Why soo few blacks in medicine ?

SDN Members don't see this ad. (About Ads)

Originally Posted by originoom

LOL..Lets just be honest, you aint got the balls to say that to their face....

I know right. These internet wangstas kill me lol

I am finally getting use to medical school and being in a class where only 5 percent are AA's. I know everyone wants to believe that we have overcome....but I do not believe that.

Originally Posted by Live 2BMD

I am finally getting use to medical school and being in a class where only 5 percent are AA's. I know everyone wants to believe that we have overcome....but I do not believe that.

That's certainly pessimistic. Why are you putting such a tremendous burden on a still-developing situation? There was a time when black students comprised less than one percent of medical school enrollment. We have overcome, but are not yet done. I mean, the fact that you are in medical school and can perform well is proof that some progress has been made. Give it time.

[ biglolely ] QUOTE.

How come there are not any white or chinese versions of " Mr Marcus , Lexington Steele, ShaneDiesel , Fred Nice ,etc ?

Originally Posted by FearlessHyena

I am black with a 38 MCAT and 3.6 GPA. I posted a screen shot of my score, so you can look at my post history to find it. I've been rejected at a host of top schools. Granted, I applied super late (amcas verified in early November), but I've seen other black males with worse numbers get acceptances to schools that rejected me pre-interview. My EC's are mediocre. Yes being a minority helps, but you better have something unique. I do not. I could be mad that Vandy rejected me pre-secondary and accepted another URM on this board who has a 29 and 3.4. So, why not even interview me? That guy has actually worked with the underserved. I have not.

.

You even have a higher MCAT than myself here (black with 33/3.9, damn verbal), and I at least got on the waiting list at Vandy. You mad? Wait I'm mad now. How did that URM get in outright with a 29/3.4 and I didn't? Racism

I hope everyone realizes it's not all about stats, although they are important. And the MCAT is a stupid test, especially the verbal. I love the sciences though.

38 is an excellent score. The best I would possibly ever achieve is 11 VR and 14's on the sciences, and I would have to devote 3-4 months of hardcore prep and practice to score such, but I don't think that's good use of my time. Although I've never taken standardized tests seriously and the most effort I've ever given was for the MCAT (3 weeks, average 4-5 hrs/day). I recall I walked into the ACT with 1 hour review (scored a 26 or 27) and the GRE with 3 days of review (>1400/1600). I plan to approach the USMLEs like a gunner though. I'll take it personal

Originally Posted by Chrome19

You even have a higher MCAT than myself here (black with 33/3.9, damn verbal), and I at least got on the waiting list at Vandy. You mad? Wait I'm mad now. How did that URM get in outright with a 29/3.4 and I didn't? Racism

I hope everyone realizes it's not all about stats, although they are important. And the MCAT is a stupid test, especially the verbal. I love the sciences though.

38 is an excellent score. The best I would possibly ever achieve is 11 VR and 14's on the sciences, and I would have to devote 3-4 months of hardcore prep and practice to score such, but I don't think that's good use of my time. Although I've never taken standardized tests seriously and the most effort I've ever given was for the MCAT (3 weeks, average 4-5 hrs/day). I recall I walked into the ACT with 1 hour review (scored a 26 or 27) and the GRE with 3 days of review (>1400/1600). I plan to approach the USMLEs like a gunner though. I'll take it personal

Good stuff. Where do you plan on matriculating to? Or who are you hoping to hear from?

Originally Posted by jevo

Good stuff. Where do you plan on matriculating to? Or who are you hoping to hear from?

I've been accepted, but won't make a final decision until April or May. I still have an interview next Month. I know. I applied too late

Did any minority medical students participate in the hoodie campaign? I was the only one at my school. I do not think anyone noticed because I always wear my different School of Medicine and Undergrad hoodies.

Why so few blacks in medical school? That's a hard question to answer, but I'll take a stab at it from the perspective of a token black student in a Canadian medical school.
I think there are multiplicities of reasons that produce and reproduce this phenomenon. In the pass, I used to believe that the curriculum was conducive to the success of white middle class kids who receive the cultural capital which is rewarded in a Eurocentric academic system ie. language, values, etc. But now, that a significant proportion of doctors and medical students are of colour and immigrant background, I question that the problem doesn't, in part, lie within our homes. On my side of the border, blacks are over represented in low income margins and underrepresented in centres of higher learning. This means that many Black parents: a) are working multiple jobs to make ends meet and do not have the time to check/help their kids with their homework, and b) do not have the academic background to help to tutor their kids.
Furthermore, the budget cutbacks that created overcrowded classes taught by underpaid teachers now means that children are getting less and less out of school and that parents have to supplement their children's education. Without the extra educational investment, children can easily fall through the cracks and graduate with a weak academic foundation that often crumbles at the university level.

Also, at the high school level, I find that guidance officers, who hold the tacit racialized belief that black kids thrive at sports or "practical" stuff vs. academics, are quick to stream black kids to applied programs. Without the proper pre-requisites, it is extremely difficult for students to enter and succeed in university. Even with all of these obstacles, however, there are still quite a few black kids who manage to avoid being filtered by the system. Among the black youth who choose to pursue medicine, many do not earn high enough grades that are required to gain admission to medical school. In Canada, only First Nations/Metis and Inuit qualify for affirmative action, therefore black candidates are placed in the general pool of applicants. It not uncommon for a country that accepts about 1000 students annually into medical programs, that less than a dozen are black.
Lastly, in my class, there is an overrepresentation of medical students who have parents as doctors. These children not only had access to a role model in the field, but they also received the secretes to succeed in university and the medical application process. Unfortunately, for the most part blacks do not have access to such relationships and therefore have to struggle on their own to make it into medicine.
I realize that my analysis is oversimplified and reductionist in nature, as I did not consider the economic barriers to access education, the lack of black role models in medicine, and the fact that many black students are simply not interested in pursuing a medical career, but I think that heart of the problem is to be found within the problematic educational system and our homes.

It's an age old question without a simple explanation because the reasons are so many. The more important question is how do we increase the representation of underrepresented minorities in medicine?

Originally Posted by ucsfstudents

It's an age old question without a simple explanation because the reasons are so many. The more important question is how do we increase the representation of underrepresented minorities in medicine?

scholarships helps. Lots of them... full ride preferably.

Honestly, many SDN users will never know what the majority of black students have to grow up through, so they are going to be "ignorant," or shall I say, "state ignorant statements" mainly because of their lack of knowledge on the background. And honestly, being an URM is not going to help any of us (I'm a black student -applying to dental school this summer) with gaining admissions into medical, or dental school. But, we do have summer enrichment programs that help us stay more competitive than our counterparts, and that truly helps us gain entrance and graduate.

Finally to answer the question, I'd have to say financial resources. Alot of AA students at my school (which is really limited - I attend a PWI) want to make money straight out of undergrad. Same as me, but I'm taking the risk because it is worth taking - and I want to serve the under-serve.
Another reason, I'd have to say lack of guidance - from professors, parents, et cetera. AA students (just as other students) need mentors, and other respective figures to help motivate and guide them.

Other reasons I'd have to say are - many of us lack any knowledge about medicine, we receive negative peer views from our family members/friends/and others calling us "sell outs," or, "acting-white." Which I highly disagree with.


Bottom line, we as African Americans - Black Students are just as bright as our counterparts, we just lack the resources that our counterparts get to take advantage of throughout their daily lives.

All we can do is encourage each other to continue striving towards our goals - I for one encourage my fellow classmates (of all races) to become what they want to become because we all can.

Originally Posted by MedPR

That's actually a complete misunderstanding of the data. If an Asian and an African American have the same stats, the African American will get accepted because there are much higher standards for Asians than blacks. Not being racist, it's in the data.

I'll just pick on one point, since it's typically the accepted MCAT/GPA range for "you've got a shot".

African american with a 3.6-3.79 GPA and a 30-32 MCAT. 93% acceptance rate
Asian with the same stats. 72.7% acceptance rate.

Statistically it is easier for blacks to get in than Asians or Caucasians. The reason why there are so few blacks in medicine is definitely not because it is harder for them.

My favorite example of reverse racism in this case is this one:

An African American with a 2.8-2.99 and 27-29 has a better chance of getting in than an Asian with a 3.4-3.59 and a 30-32. Try and tell me it's harder for blacks than asians based on that data right there.

The person wasn't getting at Asians vs. African Americans with the data, the person was stating that whites have a better chance that blacks getting accepted into medical school with 3.0GPA's. Not Asians.

Originally Posted by MedPR

How does interpreting data make me a hater? Blacks get in with lower scores than non-blacks, and the data supports that. Racism is not always negative, the fact that ADCOMs expect more from asians is racist, but the racism there is based on the (positive) assumption that asians are smarter or can perform better in school. The fact that blacks and other racial minorities matriculate with lower scores is also racism.

As defined by dictionary.com, Racism is
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racesdetermine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

You don't see blacks or other racial minorities complaining that med schools accept them with lower scores, and thus hold them at a lower standard. Racial minorities only want to be treated equally when it benefits them. You also don't see asians complaining that they are held at a higher standard. For the most part they accept it and work their asses off to meet and exceed expectations.

If an asian gets a 4.0 and a 35, you probably wouldn't be too impressed, but if another racial minority gets a 4.0 and a 35, you would probably think they are really smart. Racism.

Contrary to popular belief, racism helps blacks and hurts asians. AAMC's data on the relationship between MCAT, GPA, and matriculation is evidence of that.

You guys seem to throw asians into it fairly quickly. I believe the user was stating about whites vs. blacks dealing with admissions, and whites tend to have an easier time being admitted, not my opinion, statistical data proves it. But, as someone as said, you can't change opinions, or shall I say "mindset" of idiots.

wrong, havent you seen Grey's Anatomy? blacks make up 2/3rds of the medical community, hello!

Originally Posted by Live 2BMD

Did any minority medical students participate in the hoodie campaign? I was the only one at my school. I do not think anyone noticed because I always wear my different School of Medicine and Undergrad hoodies.

I think the hoodie campaign and marches and all that actually trivializes the situation a great deal. No respect for it at all.

Originally Posted by ElleWoodsMD

I think the hoodie campaign and marches and all that actually trivializes the situation a great deal. No respect for it at all.

I agree.

Originally Posted by Livingadream91

Honestly, many SDN users will never know what the majority of black students have to grow up through, so they are going to be "ignorant," or shall I say, "state ignorant statements" mainly because of their lack of knowledge on the background. And honestly, being an URM is not going to help any of us (I'm a black student -applying to dental school this summer) with gaining admissions into medical, or dental school. But, we do have summer enrichment programs that help us stay more competitive than our counterparts, and that truly helps us gain entrance and graduate.

Finally to answer the question, I'd have to say financial resources. Alot of AA students at my school (which is really limited - I attend a PWI) want to make money straight out of undergrad. Same as me, but I'm taking the risk because it is worth taking - and I want to serve the under-serve.
Another reason, I'd have to say lack of guidance - from professors, parents, et cetera. AA students (just as other students) need mentors, and other respective figures to help motivate and guide them.

Other reasons I'd have to say are - many of us lack any knowledge about medicine, we receive negative peer views from our family members/friends/and others calling us "sell outs," or, "acting-white." Which I highly disagree with.


Bottom line, we as African Americans - Black Students are just as bright as our counterparts, we just lack the resources that our counterparts get to take advantage of throughout their daily lives.

All we can do is encourage each other to continue striving towards our goals - I for one encourage my fellow classmates (of all races) to become what they want to become because we all can.

There are a few issues with the URM arguement that I think need clarification and discussion. The problem, that I and others have experienced is that if we challenge AA or URM status we are automatically labeled racists or unsympathetic to the plight of URMs.

1. I think that the AAMC data is pretty clear that overall the use of AA/URM in med school admissions increases the probability of a URM getting admitted with a certain GPA/MCAT compared to other groups (ex. Asians). I disagree with posters who say that AA steals spots; it does not do that, it just reduces the probability (by how much, who knows). The other thing is this does not correct for subjective factors.

2. There is often discussion of past injustices and continued institutional biases. The problem with this logic is the punishment to the "offenders" is delivered on college students who were not part of the problem to begin with. In my opinion, it is the equivalent of punishing the grandchild of a murderer after the murderer passes away. It doesn't work and it's certainly not equitable. As for institutional bias, I agree it is pervasive but is also pervasive for other groups in other roles: ex. Asians and sports- I don't see the NCAA forcing colleges to have a certain numbers of student atheletes be of certain ethnicities.

3. There is a constant statement amongst supporters about a lack of role models, etc. I would argue that this situation exists for many groups and we don't provide systems for them as well. Part of fixing this problem is having URMs that become physicians be strong role models rather than simply trying to force an increase in admissions.

Wagy, are you seriously comparing the correction of centuries of injustice and imbalance to murder? SERIOUSLY?

The grandchildren of the "offenders" (and the newcomers who look like them) continue to disproportionally benefit from slanted policies and social barriers aimed at maintaining injustice and inequality, whereas their minority counterparts continue to suffer primary and secondary effects of the same policies. Why do we expect affirmative action to be perfect and egalitarian when most things aren't, and do not, in fact, benefit minorities? People say they want equality for all, but when it comes to leveling the playing field at their expense (aka giving up some of their power), they sing another tune entirely. The TL;DR version: Life's not fair. Get over it.

Originally Posted by ElleWoodsMD

Wagy, are you seriously comparing the correction of centuries of injustice and imbalance to murder? SERIOUSLY?

The grandchildren of the "offenders" (and the newcomers who look like them) continue to disproportionally benefit from slanted policies and social barriers aimed at maintaining injustice and inequality, whereas their minority counterparts continue to suffer primary and secondary effects of the same policies. Why do we expect affirmative action to be perfect and egalitarian when most things aren't, and do not, in fact, benefit minorities? People say they want equality for all, but when it comes to leveling the playing field at their expense (aka giving up some of their power), they sing another tune entirely. The TL;DR version: Life's not fair. Get over it.

It was simply an example, would examples including the genocide of the Holocaust or social injustice of apartheid be more appropriate. Regardless of the example utilized, society in general has not provided a means to balance the system going forward in the same way AA/URM status does currently.

The problem with your expense arguement is many of those impacted didn't come from descendants who were the "offenders" including Asian-Americans, more recent European immigrants, etc. In your search for "equality" for URM's you're willing to harm another group, which to me is exactly what we are fighting against.

I find it striking that you put the burden of perfection on affirmative action while completely ignoring the shortcomings of institutions that disproportionately benefit whites and harm the Asians Americans, Native Americans, etc. far more than affirmative action ever could. There exists no perfect policy, or in the case of affirmative action, set of policies that doesn't have some casualties. Again, why is affirmative action expected to be perfect? There are far more Asian-Americans in professional positions than there are of other groups, hence the lack of a boost for them in admissions decisions. They are minorities, but at the same time, are reaching success levels that rivals that of their white counterparts so again, no boost. I won't get into mechanics of that, but will say that many can and do get admitted on other criteria that white applicants cannot access.

Originally Posted by ElleWoodsMD

I find it striking that you put the burden of perfection on affirmative action while completely ignoring the shortcomings of institutions that disproportionately benefit whites and harm the Asians Americans, Native Americans, etc. far more than affirmative action ever could. There exists no perfect policy, or in the case of affirmative action, set of policies that doesn't have some casualties. Again, why is affirmative action expected to be perfect? There are far more Asian-Americans in professional positions than there are of other groups, hence the lack of a boost for them in admissions decisions. They are minorities, but at the same time, are reaching success levels that rivals that of their white counterparts so again, no boost. I won't get into mechanics of that, but will say that many can and do get admitted on other criteria that white applicants cannot access.

I put the burden not of perfection but equity on AA because it is a governmental policy designed to provide equity and as it is currently is structured fails to provide this. The problem with your stance is your "casualties" are people who have committed no wrong and are being penalized in an attempt to provide equity by having an injustice done to them. To sit there and say that since there a lot of professional Asians that they should be ok with being shortchanged is pretty ridiculous; as an Asian-American (Indian-American), I find it repugnant to think that a policy that penalizes Asians as a group because of their success can be supported by other minorities. You comment on these mysterious "other criteria" for Asians, like what?

Based on your own logic, there are a lot of African American athletes, why not provide those minorities that are underrepresented with a boost. Why should we accept this policy in higher education but not uniformly across all professions?

Originally Posted by wagy27

It was simply an example, would examples including the genocide of the Holocaust or social injustice of apartheid be more appropriate. Regardless of the example utilized, society in general has not provided a means to balance the system going forward in the same way AA/URM status does currently.

The problem with your expense arguement is many of those impacted didn't come from descendants who were the "offenders" including Asian-Americans, more recent European immigrants, etc. In your search for "equality" for URM's you're willing to harm another group, which to me is exactly what we are fighting against.

America has no specific culpability in the Holocaust or Apartheid. These wrongs were perpetuated by Germany and South Africa respectively, who have both provided special benefits to affected groups. The former not only provides pays survivors of the Holocaust but their children and grandchildren as well, while the the latter simply allots special attention to its base population. Ironically, even India has something of an affirmative action even though the targeted population are Indians of lower caste. The Indians have trumpeted their success of their program in the past and plan to continue it.

So countries providing recompense for egregious wrongs perpetuated over multiple generations and governments, is not unprecedented. It happens all the time.

America's two unique sins are 1) the genocide of the Native Americans and 2) the enslavement of American blacks. In the case of the former, a wealth of special funding and land and other privileges are provided. In the case of the latter, scant scholarships and university consideration. Those new groups that come to America should be made to accept America's sordid domineering role in the enslavement of black Americans, or else stay in their countries of origin. As Blacks were enslaved on the basis of their skin color, and Native Americans murdered on that very same basis, so these groups rightfully be afforded privileges to ameliorate their integration into prosperous society. Affirmative action was agreed upon in 1960, before many of these immigrants even got here. Why anything should change because they say so is beyond me. Slavery happened before them and the Civil Rights Act happened before them too.

The Supreme Court has ruled against outright use of affirmative action in admissions but schools will work their way around courts.

Originally Posted by wagy27

I put the burden not of perfection but equity on AA because it is a governmental policy designed to provide equity and as it is currently is structured fails to provide this. The problem with your stance is your "casualties" are people who have committed no wrong and are being penalized in an attempt to provide equity by having an injustice done to them. To sit there and say that since there a lot of professional Asians that they should be ok with being shortchanged is pretty ridiculous; as an Asian-American (Indian-American), I find it repugnant to think that a policy that penalizes Asians as a group because of their success can be supported by other minorities. You comment on these mysterious "other criteria" for Asians, like what?

AA was originally created as a policy to recompense African Americans for slavery. As a result of injurious lawsuits, it has morphed into a representation balance act to survive. Asians benefit in different ways. When it comes to law firm hiring--same as any other minority--they are eligible for diversity spots because they are underrepresented in partnership. I have personally met Asians who have gotten jobs this way. In general Asians should have known about affirmative action before they moved to America. That they chose to ignore it or thought it inconsequential is their own fault. What LBJ said in 1965 holds as much truth today as it did then. Angry Indians such as yourself would do well to study American history before commenting on topics such as these:

"You do not wipe away the scars of centuries by saying: 'now, you are free to go where you want, do as you desire, and choose the leaders you please.' You do not take a man who for years has been hobbled by chains, liberate him, bring him to the starting line of a race, saying, "you are free to compete with all the others," and still justly believe you have been completely fair... This is the next and more profound stage of the battle for civil rights. We seek not just freedom but opportunity—not just legal equity but human ability—not just equality as a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and as a result."

Based on your own logic, there are a lot of African American athletes, why not provide those minorities that are underrepresented with a boost. Why should we accept this policy in higher education but not uniformly across all professions?

Because this analogy is a failure; athletics is not academics. The two are worlds apart in terms of importance to group progress (and this what matters). The effects athletes have on an overall population's wealth and prosperity is minuscule while academia is vast. There is just no compelling reason to enact affirmative action in sport. As it turns out American society disseminates prosperity to groups on the basis of education, not number of athletes. So that's a compelling reason right there.

Ultimately what we have here is an Indian that accepts half the Civil Rights Act because it has benefited him (i.e. immigration) but not the other because he assumes it is not so (i.e. affirmative action). Not unsurprising as we all act in our interest. But tell me, if I suddenly moved to India and requested that lower caste affirmative be abolished because it is unfair, what would the Indians say? Would they not steadfastly refuse, label me benighted and ignorant, a person who insists on blind principle without any appreciation of history? Being the free and open democracy they are, how could the Indian Supreme Court deny my plea for fairness?

Maybe it would go something like this:

Me: This is unfair. And unequal treatment is inherently wrong. What is wrong should be repealed to make right.

Indian Congress: Perhaps you are right that in a zero sum sense AA is unfair. But what is monumentally more unfair is the 2500 years of lower caste social disembowelment, and the fellowship of sovereigns and governments and councils that enabled the disproportionate disenfranchisement as long as they did. In a greater utilitarian sense, would you not say that a parade of small sacrifices s worth the larger positive gain of a people's material progress?

Me: We should not infringe on individual rights in order to make amends.

Indian Congress: Are we not all part of this society? Do we not all have a stake in sacrificing for it? I sign the social contract to pay taxes, and in return I get civilization. Are we not making the same deal here? Signing the social contract for small sacrifice, and in return receiving larger dividends?

I made reference to the Holocaust and Apartheid as societal references to instances of genocide/societal injustice. One can extrapolate beyond the borders of our own country. As for Apartheid, the government has provided little to no reparations to victims and at one point attempted to prevent its citizens from seeking recourse against multinational corporations involved. While there have been reparations paid to victims of the Holocaust and their descendants, which represents a mea culpa from the government and does not directly impact other ethnicities in their pursuit of higher education as the use of AA/URM does. As for India, many things have been tried but to my knowledge limited success has been achieved. So the reality is when looking at previous instances, there are really no programs set up like AA/URM that in providing reparation cause a disservice to another minority group.

As for your argument about, that immigrants should have known about AA/URM status and should accept this, that is pretty ridiculous. How many times have we seen other minorities including African Americans and Hispanics challenge long-standing laws on the basis that they are discriminatory. Why shouldn’t other minorities be entitled to the same protections? Further, these reparations continue to be paid out. Slavery was abolished in 1865, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 began to put an end to segregation. Based on that, at least two generations of minorities have gone through the educational system to date already and been afforded protections under the Civil Rights Act and AA. As a society how much longer should reparations be provided?

As for Asians benefiting as you note, I would argue that is the minority compared to other minorities. They certainly do not benefit in medicine and in law (having several friends in large firms), race has no bearing on their hiring practices.

You don’t like the comparison to athletics. To me it’s a very important one to make. Athletics though in terms of numbers/wealth is minimal represents a very visible and idolized aspect of our society; I don’t know what channel you watch but I know that kids of all ethnicities see a lot more professional and collegiate sports on TV than they do specials on medicine and what kind of imbalance to they see. In the same way many pro-AA/URM posters cite the importance of role models or visible figures, don’t you think the same should be present in athletics? You don’t think it’s important for those children to see a ethnically balanced product? Or because it benefits those that fall into the educational URM category, it’s alright that it goes on? If you are not going to balance the books in other professions, why extend it only to higher education. It seems you want a system that only benefits URM for a subset of professions.

Of course in the end you resort to comments like “Angry Indians such as yourself would do well to study American History”….hmmm, I am resident who has gone through undergrad, med school, and am completing a residency. I have little to no skin left in this fight. Second, I didn’t move here; I was born and raised here, an American first and before you call someone out about their knowledge of American history you might want to have some basis for it. Your arguments that Asians and other immigrants should have known about AA is absurd. This country was designed to reward the best and brightest and that’s why families like my own immigrated here with mine coming in the 60s despite your comments that few Asians were here then. When Asians began immigrating here in the 50s/60s we were also a minority in highly educated fields. 2-3 generations later we are overrepresented because of the hard work and sacrifice made by those that came before us. Why should this generation be penalized for the hard work that was done before them and the fact that Asians are now overrepresented.

You end your rant with a diatribe of what might happen in India if you were to challenge the current state of affairs. The problem is that you use an example that is fraught with misunderstandings. The set up is certainly present but anyone with any knowledge of how India works would realize that while this program is in place, it does not function as you intend it to.

Originally Posted by wagy27

There are a few issues with the URM arguement that I think need clarification and discussion. The problem, that I and others have experienced is that if we challenge AA or URM status we are automatically labeled racists or unsympathetic to the plight of URMs.

1. I think that the AAMC data is pretty clear that overall the use of AA/URM in med school admissions increases the probability of a URM getting admitted with a certain GPA/MCAT compared to other groups (ex. Asians). I disagree with posters who say that AA steals spots; it does not do that, it just reduces the probability (by how much, who knows). The other thing is this does not correct for subjective factors.

2. There is often discussion of past injustices and continued institutional biases. The problem with this logic is the punishment to the "offenders" is delivered on college students who were not part of the problem to begin with. In my opinion, it is the equivalent of punishing the grandchild of a murderer after the murderer passes away. It doesn't work and it's certainly not equitable. As for institutional bias, I agree it is pervasive but is also pervasive for other groups in other roles: ex. Asians and sports- I don't see the NCAA forcing colleges to have a certain numbers of student atheletes be of certain ethnicities.

3. There is a constant statement amongst supporters about a lack of role models, etc. I would argue that this situation exists for many groups and we don't provide systems for them as well. Part of fixing this problem is having URMs that become physicians be strong role models rather than simply trying to force an increase in admissions.

First, most minorities (AA's just as me) could care less of other races being "sympathetic," to our needs. In fact, more than likely, we'd be estastic about it - just to prove that we don't receive" special treatment within the admissions process." AA's who are determined to become physicians, dentists, optometrists, pharmacists, etc participate in a variety of community service activities, extra-curricular activities, and lets face it, we understand more so what the average patient is going through - especially other undeserved populations who are left out. If admission officers are favoring anything; its finding doctors who truly want to work with the undeserved populations, and provide quality health care for them, and that is what most minorities want to do. Regardless of how many statistics you find, we are all going to be doctors and doing the exact same type of work.

Originally Posted by Livingadream91

First, most minorities (AA's just as me) could care less of other races being "sympathetic," to our needs. In fact, more than likely, we'd be estastic about it - just to prove that we don't receive" special treatment within the admissions process." AA's who are determined to become physicians, dentists, optometrists, pharmacists, etc participate in a variety of community service activities, extra-curricular activities, and lets face it, we understand more so what the average patient is going through - especially other undeserved populations who are left out. If admission officers are favoring anything; its finding doctors who truly want to work with the undeserved populations, and provide quality health care for them, and that is what most minorities want to do. Regardless of how many statistics you find, we are all going to be doctors and doing the exact same type of work.

The problem is what you want is to "just prove we don't receive special treatment" but what the objective data shows is that at least for med school admissions is that this is not the case when only examing GPA/MCAT scores as little is published on subjective criteria utilized when comparing URM applicants to other more well represented candidates.

It certainly is reasonable to say that the goal should be to push physicians to underserved areas. The problem is no one can predict that based on a patient's premed profile; I have many friends who grew up in white middle class america who have made it their goal to work in underserved areas and know many who originally come from underserved areas whose only dream is to live and work in suburbia. There is not a lot of hard data supporting your hypothesis. However, when we look at med schools there objective is to train the best med students possible (you dont really become a physician, despite the MD/DO title, until you finish your post-graduate training). When you define best med student, one big factor is USMLE scores as this is correlated with residency placement. Two of the few factors correlated with USMLE scores based on published data are undergrad GPA and MCAT. Shouldn't we be picking applicants based on what we know leads to success rather than factors that may or may not?

Originally Posted by wagy27

The problem is what you want is to "just prove we don't receive special treatment" but what the objective data shows is that at least for med school admissions is that this is not the case when only examing GPA/MCAT scores as little is published on subjective criteria utilized when comparing URM applicants to other more well represented candidates.

It certainly is reasonable to say that the goal should be to push physicians to underserved areas. The problem is no one can predict that based on a patient's premed profile; I have many friends who grew up in white middle class america who have made it their goal to work in underserved areas and know many who originally come from underserved areas whose only dream is to live and work in suburbia. There is not a lot of hard data supporting your hypothesis. However, when we look at med schools there objective is to train the best med students possible (you dont really become a physician, despite the MD/DO title, until you finish your post-graduate training). When you define best med student, one big factor is USMLE scores as this is correlated with residency placement. Two of the few factors correlated with USMLE scores based on published data are undergrad GPA and MCAT. Shouldn't we be picking applicants based on what we know leads to success rather than factors that may or may not?

I really hope we're not trying to make this into another 'Why we don't need affirmative action in med school admissions' or 'The redefining of URM status' thread, since that has been beaten in the ground over and over again.

Here's the issue with the USMLE: med school invests its time in its students and want them to blow out the USMLE to make their school look good, so the entire curriculum is guided to help the students pass the test. Of course students can supplement it with other tools as you all know, but med schools do provide some type of training for that test.

Not so with many undergraduate schools and the MCAT. Students have to pay high prices for decent training for this test (which is also a hustle, let's keep it real): just studying notes alone won't prepare you for the tricks of this mentally draining test. Just because someone does do well on the MCAT does not mean they will do well on the USMLE, and another person who does average on the MCAT may knock the USMLE out the water.

As far as GPA is concerned.....at my college, so many ORM's had answers to the tests that it was completely sickening. Here we were, fighting to do well in chemistry while others already had the test. Keep it real: there are a lot of folks who have high GPA's because of this hustle (they won't say that on those 'why AA is bad for med school admissions' threads hah), while those who actually fight the right way may score lower on the test and have a lower GPA.

What a lot of people fail to realize is that many ORM's have more opportunities and resources than URM's in the undergraduate college life. If anyone on this board does not realize this, please WAKE UP. Therefore, what is wrong with medical school admissions taking that into consideration when admitting URM's? Even more, have thee been studies that suggested these few URM's are worse doctors than their counterparts?

Wow Wagy, I couldn't possible disagree with you any more.


I completely disagree with your stance on this issue.

1. The discrepancy in objective data reflects just that, a discrepancy in the objective data. Nothing more and any correlative or causal conclusion you arrive to is purely conjecture.

2. Regardless of the discrepancy of objective data, there is no "objective data" to support the discrepancy having any clinical relevance whatsoever, just anecdotal and prejudiced extrapolations.

3. We are picking applicants based on what we know leads to success. Why would any school choose to do otherwise? If they enroll an urm candidate it's because they want to, not because they are lusting for minorities like a crazed caucasian housewife (I kid, I kid, but because they genuinely believe the candidate is qualified and will make a significant impact to the campus community. If not, they wouldn't get accepted. Simple. I served on an adcom in med school and we did NOT practice AA whatsoever. Not to mention, my state barred AA with proposition 209. I'm graduating now so I can talk about it first hand. Truth is, admissions comes down to the reviews impression of an applicant and how strongly they can convince the committee accept them. There is certainly an objective component, but there is a remarkable subjective component as well. It is what it is. But to ignore that and arrive at the conclusion that schools are NOT taking the best candidate is just foolish and reflects your racial prejudice and bias. The best candidates aren't what YOU think they are, it's who the adcoms accept.

4. It is not reasonable to say applicants should be expected or coerced to do primary care, serve in underserved areas or anything of the sort. Urm students are medical students just like everyone else and have all the right to determine there specialty, practice type and location.

Lastly, I think it's really funny how there is an AA/urm bashing thread on this site on a weekly basis. Either in pre-allo, allo or here.

AA was not started to recompense minorities or any misinterpretation of the sort. AA was an "anti-oppressive" policy to end the domination of caucasian men and to allow other genders/ethnicities to climb the social ladder. People blindly associate and misappropriate AA to be a "Black thing" because black folks have historically been the most vocal proponents and have a 400 year history of fighting for ALL minorities to be considered 5/5 of a man, marry white women, and attend integrated schools. But don't be confused, to this date, the demographic that has benefited the most from AA is white women. Not Black folks. Yet, this site is full of neurotic premeds, med students and residents alike who didn't get into their top choice and like to blame the urm as the scapegoat. To each their own.

But answer me this... to the minorities arguing the "racism of affirmative action" where would you be if the unqualified African Americans didn't fight for your rights? I'm waiting... Tough to say, but I'm pretty certain many of the minorities who are AA pundits on this site wouldn't have the educational opportunities they currently have. Just a thought.

Originally Posted by Livingadream91

The person wasn't getting at Asians vs. African Americans with the data, the person was stating that whites have a better chance that blacks getting accepted into medical school with 3.0GPA's. Not Asians.

And looking at the data, whites have vastly lower chances with the same stats. Asians even more so.


MCAT score........24- 26.......27-29.......30-32.........33-35

Black with 3.0...... 53.8%......71.5%......78.9%........71.4%

White with 3.0.......8.5%........21%.........29.1%........43. 1%

Originally Posted by Instatewaiter

And looking at the data, whites have vastly lower chances with the same stats. Asians even more so.


MCAT score........24- 26.......27-29.......30-32.........33-35

Black with 3.0...... 53.8%......71.5%......78.9%........71.4%

White with 3.0.......8.5%........21%.........29.1%........43. 1%

You do know that there are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay less black people applying to medical school than white people, thus the reason the percentages for white people being lower than black people at each mcat group..........

Originally Posted by management

I really hope we're not trying to make this into another 'Why we don't need affirmative action in med school admissions' or 'The redefining of URM status' thread, since that has been beaten in the ground over and over again.

Here's the issue with the USMLE: med school invests its time in its students and want them to blow out the USMLE to make their school look good, so the entire curriculum is guided to help the students pass the test. Of course students can supplement it with other tools as you all know, but med schools do provide some type of training for that test.

Not so with many undergraduate schools and the MCAT. Students have to pay high prices for decent training for this test (which is also a hustle, let's keep it real): just studying notes alone won't prepare you for the tricks of this mentally draining test. Just because someone does do well on the MCAT does not mean they will do well on the USMLE, and another person who does average on the MCAT may knock the USMLE out the water.

As far as GPA is concerned.....at my college, so many ORM's had answers to the tests that it was completely sickening. Here we were, fighting to do well in chemistry while others already had the test. Keep it real: there are a lot of folks who have high GPA's because of this hustle (they won't say that on those 'why AA is bad for med school admissions' threads hah), while those who actually fight the right way may score lower on the test and have a lower GPA.

What a lot of people fail to realize is that many ORM's have more opportunities and resources than URM's in the undergraduate college life. If anyone on this board does not realize this, please WAKE UP. Therefore, what is wrong with medical school admissions taking that into consideration when admitting URM's? Even more, have thee been studies that suggested these few URM's are worse doctors than their counterparts?

Your statements don't make a lot of sense.

Yes, MCAT prep classes help you prepare more for the test. They are not required to take the test and a student can certainly study for the test without the classes. If they are a must, one can use student loans money to help defray the cost. As for your statement about MCAT's and USMLE, there are studies that demonstrated the correlation (citation previously posted by me earlier in this thread). If you believe USMLE's are any different you are sadly mistaken, between USMLE word and Qbank for questions and Kaplan books for notes costs add up there too (and can be paid with student loans as well). The cost of preparing for these tests is well known and the costs can be defrayed by loans. Is it easier to have family help to pay the cost absolutely, but that should not be why URM status makes sense for med school admissions.

As for your undergrad theories of ORM's having more notes and test prep, I dont know much about that. I went to undergrad 10 years ago now and there certainly was nothing like that going around where i was at. If you have some proof instead of rampant allegations without a stitch of evidence that would be great.

There is no documentation of differences in outcomes by race in medicine. If you get through med school that is a pretty good litmus test. However, the issue is that there are a finite number of spots into med school and how should they be distributed remains in question. I and many others argue that it should be based on objective merit (GPA, MCAT, research, volunteering, etc) and race should have no bearing whatsoever in that decision.

See Below

Originally Posted by flaahless

Wow Wagy, I couldn't possible disagree with you any more.


I completely disagree with your stance on this issue.

1. The discrepancy in objective data reflects just that, a discrepancy in the objective data. Nothing more and any correlative or causal conclusion you arrive to is purely conjecture. Objective data is what is objective. There is minimal to no data on subjective factors. While causation is certainly not possible, correlation certainly is based on what we see especially in light of the consistent objective difference noted.

2. Regardless of the discrepancy of objective data, there is no "objective data" to support the discrepancy having any clinical relevance whatsoever, just anecdotal and prejudiced extrapolations. I dont think there is any data to support a clinical difference. The problem is you are talking about a finite resource (med school admissions) and there certainly is debate over how these should be selected. You disagree but many support the idea of removing race/ethnicity from the equation and simply selecting based on objective/subjective factors such as GPA/MCAT/research/volunteering/etc. In light of what data is out there why should one group have their probability of admission be reduced based on an attempt to be "anti-oppressive." You stated "AA was an "anti-oppressive" policy to end the domination of caucasian men and to allow other genders/ethnicities to climb the social ladder. " Problem is AA is no oppressing ethnicities that have became successful such as Asians.

3. We are picking applicants based on what we know leads to success. Why would any school choose to do otherwise? If they enroll an urm candidate it's because they want to, not because they are lusting for minorities like a crazed caucasian housewife (I kid, I kid, but because they genuinely believe the candidate is qualified and will make a significant impact to the campus community. If not, they wouldn't get accepted. Simple. I served on an adcom in med school and we did NOT practice AA whatsoever. Not to mention, my state barred AA with proposition 209. I'm graduating now so I can talk about it first hand. Truth is, admissions comes down to the reviews impression of an applicant and how strongly they can convince the committee accept them. There is certainly an objective component, but there is a remarkable subjective component as well. It is what it is. But to ignore that and arrive at the conclusion that schools are NOT taking the best candidate is just foolish and reflects your racial prejudice and bias. The best candidates aren't what YOU think they are, it's who the adcoms accept.- while this may be the case in your state, it is certainly not in others where race is factored into admission and a uniform policy across the country would be right thing to do.

4. It is not reasonable to say applicants should be expected or coerced to do primary care, serve in underserved areas or anything of the sort. Urm students are medical students just like everyone else and have all the right to determine there specialty, practice type and location.- agree and hence the reason i said you cant expect URMs to fill the void in underserved areas.

You end as most pro-URM statements go by saying those minorities should be grateful for what was done before them. No one is challenging the victories achieved and the benefit it has had on all minorities. But to sit there and assume that those that disagree with your views are "neurotic premeds, med students or residents who didn't get their top pick" is nothing more than a way to debase an opinion contrary to your own. There are many like myself who got their top pick all the way through in ultracompetitive residencies who still disagree with the practice. We have no bone to pick, no bitterness, or desire to get back at others, we simply disagree with the principle of using race/ethnicity in med school admissions.
.

Originally Posted by wagy27

Your statements don't make a lot of sense.

Yes, MCAT prep classes help you prepare more for the test. They are not required to take the test and a student can certainly study for the test without the classes. If they are a must, one can use student loans money to help defray the cost. As for your statement about MCAT's and USMLE, there are studies that demonstrated the correlation (citation previously posted by me earlier in this thread). If you believe USMLE's are any different you are sadly mistaken, between USMLE word and Qbank for questions and Kaplan books for notes costs add up there too (and can be paid with student loans as well). The cost of preparing for these tests is well known and the costs can be defrayed by loans. Is it easier to have family help to pay the cost absolutely, but that should not be why URM status makes sense for med school admissions.

As for your undergrad theories of ORM's having more notes and test prep, I dont know much about that. I went to undergrad 10 years ago now and there certainly was nothing like that going around where i was at. If you have some proof instead of rampant allegations without a stitch of evidence that would be great.

There is no documentation of differences in outcomes by race in medicine. If you get through med school that is a pretty good litmus test. However, the issue is that there are a finite number of spots into med school and how should they be distributed remains in question. I and many others argue that it should be based on objective merit (GPA, MCAT, research, volunteering, etc) and race should have no bearing whatsoever in that decision.

Actually I have too much proof of the 'opportunities' that ORM's have had many, many more 'test taking' advantages over the URM's but why put their careers in jeopardy and air out their dirty laundry. What, you want me to go back in time and take pictures of their dirty work? Funny.

And I've been away from my undergraduate studies many years my friend, but I have people in different places of different ages that cosign with this. So either your school was one of a few that didn't have that going on, or you are very blind.

Funny thing is that people on here always fuss about AA being unfair, racist, or whatever the case, but never want to admit to the truths as to why those practices were put in place. Truth is, ORM's, from child age, have had more opportunities than the URM's of the same age. It's true. I mean, just take a look at inner city schools compared to the suburban schools, and you have to admit there is a world of difference between the two. Even in college, there are opportunities that ORM's had that, if I had even known of them, would have helped me A LOT.

Now, as an admitted student myself, I am not making excuses for anyone who does not put forth the work and fight to get into medical school.....I think that may be the sentiment that opponents of AA have: that med schools shouldn't let lazy black folks in who didn't score as high as my pretentious tail, and I may be wrong. But people have to open their eyes and see why AA is here to begin with and acknowledge the reasoning behind it.

Sadly, many people won't, and will continue to believe that education is truly equal and that everyone has equal opportunity.....

Excuse the typos, I'm still at the job.

Originally Posted by management

You do know that there are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay less black people applying to medical school than white people, thus the reason the percentages for white people being lower than black people at each mcat group..........

What does that have to do with a percentage? The denominator is "# of either that race applying" so it doesn't change the statistics.

The only way this would have any impact is if schools had a quota of different races they wanted (already ruled unconstitutional) or if the data were skewed because of small sample sizes (which there are plenty and I included the vast majority of the distribution). So, it doesn't have bearing.

If you have a 24 and a 3.0 you about a 60% shot of getting in if you are black. You have about a 10% shot if you are white.

The original post I was responding to claimed it was easier to get in with a 3.0 if you were white. The statistics belie this point. And belie it hard.

Originally Posted by Instatewaiter

What does that have to do with a percentage? The denominator is "# of either that race applying" so it doesn't change the statistics.

The only way this would have any impact is if schools had a quota of different races they wanted (already ruled unconstitutional) or if the data were skewed because of small sample sizes (which there are plenty and I included the vast majority of the distribution). So, it doesn't have bearing.

If you have a 24 and a 3.0 you about a 60% shot of getting in if you are black. You have about a 10% shot if you are white.

The original post I was responding to claimed it was easier to get in with a 3.0 if you were white. The statistics belie this point. And belie it hard.

definitely false! No one is truly getting accepted with a 3.0 and a 24 without a post bacc or extra work beyond undergrad.

Originally Posted by management

Actually I have too much proof of the 'opportunities' that ORM's have had many, many more 'test taking' advantages over the URM's but why put their careers in jeopardy and air out their dirty laundry. What, you want me to go back in time and take pictures of their dirty work? Funny.

And I've been away from my undergraduate studies many years my friend, but I have people in different places of different ages that cosign with this. So either your school was one of a few that didn't have that going on, or you are very blind.

Funny thing is that people on here always fuss about AA being unfair, racist, or whatever the case, but never want to admit to the truths as to why those practices were put in place. Truth is, ORM's, from child age, have had more opportunities than the URM's of the same age. It's true. I mean, just take a look at inner city schools compared to the suburban schools, and you have to admit there is a world of difference between the two. Even in college, there are opportunities that ORM's had that, if I had even known of them, would have helped me A LOT.

Now, as an admitted student myself, I am not making excuses for anyone who does not put forth the work and fight to get into medical school.....I think that may be the sentiment that opponents of AA have: that med schools shouldn't let lazy black folks in who didn't score as high as my pretentious tail, and I may be wrong. But people have to open their eyes and see why AA is here to begin with and acknowledge the reasoning behind it.

Sadly, many people won't, and will continue to believe that education is truly equal and that everyone has equal opportunity.....

Excuse the typos, I'm still at the job.

You keep talking about these under the radar opportunities as if ORM's are coming together to actively pool resources and shaft URM's? Any proof for those ridculous allegations or do you want to just keep throwing stuff out you can't corroborate?

Originally Posted by wagy27

You keep talking about these under the radar opportunities as if ORM's are coming together to actively pool resources and shaft URM's? Any proof for those ridculous allegations or do you want to just keep throwing stuff out you can't corroborate?

First, I NEVER said that ORM's are trying to 'shaft' URM's, although I would put money on it that it has happened. But, if you won't open your eyes to the vast amount of opportunities that ORM's have over URM's, even in the justice system, then I won't even bother to waste my time in showing you these ridiculous allegations that I, myself, have encountered in my life.

Man y'all are a trip.......

Like I said, you sadly fail to realize why AA was put into practice, so if you can't even understand that, then I really don't have much to say to you, future colleague.....I refuse to show the light to someone who won't open their eyes.

Originally Posted by Instatewaiter

What does that have to do with a percentage? The denominator is "# of either that race applying" so it doesn't change the statistics.

The only way this would have any impact is if schools had a quota of different races they wanted (already ruled unconstitutional) or if the data were skewed because of small sample sizes (which there are plenty and I included the vast majority of the distribution). So, it doesn't have bearing.

If you have a 24 and a 3.0 you about a 60% shot of getting in if you are black. You have about a 10% shot if you are white.


The original post I was responding to claimed it was easier to get in with a 3.0 if you were white. The statistics belie this point. And belie it hard.

Here's my point though, my friend. If you have many many more whites applying to med school than blacks or hispanics, although there are many more white folks getting into med school, many many more white folks will get rejected than black or hispanic folks, hence the 'lower percentage' for them.

So let's use the bold statement as an example my friend. Let's say that you have 10 black folks applying for a certain school, and 100 white folks applying for that same school. By your stats, 6 black people who have a 24MCAT and 3.0gpa would get in, whereas 10 white folks, who have the same stats, would get in. Hmm.......so there are still more white folks getting in with those stats than black. Makes you think.

I do want to know where those stats came from though. And thanks for keeping it cordial and being open minded. Seems like we don't have enough of that here.

Originally Posted by management

Here's my point though, my friend. If you have many many more whites applying to med school than blacks or hispanics, although there are many more white folks getting into med school, many many more white folks will get rejected than black or hispanic folks, hence the 'lower percentage' for them.

So let's use the bold statement as an example my friend. Let's say that you have 10 black folks applying for a certain school, and 100 white folks applying for that same school. By your stats, 6 black people who have a 24MCAT and 3.0gpa would get in, whereas 10 white folks, who have the same stats, would get in. Hmm.......so there are still more white folks getting in with those stats than black. Makes you think.

I do want to know where those stats came from though. And thanks for keeping it cordial and being open minded. Seems like we don't have enough of that here.

I can't tell if you are intentionally egging me on or really do not understand the concept of a percentage.

The original post was that it was easier to get in with a 3.0 as a white person. The data (from the AAMC- see link at bottom) shows that if you have a 3.0 and a 24 you have a 1 in 10 chance if you are white and a 6 in 10 chance if you are black. If one group is 6 times more likely to get accepted with the same stats, we can assume that it is easier to get in for that group. It doesn't matter the number that apply for reasons I have talked about above.

The data
https://www.aamc.org/download/157958...white-0911.pdf

https://www.aamc.org/download/157594...grid-black.pdf

Originally Posted by Instatewaiter

I can't tell if you are intentionally egging me on or really do not understand the concept of a percentage.

The original post was that it was easier to get in with a 3.0 as a white person. The data (from the AAMC- see link at bottom) shows that if you have a 3.0 and a 24 you have a 1 in 10 chance if you are white and a 6 in 10 chance if you are black. If one group is 6 times more likely to get accepted with the same stats, we can assume that it is easier to get in for that group. It doesn't matter the number that apply for reasons I have talked about above.

The data
https://www.aamc.org/download/157958...white-0911.pdf

https://www.aamc.org/download/157594...grid-black.pdf

I don't have time to egg you on bruh, and I understand the concept of a percentage, as you so eloquently stated. You don't understand the concept about population size though.

It seems that we look at those stats in two different ways. It is what it is. I have nothing more to say about those numbers, and will strive to get this conversation back to the original topic instead of adding to superfluous deviations.

Originally Posted by Sinclaire

Oh, I thought you were looking for average overall MCAT/GPA instead of MCAT/GPA grid acceptance style.

This what you meant?

Table 25: MCAT and GPA Grid for Applicants and Acceptees by Selected Race and Ethnicity, 2008 to 2010 (aggregated)

https://www.aamc.org/data/facts/appl...ethnicity.html

My honest Reaction to reading the AAMC GRID-

My husband and I are both 2012-13 applicants, worked extremely hard in school and raised a child and had jobs, have nearly identical GPAs and actual identical MCAT scores. Based on the grid his percentage for matriculation is 94.5% and mine is about 68% (blacks versus whites, same grades/scores.) This kind of just blew my mind. We both knew he would have "URM" status and thought it would help a tiny bit, but when you compare those two numbers, I can't help but worry that he will get into every school and I'll be working at Burger King cause my skin's the wrong color.

I realize that my comment might piss people off but let me amend it by saying I still hope he gets in and would be more than happy for him even if I don't! It's just that I had no idea that race still mattered so much in our country.

This comment makes me sad because I am sure most white people think like this. Race only doesn't matter if you are white...

Also I just want ask those people against AA a question. If they took it away and went just by stats and only a fraction of URM got in to med school would that make you happy? Would America benefit by having all Asian and white doctors?

Based off the aamc stats only around 400 black applicant have been accepted to school with stats of >=30 mcat and 3.6 or better in the last 3 years.
https://www.aamc.org/data/facts/appl...ethnicity.html

'

Originally Posted by vnicolas

I was wondering why are there so few blacks in medicine...is there not enough qualified applicants or is there a cap limit?

Bingo.

Why AA exists: http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/04/26/9530.aspx

Sorry guys :/

Originally Posted by Dysgenics

Bingo.

Why AA exists: http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/04/26/9530.aspx

Sorry guys :/

You are clearly that shnurek clown, but I'll repost here my response from other thread:

I find it amusing that those of you posting intellectually dishonest pseudo-science regarding race and IQ are too cowardly to do it under your real user names. The problem with the bell curve is for one, correlation != causation. Also, genetics alone cannot account for the Flynn affect. And if genetics and IQ are so inextricably linked, it stands to reason that black women and black men would have similar IQ scores. Yet, there is a descrepancy between the two not seen amongst whites. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing...

http://holtz.org/Library/ToFile/Reading/IQ.htm

You are clearly lack the ability to, you know, actually critically analyze data.