of the country is not going to ignore race because we got rid of AA. Racial discrimination is not going to end, and Blacks and Hispanics certainly are not going to stop being subject to racially-based health disparities because adcoms decided to erase the universal color line. If you and I were in a gun fight and suddenly in the middle, I decided I didn't agree with violence and I threw away my gun knowing you still intended on shooting me, I'd be in a world of trouble. There is a problem that needs to be addressed BECAUSE of racial discrimination. Why do we have to start ignoring race now that the effort is to correct the maladies left by racism?

I think a big part of the difference is that you're counting timelines based on the nation or on races, while I'm counting it based on generations.

I have only been alive for 31 years. My family had jack squat, so it's not like we had some corporation that owed a lot of it's profitability to slave labor of 120 years ago. How do *I* or the poor white kid down the road, owe African Americans anything? Especially African Americans who are in a higher socioeconomic class? Why does a rich African American get a break on qualifications when compared to a poor white who had to work his way through school? Is that scenario conceivable? How do you justly account for stuff like that? Is his race more important than what he's actually gone through, experienced, and overcome?

Why do we have to start ignoring race now that the effort is to correct the maladies left by racism?


At some point we are going to have to start ignoring race to evolve as a civilization. Yes, we do need to end discrimination, but I disagree that emphasizing racial identities is the way to do it.

I think we both agree that the system we have now is nowhere close to perfect. However, I believe that one day we are going to move beyond race as a necessary factor for determining merit. My questions for you are: how long do you think this system we have now will be adequate, and what is the next step?

I think this comment is a bit crude. As a very proud Nigerian I don't think its necessary for individuals with ethnic backgrounds to deny this part of themselves because we live in America. Its funny because your comment is not very "American" if you ask me. One of the beautiful things about this country is that there is a wealth of cultures here. I live in NYC and I love that I can walk down the street and hear 5 different languages before I even hit the end of the block. I consider myself an American AND a Nigerian. I dont feel compelled in any way to prioritize one over the other.

This country will only become more diverse culturally. There must be enough culturally aware doctors to be able to treat them. I work at Columbia NYPH (which is in Washington Heights, a largely Spanish neighborhood) and every time I go to consent patients I wish I spoke Spanish as many of them are Spanish speaking. I am determined to become fluent in Spanish and maybe other languages because it will make me more capable of dealing with this increasingly diverse patient population. The thing is not all current physicans are dedicated to making personal changes in order to care for ethinic populations better, so there is still a need for physicans from diverse backgrounds and who are willing to take the courses needed to make them more cultually sensitive.

And I think yours should be basis to lose your citizenship, if it means what I interpret it to mean. If Nigeria were to go to war against the US, which side would you be on? Do you know?

I'm not talking culture, I'm talking loyalty. All cultures are part of America, it's why we're great. When it comes down to it, are you Nigerian or American? I'm sure you'll hedge, but the truth is in this world, it sometimes comes down to choosing.

I think the fact that I'm not culturally NA does affect my opinion, but I'm glad. I think it detracts from a cultural group's success when they get together and decide that they deserve preference due to their membership.

Wow, so no empathy towards NAs? I mean of all people, they may have it (present tense) the worst.

I am not trying to belittle your experience. Unfortunately poverty in and of itself is not a problem that medical schools and the healthcare system are trying to address. So you should realize that is the case, if, as you say, you do get in b/c of checking URM.

And I think yours should be basis to lose your citizenship, if it means what I interpret it to mean. If Nigeria were to go to war against the US, which side would you be on? Do you know?

I'm not talking culture, I'm talking loyalty. All cultures are part of America, it's why we're great. When it comes down to it, are you Nigerian or American? I'm sure you'll hedge, but the truth is in this world, it sometimes comes down to choosing.

This is ridiculous.

I woke up in this world in April 1974. I actually only can remember consciousness to about 1977 or 78. As I see it, I came in with no debts and no accounts owed to me. I started accruing debts to my parents as they took care of me, more, in fact, than I can ever pay back, so I have to work off my debt to my future children. I owe my country, because I was born into a place with electricity, clean water, sewage, clean streets, immunizations, etc. I'm paying that back now.

My nation has been around since 1770s. It might be considered to have debts, but if it's going to pay them, it has to pay them from it's own accounts. Equal protection under the law means that it can't unfairly shift those debts from it to a portion of its people.

I don't believe in my race. I reject the idea. After all, which debts will I owe to that mythical group? My mom's maiden name is German, so I might have German debts, which are big beyond imagining, but I might also have Jewish ancestry, so maybe I'm owed. I have Native American ancestry, so maybe I am owed a part of this whole country, taken from my people, but I'm also white, I guess I owe it, too.

I'm a modern American. I'm a mix and I shouldn't get to pick and choose what I'm owed and what I owe. I pay my taxes and I serve my country. My country needs to pay its debts out of that, not in additional hidden taxes to certain of its citizens who've only had 20-30 years to accrue their own debts.

This is ridiculous.

Because you don't understand it? Or because you refuse to acknowledge it?

MoosepilotAnd I think yours should be basis to lose your citizenship, if it means what I interpret it to mean. If Nigeria were to go to war against the US, which side would you be on? Do you know?

wow. lose my citizenship? because i refuse to choose between calling myself Nigerian or American? wow.

Anyway, little late MD: I think it would be hard to set a date when URM recruiting will no longer be needed esp since we cannot set a date on when racism will end or when minorities will have the same access to healthcare as non-minorities do. gender-based AA in education has been phasing out because women now have nearly the same access to educational resources and position as men do (although some feminists may disagree). I suspect that when minorities are on the same playing field as non-minorities, these types of policies will become obsolete

I think this comment is a bit crude. As a very proud Nigerian I don't think its necessary for individuals with ethnic backgrounds to deny this part of themselves because we live in America.

Nigerian as in you were born in Nigeria, or as in your ancestory is from there? If you were born in America, then aren't you an American? I'm not really so sure why so many people are resistant to that label.

Eventually as the generations continue, most people lose the "proud" cultural connections their ancestors brought here. Two hundred years ago there were thousands upon thousands of Germans who didn't speak English or understand "American" culture. Less than a hundred years ago it was folks from the Pacific regions. Now it is South Americans. Eventually everyone assimalates. Immigrants come to this nation, and add their native cultures to our own American culture. Sure they remember where they came from, but they are even more proud of where they are. What tends to cause trouble is when people refuse to meld into the culture of their emigrant nation. Racial tensions get worse instead of better, and the populus is polarized. You have to look no further than France last month for evidence of this.

And I think yours should be basis to lose your citizenship, if it means what I interpret it to mean. If Nigeria were to go to war against the US, which side would you be on? Do you know?

I'm not talking culture, I'm talking loyalty. All cultures are part of America, it's why we're great. When it comes down to it, are you Nigerian or American? I'm sure you'll hedge, but the truth is in this world, it sometimes comes down to choosing.
This is ridiculous
Because you don't understand it? Or because you refuse to acknowledge it?

Because you have stopped using logic.

I woke up in this world in April 1974. I actually only can remember consciousness to about 1977 or 78. As I see it, I came in with no debts and no accounts owed to me. I started accruing debts to my parents as they took care of me, more, in fact, than I can ever pay back, so I have to work off my debt to my future children. I owe my country, because I was born into a place with electricity, clean water, sewage, clean streets, immunizations, etc. I'm paying that back now.

My nation has been around since 1770s. It might be considered to have debts, but if it's going to pay them, it has to pay them from it's own accounts. Equal protection under the law means that it can't unfairly shift those debts from it to a portion of its people.

I don't believe in my race. I reject the idea. After all, which debts will I owe to that mythical group? My mom's maiden name is German, so I might have German debts, which are big beyond imagining, but I might also have Jewish ancestry, so maybe I'm owed. I have Native American ancestry, so maybe I am owed a part of this whole country, taken from my people, but I'm also white, I guess I owe it, too.

I'm a modern American. I'm a mix and I shouldn't get to pick and choose what I'm owed and what I owe. I pay my taxes and I serve my country. My country needs to pay its debts out of that, not in additional hidden taxes to certain of its citizens who've only had 20-30 years to accrue their own debts.
i'm not sure what youre getting at with this post. just say what you want to say and skip the storytelling...please....

Anyway, little late MD: I think it would be hard to set a date when URM recruiting will no longer be needed esp since we cannot set a date on when racism will end or when minorities will have the same access to healthcare as non-minorities do. gender-based AA in education has been phasing out because women now have nearly the same access to educational resources and position as men do (although some feminists may disagree). I suspect that when minorities are on the same playing field as non-minorities, these types of policies will become obsolete

I just hope that by that point, the identity politics haven't gotten so bad that different races all believe that America owes them something, or that institutions will always be against race X, no matter what.

wow. lose my citizenship? because i refuse to choose between calling myself Nigerian or American? wow.

Not at all. It's not the calling that's the thing, except that calling is often related to being. If Nigeria went to war against the US, would you bomb something here in service to Nigeria? If you were in Nigeria would you bomb something for the US? Would you just remain neutral and enjoy the US because it's nicer here (which is probably the common self-serving answer).

i'm not sure what youre getting at with this post. just say what you want to say and skip the storytelling...please....

Sorry, I didn't take into account the fact that your reading comprehension is probably not up to the task. Try again, I made my point.

I think a big part of the difference is that you're counting timelines based on the nation or on races, while I'm counting it based on generations.

I have only been alive for 31 years. My family had jack squat, so it's not like we had some corporation that owed a lot of it's profitability to slave labor of 120 years ago. How do *I* or the poor white kid down the road, owe African Americans anything? Especially African Americans who are in a higher socioeconomic class? Why does a rich African American get a break on qualifications when compared to a poor white who had to work his way through school? Is that scenario conceivable? How do you justly account for stuff like that? Is his race more important than what he's actually gone through, experienced, and overcome?
When I say we need to remedy the ailments left behind by racism, I mean we need to adequatly take care of those populations who face health disparities because of past racism. I don't think anyone *owes* anyone anything. It is not about the individual applicant--it's about the American population (you like patriatism, right? :p ) You could say all disparities are results of socio-economic factors, but this is not necessarily true. Even if it was, many minorities continue to live in traditionally minority neighborhoods. Before the civil righs movement, these neighborhoods were of low socio-economic status because of racism (I'll pretend all that changed as soon as civil rights legislation was passed for the sake of arguement). When the injustice was lifted and everyone was considered equal ( :rolleyes: ) in 1965-70 or so, certain ethnic groups were left with poorer neighborhoods while others were not. They started from a lower socioeconomic level. Furthermore, we have seen examples of how cultural differences can lead to health disparities. The example with the diabetics in Chicago, the Native American child, there are language barriers, the list goes on. It would be farse to say that all these disparities result because of money issues. Contrary to popular belief, racism and racial disparities do still exist (William Benit did not suggest aborting all the white babies would lower the crime rate).

Two questions for you:
In your mind, what makes a qualified physician (and a qualified physician population).

and

What is the best scenario?

AA is based on socio-economic status. Poor Whites, Indians, Asians, Blacks, Hispanics, Greens, Reds, Purples, Martians, and Androids are all give "breaks" on admissions because adcoms understand they didn't have the same resources as richer people. As a result of ignoring race, certain racially based disparities still exist AND people are getting into medical school with lower numbers (fewer qualifications?), but now poorer people have a better chance to compete with the rich.

No AA exists and people with the highest numbers are admitted to medical school. Ideally, these are the people who worked the hardest to get what they want--you can be sure they really earned it. However, these individuals are only 2.5% likely to go into primary care once they become physicians. They are brilliant! All very smart, know their diagnostic tests, made A++s in biochem and anatomy, rocked the boards, but couldn't tell an Asian from a Puerto Rican. Since neither race nor socioeconomic status are considered, these physicians are mostly White, Asian, and Asian Indian. They had the best resources, so you know they were very wealthy and they have no desire to work in those dilapidated inner-cities. They also have no experience with people of other races and are not familiar with the problems facing poorer Americans. As a result, they over saturate very specialized residencies and only work in wealthy suburban communities. Eventually, economic incentives have to be created to lure these go-getters into underserved communities and that drives up the cost of health care making it less accessible.

AA exists in the current model and people of all backgrounds (ethnic, socioeconomic, and other) are recruited by adcoms. Though some qualified applicants (high numbers) are not accepted to their top choice schools, priority is placed on creating a population that knows how to interact with individuals from all walks of life and who can adapt to the needs of society. Some less qualified applicants (lower numbers) are accepted to achieve these goals, but thresholds are set in order to ensure accepted students are capable. Retention rate for all students is around 90%, so very few seats go to waste.

Nigerian as in you were born in Nigeria, or as in your ancestory is from there? If you were born in America, then aren't you an American? I'm not really so sure why so many people are resistant to that label.

Eventually as the generations continue, most people lose the "proud" cultural connections their ancestors brought here. Two hundred years ago there were thousands upon thousands of Germans who didn't speak English or understand "American" culture. Less than a hundred years ago it was folks from the Pacific regions. Now it is South Americans. Eventually everyone assimalates. Immigrants come to this nation, and add their native cultures to our own American culture. Sure they remember where they came from, but they are even more proud of where they are. What tends to cause trouble is when people refuse to meld into the culture of their emigrant nation. Racial tensions get worse instead of better, and the populus is polarized. You have to look no further than France last month for evidence of this.
not to be rude at all, but i cant help but laugh at your post. im sorry. here's my reply:

1. i was born here. my parents came here in the 80's. they have since been granted citizenship.

2. i'm not resistent to the American label AT ALL. in fact i'll say it now: I AM AMERICAN. however I AM ALSO NIGERIAN. MY culture is not entirely like that of black-americans or white-americans. my culture is a blend. in order for me to acknowledge who i am, i must acknowledge both cultural influences

3. Yes foreigners do learn to assimilate, but your assumption that they are "even more proud of where they are" is faulty. May I ask what your cultural background is? I don't think racial tension are worsing because ppl refuse to "meld" their true culture into this new culture. I think its because small minded ppl refuse to acknowledge and appreciate these other cultures.

Thanks for proving my prior point: many ppl are in dire need of cultural sensitivity training.


(I'm not nec. saying you are!!)

At some point we are going to have to start ignoring race to evolve as a civilization. Yes, we do need to end discrimination, but I disagree that emphasizing racial identities is the way to do it.

I think we both agree that the system we have now is nowhere close to perfect. However, I believe that one day we are going to move beyond race as a necessary factor for determining merit. My questions for you are: how long do you think this system we have now will be adequate, and what is the next step?
I agree, this system is far from perfect but it's a step. We need to correct the education system so that every person, regardless of race or socioeconomic status, understands his capabilities (i.e. blacks aren't only good at b-ball. You'd be surprised at how many black youth feel this is their only ticket to success) and has access to the best available education. Once we implement programs to make sure everyone is on equal ground, the number of minority applicants will increase and AA will not be needed. I don't know how long this will take, but it certainly doesn't seem that many people are taking steps to correct the education system. I disagree with AA in the absence of other disparity-leveling mechanisms. AA is not enough.

And I think yours should be basis to lose your citizenship, if it means what I interpret it to mean. If Nigeria were to go to war against the US, which side would you be on? Do you know?

I'm not talking culture, I'm talking loyalty. All cultures are part of America, it's why we're great. When it comes down to it, are you Nigerian or American? I'm sure you'll hedge, but the truth is in this world, it sometimes comes down to choosing.
Wow, this is a little rough. She is Nigerian American. These are the same kinds of arguments that landed the Japanese in internment camps.

When I say we need to remedy the ailments left behind by racism, I mean we need to adequatly take care of those populations who face health disparities because of past racism. I don't think anyone *owes* anyone anything. It is not about the individual applicant--it's about the American population (you like patriatism, right? :p ) You could say all disparities are results of socio-economic factors, but this is not necessarily true. Even if it was, many minorities continue to live in traditionally minority neighborhoods. Before the civil righs movement, these neighborhoods were of low socio-economic status because of racism (I'll pretend all that changed as soon as civil rights legislation was passed for the sake of arguement). When the injustice was lifted and everyone was considered equal ( :rolleyes: ) in 1965-70 or so, certain ethnic groups were left with poorer neighborhoods while others were not. They started from a lower socioeconomic level. Furthermore, we have seen examples of how cultural differences can lead to health disparities. The example with the diabetics in Chicago, the Native American child, there are language barriers, the list goes on. It would be farse to say that all these disparities result because of money issues. Contrary to popular belief, racism and racial disparities do still exist (William Benit did not suggest aborting all the white babies would lower the crime rate).

Two questions for you:
In your mind, what makes a qualified physician (and a qualified physician population).

and

What is the best scenario?

AA is based on socio-economic status. Poor Whites, Indians, Asians, Blacks, Hispanics, Greens, Reds, Purples, Martians, and Androids are all give "breaks" on admissions because adcoms understand they didn't have the same resources as richer people. As a result of ignoring race, certain racially based disparities still exist AND people are getting into medical school with lower numbers (fewer qualifications?), but now poorer people have a better chance to compete with the rich.

No AA exists and people with the highest numbers are admitted to medical school. Ideally, these are the people who worked the hardest to get what they want--you can be sure they really earned it. However, these individuals are only 2.5% likely to go into primary care once they become physicians. They are brilliant! All very smart, know their diagnostic tests, made A++s in biochem and anatomy, rocked the boards, but couldn't tell an Asian from a Puerto Rican. Since neither race nor socioeconomic status are considered, these physicians are mostly White, Asian, and Asian Indian. They had the best resources, so you know they were very wealthy and they have no desire to work in those dilapidated inner-cities. They also have no experience with people of other races and are not familiar with the problems facing poorer Americans. As a result, they over saturate very specialized residencies and only work in wealthy suburban communities. Eventually, economic incentives have to be created to lure these go-getters into underserved communities and that drives up the cost of health care making it less accessible.

AA exists in the current model and people of all backgrounds (ethnic, socioeconomic, and other) are recruited by adcoms. Though some qualified applicants (high numbers) are not accepted to their top choice schools, priority is placed on creating a population that knows how to interact with individuals from all walks of life and who can adapt to the needs of society. Some less qualified applicants (lower numbers) are accepted to achieve these goals, but thresholds are set in order to ensure accepted students are capable. Retention rate for all students is around 90%, so very few seats go to waste.

I do think this the best scenario. If it's about advantages and disadvantages, make it that, not some shorthand subsitute for that. All those specialists will suffer economic issues inherent in the flooding of a specialty market. Schools already protect against this by limiting the number of specialty residencies and I don't see that changing. Those two things will insure the same mix we've got now. Then the government needs to fund whatever doctors for underserved areas if that is desired. That way the cost is born equally by all citizens (or at least as equally as our tax laws allow, which is a while 'nother argument).

What about a recent immigrant from Nigeria? What kind of discrimination did her family suffer while in Nigeria during the days prior to civil rights in the US? What history do immigrants have with slavery and how is it relevant to US med school admissions? Why is someone who immigrated from Nigeria in 1980 preferred over someone who immigrated from Vietnam in 1980?

Bernito actually posted a really good link in another discussion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grutter_v._Bollinger

The article makes the point that it's "diversity" vs. "equal protection". One is constitutionally guaranteed, the other is just a recent thought as to something we need as a society.

Wow, this is a little rough. She is Nigerian American. These are the same kinds of arguments that landed the Japanese in internment camps.

The arguments then assumed all the Japanese Americans were loyal to the Japanese. I say that there are times when you have to pick.

I just hope that by that point, the identity politics haven't gotten so bad that different races all believe that America owes them something, or that institutions will always be against race X, no matter what.
Well I think that America does owe blacks something and it certainly owes NA something. I don't think al races in America think that they are owed anything other than what they are entitled to as a citizen or resident.

I dont think there will be any dramatic changes to institutionalized racism anytime soon, but I am hopefuly

I just hope that by that point, the identity politics haven't gotten so bad that different races all believe that America owes them something, or that institutions will always be against race X, no matter what.
Well I think that America does owe blacks something and it certainly owes NA something. I don't think all races in America think that they are owed anything other than what they are entitled to as a citizen or resident. i hope it doesnt get to that point too.

I dont think there will be any dramatic changes to institutionalized racism anytime soon, but I am hopefuly

I just hope that by that point, the identity politics haven't gotten so bad that different races all believe that America owes them something, or that institutions will always be against race X, no matter what.
This post reminds me of a Chris Rock quote. He said, "If you're black in this country, America is like the Uncle who paid your way through college but molested you." :laugh: So true. I owe so much of my success to this country because I'm American but I also owe so much of the problems I face to this country because I'm African American. It's a weird reality.

I dont think there will be any dramatic changes to institutionalized racism anytime soon, but I am hopefuly

We agree on something!

What about a recent immigrant from Nigeria? What kind of discrimination did her family suffer while in Nigeria during the days prior to civil rights in the US? What history do immigrants have with slavery and how is it relevant to US med school admissions? Why is someone who immigrated from Nigeria in 1980 preferred over someone who immigrated from Vietnam in 1980?

starting to feel like a broken record......do you really think that ppl understoon my parents to be nigerian? nope. they were treated just as badly as other blacks. and when i started to attend school, did my nigerian heritage ever prevent me from being called a ni**er or being discriinated against? nope. i am black and i am treated prejudiciously as other blacks and minorities are.

you're a different situation. you dont look NA and were probably not treated as a NA and you didnt have to suffer thru the same things that other NAs did.

I do think this the best scenario. If it's about advantages and disadvantages, make it that, not some shorthand subsitute for that. All those specialists will suffer economic issues inherent in the flooding of a specialty market. Schools already protect against this by limiting the number of specialty residencies and I don't see that changing. Those two things will insure the same mix we've got now. Then the government needs to fund whatever doctors for underserved areas if that is desired. That way the cost is born equally by all citizens (or at least as equally as our tax laws allow, which is a while 'nother argument).

What about a recent immigrant from Nigeria? What kind of discrimination did her family suffer while in Nigeria during the days prior to civil rights in the US? What history do immigrants have with slavery and how is it relevant to US med school admissions? Why is someone who immigrated from Nigeria in 1980 preferred over someone who immigrated from Vietnam in 1980?

Bernito actually posted a really good link in another discussion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grutter_v._Bollinger

The article makes the point that it's "diversity" vs. "equal protection". One is constitutionally guaranteed, the other is just a recent thought as to something we need as a society.

Those were three different scenarios, I would just like you to pick the best one (I guess I should have made them bulleted). If you think none of them are ideal, please pick the one that is closest to ideal and amend it accordingly. Also, what is your definition of "quality physician"?

starting to feel like a broken record......do you really think that ppl understoon my parents to be nigerian? nope. they were treated just as badly as other blacks. and when i started to attend school, did my nigerian heritage ever prevent me from being called a ni**er or being discriinated against? nope. i am black and i am treated prejudiciously as other blacks and minorities are.

you're a different situation. you dont look NA and were probably not treated as a NA and you didnt have to suffer thru the same things that other NAs did.

It is a broken record. I'm telling you, I suffered much more than other NAs that I knew. The one who was president of my high school class? Not poor, not treated badly. It was all about money. If you've got money, everything follows.

not to be rude at all, but i cant help but laugh at your post. im sorry. here's my reply:

Feel free to laugh. I've laughed at a number of your posts throughout my brief tenure here. As long as you're trying to at least understand where I'm coming from, it's no biggie.

2. i'm not resistent to the American label AT ALL. in fact i'll say it now: I AM AMERICAN. however I AM ALSO NIGERIAN. MY culture is not entirely like that of black-americans or white-americans. my culture is a blend. in order for me to acknowledge who i am, i must acknowledge both cultural influences

In your prior post, you referred to yourself as Nigerian. When I hear that, I think "person born in Nigeria." If you insist on labeling yourself, why not represent all facets of your ethnic heritage? Perhaps Nigerian-American with a smattering of Etheopian/English/French/Indian/etc. I'm not a big fan of attaching labels based on ethnic backgrounds. How far back do you go? What if you feel a certain kinship to some culture that you are not actually a part of? I just think it's much easier to go with the country you're a citizen of. But that's just my opinion.

Yes foreigners do learn to assimilate, but your assumption that they are "even more proud of where they are" is faulty. May I ask what your cultural background is? I don't think racial tension are worsing because ppl refuse to "meld" their true culture into this new culture. I think its because small minded ppl refuse to acknowledge and appreciate these other cultures.

I don't think my ethnic background has any relevence to this discussion what-so-ever. I refuse to be pigeon-holed based on that alone. You don't think that the refusal to meld into a culture you are a part of is a source of friction? Look no further than France, most of central Africa, Israel or the hinterlands of India. Of course small minded people contribute to these tensions, but you cannot deny the effect that non-assimilation has on the unity of a nation. While race relations in this country aren't great, they are as good as they are because there is so much give and take in regards to cultural assimilation. I don't believe that is an idea you can just dismiss.

Thanks for proving my prior point: many ppl are in dire need of cultural sensitivity training.

(I'm not nec. saying you are!!)

Seeing as how this was attached to a reply to me, I'm going to assume this directed at me. Really, I can't see the basis for this. Don't assume that because someone has a difference of opinion with you that they are in need of cultural sensitivity training. That's just silly.

Those were three different scenarios, I would just like you to pick the best one (I guess I should have made them bulleted). If you think none of them are ideal, please pick the one that is closest to ideal and amend it accordingly. Also, what is your definition of "quality physician"?

I meant to highlight it. I fixed my omission. Rereading, I think the absolute best would be a combination of 1 and 2. I think schools should concentrate on qualifications, but high achievement under more difficult circumstances is really *higher* achievement, so I think things like economic disadvantage during formative years that has been overcome to succeed anyway is admirable and should help.

Quality physican? Intelligent, good memory, sensitive to a patient's needs, low enough ego that he listens to the patient in order to get as much information as possible, but high enough ego to survive as a doctor (in other words a combination of confidence and humility), good endurance to keep him sharp during long days, ability to handle high stress, kind, and hard working.

Little late: i dont intentd to carry on with this topic for too much longer b/c its truly off topic, but i will reply to your concerns.

1. i am trying to undestand where you're coming from and i appreciate that you have been very respectful with respect to questions about my culture.
2. Culture truly goes beyond the country you are currently living in. My culture is a blend of both. I have certain traditions that blacks dont. i'm sorry that you cant understand why i call myself nigerian-american, but that's just how it is. if you ask other ppl living in america and practicing other cultures, they will either tell you that they identify themselves with their ethnic culture only or that they consider themselves a blend of both. It may be easier for you to call me american, but culture cannot be truly simplified in that way.
3. again: i think that ppl's refusal to appreciate foreign cultures and peoples is the problem here. if the idea is to have a uni-cultural country, then dont allow foreigners in. i'm not really familiar with eh cultural climate in france, so i cant comment too much on that, but i still think the same thing applies. in the us, ppl are allowed to practice their own cultures. the expectation by the government for them to conform is not there. ppl are not allowed citizenship as long as they agree to drop their true culture.

***i wasnt trying to offend you by asking your cultural background. i was trying to understand where you're coming from. this is usually a non issue with other ethnic ppl. thats why i wanted to know. you of course dont have to share***



Thanks for proving my prior point: many ppl are in dire need of cultural sensitivity training. (I'm not nec. saying you are!!)

I wasnt talking about you specifically and you know that. :meanie:

It is a broken record. I'm telling you, I suffered much more than other NAs that I knew. The one who was president of my high school class? Not poor, not treated badly. It was all about money. If you've got money, everything follows.
im sorry you suffered and im sorry you were poor. but your circumstances made you strong. even tho AA does not cover for poverty, adcoms love individuals who have gone thru any kind of adversity b/c these individuals offer diversity as well. it may have been that you circumstances helped your chances and not your URM status.

im sorry you suffered and im sorry you were poor. but your circumstances made you strong. even tho AA does not cover for poverty, adcoms love individuals who have gone thru any kind of adversity b/c these individuals offer diversity as well. it may have been that you circumstances helped your chances and not your URM status.

It might be. I talked to the director of admissions at the first school I was accepted to, which is also one of my top choices (I'm not quite done, yet, so I haven't ranked all my schools... I hate hedging what I say about schools, but I'm pretty careful what I say until they've made their absolute final decisions and I've made mine). She said that I had a good shot there when I had a 32 MCAT and didn't mention the whole disadvantaged/URM thing. I don't think it mattered, although looking at that UC chart, I'm definitely pretty low on the Science GPA (I was so lazy in school).

Where are you in the application process, MissMary? Are you applying to school?

I meant to highlight it. I fixed my omission. Rereading, I think the absolute best would be a combination of 1 and 2. I think schools should concentrate on qualifications, but high achievement under more difficult circumstances is really *higher* achievement, so I think things like economic disadvantage during formative years that has been overcome to succeed anyway is admirable and should help.

Quality physican? Intelligent, good memory, sensitive to a patient's needs, low enough ego that he listens to the patient in order to get as much information as possible, but high enough ego to survive as a doctor (in other words a combination of confidence and humility), good endurance to keep him sharp during long days, ability to handle high stress, kind, and hard working.
I think the difference between you and I is that you see things from the individuals point of view while I see things with the idea that the end product must serve the needs of the country. The story of how you began to accrue debt to your parents as soon as you were born said a lot. In your opinion (I believe) medical school admission is one’s reward for outstanding academic achievement. The ones who work to the best of their ability should be granted admissions because of their hard work. If you feel a certain group of people did not work to the best of their ability, these people do not deserve medical admissions.

Ideally, those who worked the hardest would also comprise the ideal physician population and deliver the best care. I think this is where there is a disconnect. The most precise measure of how hard someone worked are their numbers, but I don’t feel the people with the highest numbers will necessarily serve the needs of the country. This is for many reasons.

1. There are more qualified applicants than there are available seats: It has been shown (whether or not you believe it) that anyone who can make a 25 or higher on the MCAT is likely to be qualified (able to pass necessary examinations and become a working physician). Not everyone with a 25 or higher will be able to get into medical school. The major reason why qualified applicants do not get into school is because of APPLICATION PRESSURE (not AA).
2. MCAT scores have diminishing marginal returns: As I mentioned earlier, maybe there is a big difference between a 25 and a 28, but is there really a big difference between a 35 and a 38? When you get into the higher numbers, scores can differ by as little as 5% more or fewer correct answers. At a certain point, medical schools need to be able to decide when scores are high enough and they can look at other factors considering the needs of the medical community. Maybe the guy with the 38 was better able to achieve on the MCAT than the guy with the 35 (for whatever reason); he probably feels more entitled to “his spot” than the guy with the 35, but how does this help the medical community?
3. IMO, individual needs should yeild to the needs of the general population: There are glaring problems in health care that have resulted from racial discrimination. We know this is true. We have seen many reasons why the med school population needs to be diverse. Unfortunately because of educational disadvantages (no matter the cause), something has to give for us to achieve a diverse physician population. If you worked so hard on the MCAT that you got a 50 (you thought you did so well, you petitioned the AAMC to add 5 points and you won), and you feel like you deserve to go to Harvard, but you ended up having to go to Duke instead, who cares? Just for arguments sake, I’ll pretend URMs actually do take the spots of other applicants with higher numbers (and application pressure is not to blame). If recruiting URMs pushes some others out of their top choice school but works to remedy the existing disparities, is this not a small price to pay? Is making sure everyone who feels they worked hard gets into medical school worth the sacrifice of perpetuating the current health disparities? I’d say no. Some may claim that using MCAT and GPA as main qualifications for admissions is the only fair way to evaluate applicants. I’d say this is the only precise way to evaluate applicants. This way, if you didn’t get in, you know it was because you didn’t have a high enough GPA or MCAT score--but what is the price for this solace? How many lives will be diminished if we subscribe to this ideology? Ends justify the means IMO.

I wasnt talking about you specifically and you know that. :meanie:

Sorry about that. I guess I'm a little sensitive at times. After reading your post I went and cried in the corner for a couple ofminutes, and then wrote a very sad poem about it. I guess I'm just too emo for my own good. I should never have borrowed that New Found Glory CD. :laugh: :laugh:

It might be. I talked to the director of admissions at the first school I was accepted to, which is also one of my top choices (I'm not quite done, yet, so I haven't ranked all my schools... I hate hedging what I say about schools, but I'm pretty careful what I say until they've made their absolute final decisions and I've made mine). She said that I had a good shot there when I had a 32 MCAT and didn't mention the whole disadvantaged/URM thing. I don't think it mattered, although looking at that UC chart, I'm definitely pretty low on the Science GPA (I was so lazy in school).

Where are you in the application process, MissMary? Are you applying to school?


ooooooooooooooh sh*t!!!! a civil conversation between moose and mary. aint this some sh*t.

i wont be applying until next summer. im currently studying for the MCAT. (no progress today tho......

I think the difference between you and I is that you see things from the individuals point of view while I see things with the idea that the end product must serve the needs of the country. The story of how you began to accrue debt to your parents as soon as you were born said a lot. In your opinion (I believe) medical school admission is one’s reward for outstanding academic achievement. The ones who work to the best of their ability should be granted admissions because of their hard work. If you feel a certain group of people did not work to the best of their ability, these people do not deserve medical admissions.

Ideally, those who worked the hardest would also comprise the ideal physician population and deliver the best care. I think this is where there is a disconnect. The most precise measure of how hard someone worked are their numbers, but I don’t feel the people with the highest numbers will necessarily serve the needs of the country. This is for many reasons.

1. There are more qualified applicants than there are available seats: It has been shown (whether or not you believe it) that anyone who can make a 25 or higher on the MCAT is likely to be qualified (able to pass necessary examinations and become a working physician). Not everyone with a 25 or higher will be able to get into medical school. The major reason why qualified applicants do not get into school is because of APPLICATION PRESSURE (not AA).
2. MCAT scores have diminishing marginal returns: As I mentioned earlier, maybe there is a big difference between a 25 and a 28, but is there really a big difference between a 35 and a 38? When you get into the higher numbers, scores can differ by as little as 5% more or fewer correct answers. At a certain point, medical schools need to be able to decide when scores are high enough and they can look at other factors considering the needs of the medical community. Maybe the guy with the 38 was better able to achieve on the MCAT than the guy with the 35 (for whatever reason); he probably feels more entitled to “his spot” than the guy with the 35, but how does this help the medical community?
3. IMO, individual needs should yeild to the needs of the general population: There are glaring problems in health care that have resulted from racial discrimination. We know this is true. We have seen many reasons why the med school population needs to be diverse. Unfortunately because of educational disadvantages (no matter the cause), something has to give for us to achieve a diverse physician population. If you worked so hard on the MCAT that you got a 50 (you thought you did so well, you petitioned the AAMC to add 5 points and you won), and you feel like you deserve to go to Harvard, but you ended up having to go to Duke instead, who cares? Just for arguments sake, I’ll pretend URMs actually do take the spots of other applicants with higher numbers (and application pressure is not to blame). If recruiting URMs pushes some others out of their top choice school but works to remedy the existing disparities, is this not a small price to pay? Is making sure everyone who feels they worked hard gets into medical school worth the sacrifice of perpetuating the current health disparities? I’d say no. Some may claim that using MCAT and GPA as main qualifications for admissions is the only fair way to evaluate applicants. I’d say this is the only precise way to evaluate applicants. This way, if you didn’t get in, you know it was because you didn’t have a high enough GPA or MCAT score--but what is the price for this solace? How many lives will be diminished if we subscribe to this ideology? Ends justify the means IMO.

Yes, you're getting closer to what I believe. It's not "work" that I'm for, because that would ignore the fact that there are real differences in innate ability (intelligence, talent, whatever you want to call it). So someone with a higher ability might have to work less hard (but still very hard) to do well.

Another thing is that you've concentrated too much on my emphasis on the numbers. Numbers are easy, because we can show that URMs are allowed in with lower numbers. I am not actually that number oriented. I am achievement oriented and I acknowledge that, in general, adcoms have the best handle on what achievement means (although, because of the radical differences in schools you pick up on, they don't agree amongst themselves). I think achievement is comprised of MCAT, GPA, volunteer/shadow type activities, other ECs, work/life experiences, sports, arts, etc. So I could see a medical school admitting someone with a 3.5/30 over someone with a 3.6/31, if the first person started a small but successful foundation to eliminate local racial healthcare disparities, while the other person had 100 hours of volunteer time in the local ER.

As for diminishing returns, I agree, but it's tough to say what kind of intellectual differences will matter in such a huge and deep field as medicine.

I think the costs for eliminating health care disparities needs to be born by the nation as a whole.

So I want the best doctors, but I define best as most effective in whatever community they choose to work, not a specific community which right now is seen to have a healthcare shortage.

Sorry about that. I guess I'm a little sensitive at times. After reading your post I went and cried in the corner for a couple ofminutes, and then wrote a very sad poem about it. I guess I'm just too emo for my own good. I should never have borrowed that New Found Glory CD.

hahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ooooooooooooooh sh*t!!!! a civil conversation between moose and mary. aint this some sh*t.

i wont be applying until next summer. im currently studying for the MCAT. (no progress today tho......

I'm glad I didn't find SDN until after my most recent MCAT. It was really all-consuming and I wouldn't have had the discipline to stay off it as much as I should have (although I might have asked to be banned, if I'd needed to).

I wasnt talking about you specifically and you know that. :meanie:

Sorry about that. I guess I'm a little sensitive at times. I went and cried in the corner for a couple minutes, and then wrote a very sad poem about it. I guess I'm just too emo. I should never have borrowed that New Found Glory CD. :laugh: :laugh:

Yes, you're getting closer to what I believe. It's not "work" that I'm for, because that would ignore the fact that there are real differences in innate ability (intelligence, talent, whatever you want to call it). So someone with a higher ability might have to work less hard (but still very hard) to do well.

Another thing is that you've concentrated too much on my emphasis on the numbers. Numbers are easy, because we can show that URMs are allowed in with lower numbers. I am not actually that number oriented. I am achievement oriented and I acknowledge that, in general, adcoms have the best handle on what achievement means (although, because of the radical differences in schools you pick up on, they don't agree amongst themselves). I think achievement is comprised of MCAT, GPA, volunteer/shadow type activities, other ECs, work/life experiences, sports, arts, etc. So I could see a medical school admitting someone with a 3.5/30 over someone with a 3.6/31, if the first person started a small but successful foundation to eliminate local racial healthcare disparities, while the other person had 100 hours of volunteer time in the local ER.

As for diminishing returns, I agree, but it's tough to say what kind of intellectual differences will matter in such a huge and deep field as medicine.

I think the costs for eliminating health care disparities needs to be born by the nation as a whole.

So I want the best doctors, but I define best as most effective in whatever community they choose to work, not a specific community which right now is seen to have a healthcare shortage.

Though I see your point that just being a URM is not an achievement, I think being a URM is a desirable quality considering the demands of the population. If the whole nation accepts the cost of diminishing health care disparities, people in the application process should understand the need for AA and acknowledge that it is not the best fix nor will it be the final fix. I also think the best doctors are the ones most effective in whatever community they choose to work, but we need a dynamic population of doctors to ensure that every community will be chosen. Though the easiest qualifications are those you have control over (things you can choose to do), sometimes qualities that can not be controlled (such as race or ethnicity) are desirable because of the current cultural predicament of the US. In any case, I don't think anyone can ever say that the only reason why he got in to medical school is because of his specific heritage or that the only reason why he did not get in is because he was not a URM. Everyone who gets into medical school did something to deserve it.

Sorry about that. I guess I'm a little sensitive at times. I went and cried in the corner for a couple minutes, and then wrote a very sad poem about it. I guess I'm just too emo. I should never have borrowed that New Found Glory CD. :laugh: :laugh:
:laugh: :laugh: you're on a roll tonight!

I wish we had an ADCOM that could comment on how much of a role URM status plays during the admissions process. Im not sure any of us really know.
I have enjoyed reading the different views expressed by all that have contributed to this thread. Regardless of whether someone agrees with my point of view or not, respect is owed to anyone who is able to debate such a topic in a sensible manner. Thank you guys for presenting differing views on the same topic without resorting to un-academic language.


On a side note, the med school diary of a particular african american female, linked on the starting page of SDN, really shows the negative views some people have about minorities that have been brought about by AA. I think it is really sad to know that some of my classmates next year will have such thoughts about me. You can read her diary at http://www.studentdoctor.net/diary/bio.asp?aID=66 In her comments section, many have resorted to racist comments in order to question her place in medical school. People can be really disappointing sometimes. I guess I did not expect such ignorance to be so prevalent in minds great enough to attend medical school.

I would like to know the statistics of people finishing med school. Of those who enter with a lower MCAT scores and GPA's, do they finish at approximately the same rate?

[ Here's something to chew about:

1) The US Census predicts by 2050. Whites will no longer become the majority, hence a minority among minorities. Blacks and Hispanics will make up 50% of the US population. If this trend were to continue, can Blacks and Hispanics still be considered a URM? Can URM be applicable to White applicants based on technical terms?

2) Although, Blacks have been racially discriminated against. There have been other minority groups that were discriminated against: Japanese and WWII internment. Most Japanese lost EVERYTHING, but there was no AA directed for this minority group? How come Japanese Americans do not get an edge in the admission process?

3) With all things equal, a URM applicant will edge out a non-URM with the same background (e.g. middle-class) and stats. With this said, why should the color of one's skin be the factor that decides one's dreams and aspirations.

4) When I go to see a doctor (which I am going to in a week for my high eye pressures), I don't care who I see. I just want the best doc, if he is White, Black, Hispanic, or Asian, then so be it, or else I would never get to see another doc in my life because of degenerative eyesight loss.

[ Here's something to chew about:

1) The US Census predicts by 2050. Whites will no longer become the majority, hence a minority among minorities. Blacks and Hispanics will make up 50% of the US population. If this trend were to continue, can Blacks and Hispanics still be considered a URM? Can URM be applicable to White applicants based on technical terms?

2) Although, Blacks have been racially discriminated against. There have been other minority groups that were discriminated against: Japanese and WWII internment. Most Japanese lost EVERYTHING, but there was no AA directed for this minority group? How come Japanese Americans do not get an edge in the admission process?

3) With all things equal, a URM applicant will edge out a non-URM with the same background (e.g. middle-class) and stats. With this said, why should the color of one's skin be the factor that decides one's dreams and aspirations.

4) When I go to see a doctor (which I am going to in a week for my high eye pressures), I don't care who I see. I just want the best doc, if he is White, Black, Hispanic, or Asian, then so be it, or else I would never get to see another doc in my life because of degenerative eyesight loss.

Even if blacks and hispanics out number whites in the general population, will it be the same for the profession of medicine? If not then they will still be underrepresented minorities. In the field of medicine that is, not necessarily in the public. Even if you are greater in numbers still doesn't mean there will be fair and equal treatment. I believe in S.Africa, black africans were greatest in number, but they still had a few difficulties to overcome.

What happened to the Japanese was definately horrible, and they should have recieved some sort of reparations. Even though that would never have been enough to compensate for what they went through. I'm not that familar with this piece of history, I knew that it occurred, but that's about it. How many years were they kept in these places? Were there several generations that were born into these conditions? When they were finally released did they have the same rights as the general population?

[ Here's something to chew about:

1) The US Census predicts by 2050. Whites will no longer become the majority, hence a minority among minorities. Blacks and Hispanics will make up 50% of the US population. If this trend were to continue, can Blacks and Hispanics still be considered a URM? Can URM be applicable to White applicants based on technical terms?

2) Although, Blacks have been racially discriminated against. There have been other minority groups that were discriminated against: Japanese and WWII internment. Most Japanese lost EVERYTHING, but there was no AA directed for this minority group? How come Japanese Americans do not get an edge in the admission process?

3) With all things equal, a URM applicant will edge out a non-URM with the same background (e.g. middle-class) and stats. With this said, why should the color of one's skin be the factor that decides one's dreams and aspirations.

4) When I go to see a doctor (which I am going to in a week for my high eye pressures), I don't care who I see. I just want the best doc, if he is White, Black, Hispanic, or Asian, then so be it, or else I would never get to see another doc in my life because of degenerative eyesight loss.

1) The term URM refers to groups that are under represented in medicine. The fact that there are growing numbers of Blacks and Hispanics in the general population further highlights why there needs to be a growing population of Blacks and Hispanics in medicine. As these group's populations grow in the public, the disparity between the number of minorities in the population and the number in medical school will be exacerbated if nothing is done to correct the problems. Ideally, early educational disparities should be corrected so that there is no need for AA, but AA is a quick and easy way to cause immediate changes.

2. Again, AA is not some way to make amends for past discrimination--it is a way to ensure all populations of people receive the best possible health care. It is unfortunate that so many minority groups have been marginalized in this country, but the health disparities that effect URM groups do not similarly affect Asian Americans. This could be due to the fact that Asian Americans are over represented in medicine.

3. This is not true. Studies have been done that show URM applicants of the same socio-economic background as non-URM applicants tend to be at a disadvantage. We can discuss the reasons for this until we are blue in the face, but the fact still remains that there are factors that diminish URM achievement beyond the scope of socio-economic status.

4. It is nice that you are so color-blind, but not all patients or all doctors are. It has been shown time and time again that increasing the number of URMs in medicine favorably impacts the quality of healthcare URM patients receive. If you would like proof of this, you can revisit the studies I've posted earlier in this thread.

4. It is nice that you are so color-blind, but not all patients or all doctors are. It has been shown time and time again that increasing the number of URMs in medicine favorably impacts the quality of healthcare URM patients receive. If you would like proof of this, you can revisit the studies I've posted earlier in this thread.

But the best long terms solution if racism is really the problem is not necessarily to produce more black and hispanic physicians, but to make sure that the physicians, regardless of their race are sensitive to their patients' different backgrounds and to educate the patients so that they feel comfortable seeing a physician of a different race. In many small towns, there's only going to be one doctor. I think white or black, they need to be able to provide the best of care to their various patients. I think that all of us need to become more color blind, and the way to achieve that is not to excuse poor treatment by white physicians or to encourage blacks and hispanics to pick their doctors based on race.

But the best long terms solution if racism is really the problem is not necessarily to produce more black and hispanic physicians, but to make sure that the physicians, regardless of their race are sensitive to their patients' different backgrounds and to educate the patients so that they feel comfortable seeing a physician of a different race. In many small towns, there's only going to be one doctor. I think white or black, they need to be able to provide the best of care to their various patients. I think that all of us need to become more color blind, and the way to achieve that is not to excuse poor treatment by white physicians or to encourage blacks and hispanics to pick their doctors based on race.
Of course the long-term goal would be to break down color barriers, but right now it is quite obvious that race impacts the caliber of treatment patients receive. As I posted before, there was an incident in an inner-city hospital outside of DC where black patients who needed kidney transplants were put on the non-compliant list (therefore, not on the donor list) because the physician thought blacks were less likely to change their habits and would ruin the new kidney if they were allowed to have transplants. Not every example is this extreme, but racial issues permeate all aspects of American interactions. This can be especially injurious in medicine.

Also (as mentioned before) a HUGE factor leading to cultural competence is the diversity of one's medical class. If medical students of all ethnicities interact daily with people of differing backgrounds, they are more likely to respect and understand patients of these differing backgrounds. This is why it is important to have a healthy representation of every group in medical school. AA, though not the perfect solution, seems to be the only effective solution that helps achieve this goal.

1)
2. Again, AA is not some way to make amends for past discrimination--it is a way to ensure all populations of people receive the best possible health care. It is unfortunate that so many minority groups have been marginalized in this country, but the health disparities that effect URM groups do not similarly affect Asian Americans. This could be due to the fact that Asian Americans are over represented in medicine.

.


That's kind of the point though really. Asian Americans ARE overrepresented, and how did they get that way? They were highly discriminated against as a race all through history in this country. They took the work no one else wanted--laundries, etc. BUT the difference was in THEIR culture. They encourage education among their children. Culturally it was very important to the Asian Americans. That's where it starts, encouraging your OWN children. Making them realize the value of education and being a part of thier lives and education as they grow up. They didn't have help doing that. There was no public policy to boost them up. They did it THEMSELVES. Pulled themselves up by their proverbial bootstraps.

Bill Cosby was right. Black people need to instill in their children the importance and value of a good education. Spending time with children is usually easy to do and doesn't cost a dime. That's what it takes. Let the children know you have expectations. Tell them they can't play "house" or ball or whatever until homework is done. My wife worked in an inner-city elementary school as a counselor for 9 years. It was pathetic how most of those kids were treated by parents. I could go into story after story but I won't launch my diatribe. Bottom line is there are cultural differences in the races which bring about the inevitable. Blacks need to take control of their children's education. It doesn't take money to teach them to count when they are 4 years old. These kids lack the foundation that is required to advance adequately. And you cannot expect miracles from teachers if education is not reinforced at home as well. Don't put your child's future exclusively in the hands of a teacher. My god, the quality of education your child receive will affect their entire lives. Asians stress education more than even white Americans. Look at how school is treated in Japan as an example. People need to LEARN from that.

Stop putting basketball before studying. And speaking of basketball, why can't colleges open up a few spots for less qualified white players???

You can apply as a disadvantaged applicant and talk about your commitment to underserved populations in your essays. I know schools take this information into consideration during the admissions process. Are you from a rural area or an urban area? Many schools hope to increase the number of physicians who pursue rural medicine; your application would probably be most compelling at these schools.

What if she is from an urban area. Does that not count then? Do URM's from urban areas not receive the same the benefits as a URM from an urban area?

Let's be honest, without AA, many URM's are not going to get into medical school. It's not a fair process by any means but admitting URM's is a good thing and will benefit society in the long term. Would you rather URM's not become physicians? We saw what happened in Texas when they banned AA at the University of Texas Law school. They admitted only one African American in their very large class. Again, this isn't the most fair process but the reality is that without AA, a large percentage of URM's wouldn't get into medical school.

Let's be honest, without AA, many URM's are not going to get into medical school. It's not a fair process by any means but admitting URM's is a good thing and will benefit society in the long term. Would you rather URM's not become physicians? We saw what happened in Texas when they banned AA at the University of Texas Law school. They admitted only one African American in their very large class. Again, this isn't the most fair process but the reality is that without AA, a large percentage of URM's wouldn't get into medical school.

To say it isn't the MOST fair process is an absolute understatement. Call a spade a spade. It isn't a FAIR process.

It is discrimination based on skin color.

It is trying to cure a problem with what some would say IS the problem. Discrimination.

I don't find it acceptable. I think people need to be told the truth, that their lack of stress on education for their children is hurting their race. Like an earlier poster said, it would be an easier pill to swallow if there were a sunset provision in a federal AA law. Give them 20 years. A full generation. Tell mothers and fathers of today that it is time to step up to the plate and encourage education in their children. PARTICIPATE in the education of their children. Take the ball or stereo away when the grades are below average.
Read to their kids. Teach simple math. Help out your own children for god's sake.

This kind of blatantly inequitable treatment breeds contempt. It causes more of what you are trying to remedy. People who would not otherwise be such, are resentful to minorities when they see stuff like this happen. Parents who raised their children like they gave a damn are resentful when their kids don't get into professional programs when they perceive that one of the reasons why is because of the color of their skin. WHITE. The kids that don't get in are likewise resentful. What problem is it you were trying to cure with this program again? Oh yeah, racism, which is said to be at the root of the problem to begin with. And what type of problem are you breeding with the program??? Racism. And on both ends this time. The one end is the racism used to reject equally as competent or more competent whites due only to skin color. The other end is the resentment that you breed among the rejectees, their families, and those who hear about these types of programs an see what they do.

Fine, use AA, but there needs to be a sunset provision. In other words a compromise. Personally I prefer diversity in higher education as I feel it makes us more well-rounded as a society. But there are ways to get there and ways not to get there. Racism isn't the way to get there.

Additionally Moosepilot: I would like to know your views on AA's role in encouraging women into the workforce and into institutions of higher learning. I'm sure women had to go thru the same things minorities are going thru now with proving themselves and discrediting faulty claims, but they persevered and now they have come much further than they were 50 years ago.

Yea, but we're doing so without a policy that lets us in with significantly lower grades and MCAT scores...

Yea, but we're doing so without a policy that lets us in with significantly lower grades and MCAT scores...

was this always the case??... There are many opportunities open to women that are not open to White men and Asians in business etc... I also always see scholarships for "women in engineering" etc... :confused:

On a side note, the med school diary of a particular african american female, linked on the starting page of SDN, really shows the negative views some people have about minorities that have been brought about by AA. I think it is really sad to know that some of my classmates next year will have such thoughts about me. You can read her diary at http://www.studentdoctor.net/diary/bio.asp?aID=66 In her comments section, many have resorted to racist comments in order to question her place in medical school. People can be really disappointing sometimes. I guess I did not expect such ignorance to be so prevalent in minds great enough to attend medical school.

Yo seriously yall should read some of this stuff. Completely uncalled for.

To say it isn't the MOST fair process is an absolute understatement. Call a spade a spade. It isn't a FAIR process.

It is discrimination based on skin color.

It is trying to cure a problem with what some would say IS the problem. Discrimination.

I don't find it acceptable. I think people need to be told the truth, that their lack of stress on education for their children is hurting their race. Like an earlier poster said, it would be an easier pill to swallow if there were a sunset provision in a federal AA law. Give them 20 years. A full generation. Tell mothers and fathers of today that it is time to step up to the plate and encourage education in their children. PARTICIPATE in the education of their children. Take the ball or stereo away when the grades are below average.
Read to their kids. Teach simple math. Help out your own children for god's sake.

This kind of blatantly inequitable treatment breeds contempt. It causes more of what you are trying to remedy. People who would not otherwise be such, are resentful to minorities when they see stuff like this happen. Parents who raised their children like they gave a damn are resentful when their kids don't get into professional programs when they perceive that one of the reasons why is because of the color of their skin. WHITE. The kids that don't get in are likewise resentful. What problem is it you were trying to cure with this program again? Oh yeah, racism, which is said to be at the root of the problem to begin with. And what type of problem are you breeding with the program??? Racism. And on both ends this time. The one end is the racism used to reject equally as competent or more competent whites due only to skin color. The other end is the resentment that you breed among the rejectees, their families, and those who hear about these types of programs an see what they do.

Fine, use AA, but there needs to be a sunset provision. In other words a compromise. Personally I prefer diversity in higher education as I feel it makes us more well-rounded as a society. But there are ways to get there and ways not to get there. Racism isn't the way to get there.


I find this post very one-sided. I think the problems with lower educational achievement among minority groups has to do both with problems within those communities and disparities imposed upon those communities. If you would really like to speak intelligently about factors that uniquely hinder African Americans, feel free to PM me and I’ll give you my aim address. The issues are not as cut and dry as you make them seem, and I think you are being unfair in your post. I did very well on the MCAT and I have a high GPA, but I can relay from personal experience the social hurdles I had to overcome to achieve my goals. I promise it’s not just about parental encouragement.

To those who suggest AA is the cause for racial discrimination: I disagree with this whole-heartedly. The racist idea that blacks and other minorities are intellectually inferior to other races was not engendered with Affirmative Action. You all should talk to black doctors who went through medical school before AA was even around—you will see that they faced many of the same prejudice during their training. I really think the absurd responses that have been posted here further reflect the need for diversity in higher education.

To say it isn't the MOST fair process is an absolute understatement. Call a spade a spade. It isn't a FAIR process.

It is discrimination based on skin color.

It is trying to cure a problem with what some would say IS the problem. Discrimination.

I don't find it acceptable. I think people need to be told the truth, that their lack of stress on education for their children is hurting their race. Like an earlier poster said, it would be an easier pill to swallow if there were a sunset provision in a federal AA law. Give them 20 years. A full generation. Tell mothers and fathers of today that it is time to step up to the plate and encourage education in their children. PARTICIPATE in the education of their children. Take the ball or stereo away when the grades are below average.
Read to their kids. Teach simple math. Help out your own children for god's sake.

This kind of blatantly inequitable treatment breeds contempt. It causes more of what you are trying to remedy. People who would not otherwise be such, are resentful to minorities when they see stuff like this happen. Parents who raised their children like they gave a damn are resentful when their kids don't get into professional programs when they perceive that one of the reasons why is because of the color of their skin. WHITE. The kids that don't get in are likewise resentful. What problem is it you were trying to cure with this program again? Oh yeah, racism, which is said to be at the root of the problem to begin with. And what type of problem are you breeding with the program??? Racism. And on both ends this time. The one end is the racism used to reject equally as competent or more competent whites due only to skin color. The other end is the resentment that you breed among the rejectees, their families, and those who hear about these types of programs an see what they do.

Fine, use AA, but there needs to be a sunset provision. In other words a compromise. Personally I prefer diversity in higher education as I feel it makes us more well-rounded as a society. But there are ways to get there and ways not to get there. Racism isn't the way to get there.


I find this post very one-sided. I think the problems with lower educational achievement among minority groups has to do both with problems within those communities and disparities imposed upon those communities. If you would really like to speak intelligently about factors that uniquely hinder African Americans, feel free to PM me and I’ll give you my aim address. The issues are not as cut and dry as you make them seem, and I think you are being unfair in your post. I did very well on the MCAT and I have a high GPA, but I can relay from personal experience the social hurdles I had to overcome to achieve my goals. I promise it’s not just about parental encouragement.

To those who suggest AA is the cause for racial discrimination: I disagree with this whole-heartedly. The racist idea that blacks and other minorities are intellectually inferior to other races was not engendered with Affirmative Action. You all should talk to black doctors who went through medical school before AA was even around—you will see that they faced many of the same prejudice during their training. I really think the absurd responses that have been posted here further reflect the need for diversity in higher education.

I just want to make a point about why it makes no sense to argue over AA in the context of medical admissions. You've probably heard it many times before but it's true- the admissions process is really a "total crapshoot".

The entire system is flawed because it is almost impossible to precisely and accurately compare the qualifications of applicants. Even numbers like GPAs cannot be compared. Some schools inflate, others deflate, some schools do a little bit of both depending on your major, people come in with completely different majors and coursework, and even within the same school and the same class, two different professors teaching in different semesters will almost certainly grade differently. Then there is the MCAT, and everyone knows how accurate a measure of capability standardized tests are :rolleyes:. Then of course are ECs, which are probably the most difficult to compare among candidates because they are so varied, unless you're just looking at the total number or the total hours spent which is obviously not fair either. I don't even need to mention how subjective personal statements and interviews are.

And you must realize of course that AA is not the only method of preferential admissions, there is also legacy, connections (say you know someone on the Board of Directors), geographic/state based preferences, institutional preferences, "bribery", and the list goes on and on. Considering that there are