The URM Advantage

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

Looking at the enrollment data led me to some conclusions about the URM advantage.

Here is a chart of the APPLICANT composition from 2007-2010.


Here is the 2010 Census data showing the racial composition of the country:


Conclusion 1:This data shows conclusively that Blacks are less likely to apply to medical school than Whites or Asians. If you are born Black, all other factors aside, you are less likely to APPLY to medical school. Whites apply at a rate consistent with their proportion of the population.

Consider this chart. It looks at the acceptance rate averaged from 2007-2010 (all other factors aside):



Conclusion 2: Being a Black applicant makes one less likely to gain acceptance to medical school when compared to other ethnicities (ignoring other factors). Whites are accepted at a rate higher than the rate for the average applicant (data averaged over 4 years from 2007-2010).


Consider the following data:

Median Household income 2006
White $50,673
Black or African American $31,969

Conclusion 3: Being born Black increases your likelihood of experiencing poverty.

The lower your income the lower the quality of the school you attend. The lower the quality of the school you attend, the worse your test scores are on standardized tests.

Summary for Blacks with respect to medical school admissions:

1. Reduced chance of even applying
2. Reduced chance of acceptance
3. Reduced chance of acquiring a quality education
4. Reduced chance of performing well on standardized tests

Great "advantage" right?

When that little black girl with breathing problems steps into your future office with that single mother who is late because she had to take the bus across town to make the appointment, are you going to tell her how lucky her daughter is because they have such an "advantage" for getting into medical school?

How about the 11 y.o. that comes to the ED because he broke his arm riding around on his bicycle at 1am, accompanied by his diabetic grandmother who is taking care of him because his dad is in jail and his mom is on drugs? Are you going to tell him how lucky he is because he can get in to med school in a cinch?

I live in one of the roughest neighborhoods in Baltimore. My next door neighbor is getting evicted, the lady across the street died of Breast Cancer because she didn't have insurance to get it checked early and one neighborhood kid comes to hang with us because she is otherwise unsupervised by her grandmother. These are all the "lucky" URMs just licking their chops and rolling in interviews, acceptances and scholarships.

Your GPA and MCAT score are as much a measure of your privilege in life as the are your intellectual ability. They are measures of the environment you were raised in. If you were born in a different home your aspirations and results may have been different. They are not a complete measure of your intellectual ability or future success as a Physician.

Is it wrong for schools to look at some proxies for factors that may have contributed to these lower scores and consider them in the admissions process? I don't know the answer to that question... but I think it deserves some consideration.

Everything I've said here is a generalization. Difficult times and extenuating circumstances are not partial to any ethnicity although they are not proportionally distributed.

My $0.02.

I guess it was silly for me to think that no matter what race you are, you can still be poor and disadvantaged. I guess it ONLY applies to being black. How silly of me. :/

I think the main issue is income, not race. I think pre meds should be given an advantage based on their family income, not based on what race they are. Most of the African Americans and Latinos in my experience that get into medical school are those that come from middle/upper middle class families (their parents went to college, parents are doctors/lawyers/Phds). These are the minorities that are primarily getting the advantage, not the lower income African Americans and Latinos. I think the admissions process needs to pay more attention to the latter.

Originally Posted by Plue00

I guess it was silly for me to think that no matter what race you are, you can still be poor and disadvantaged. I guess it ONLY applies to being black. How silly of me. :/

That's not silly. What's silly is you probably read the first part and not the last.

Second to last statement:
"Everything I've said here is a generalization. Difficult times and extenuating circumstances are not partial to any ethnicity although they are not proportionally distributed."

The URM "advantage" is grossly overblown. "Everyone" thinks if you are URM all schools will open their arms to you. Frankly, I knew from some of my friends' experiences (blacks and Hispanics with 30+ MCAT scores) that it could be a challenge getting in as a URM/very late applicant, especially at the top schools.

Black doctors represent 3.5% of the entire physician population and they are produced primarily by schools like Howard, Meharry and Morehouse. If these schools didn't exist, the black physician proportion would be much much less than that. The proportion of black PhDs in the sciences is even worse.

There's a rumor that there's not even a black male in the MS1 and MS2 classes at Yale. A friend who interviewed there told me he didn't want to be the token black male so he went somewhere else.

I just laugh when people talk about the URM advantage. It's largely a myth.

Originally Posted by qtipp

That's not silly. What's silly is you probably read the first part and not the last.

Second to last statement:
"Everything I've said here is a generalization. Difficult times and extenuating circumstances are not partial to any ethnicity although they are not proportionally distributed."

Which supports the contention that family income/situation growing up should be considered, NOT race....

Originally Posted by qtipp

That's not silly. What's silly is you probably read the first part and not the last.

Second to last statement:
"Everything I've said here is a generalization. Difficult times and extenuating circumstances are not partial to any ethnicity although they are not proportionally distributed."

I actually did read all of it. What's the point of making this thread then? You're basically saying AA doesn't help URMs when it does. I know many people at my college who got in with much lower stats than average. Maybe that's the mentality that keeps black applicants from getting into medical schools. I've heard of many people at my college, including a close friend say that they can slack and get a 3.0 and still get into medical school. No, that's not going to work.

Or they get into a really good university with low grades/SATs and can't handle it so they get bad GPAs and ultimately don't get into medical school. You can blame AA for putting URMs that shouldn't be in some places.

Basically all of what you said goes against race based AA and supports income based AA.

Originally Posted by Plue00

I actually did read all of it. What's the point of making this thread then? You're basically saying AA doesn't help URMs when it does. I know many people at my college who got in with much lower stats than average. Maybe that's the mentality that keeps black applicants from getting into medical schools. I've heard of many people at my college, including a close friend say that they can slack and get a 3.0 and still get into medical school. No, that's not going to work.

Or they get into a really good university with low grades/SATs and can't handle it so they get bad GPAs and ultimately don't get into medical school. You can blame AA for putting URMs that shouldn't be in some places.

Basically all of what you said goes against race based AA and supports income based AA.

My Statement:
"Everything I've said here is a generalization. Difficult times and extenuating circumstances are not partial to any ethnicity although they are not proportionally distributed."

Data:
Median Household income 2006
White $50,673
Black or African American $31,969

Ethnicity is a proxy (you can argue poor or excellent) for income.

My point is not that there should be income based AA. My point was that there is no URM advantage.

Originally Posted by qtipp

My Statement:
"Everything I've said here is a generalization. Difficult times and extenuating circumstances are not partial to any ethnicity although they are not proportionally distributed."

Data:
Median Household income 2006
White $50,673
Black or African American $31,969

Ethnicity is a proxy (you can argue poor or excellent) for income.

My point is not that there should be income based AA. My point was that there is no URM advantage.

Why wouldn't you support income based AA? Basing it on race alone allows minorities who DIDN'T struggle growing up an advantage over non-minorities who DID struggle growing up, while income-based AA would target those who actually struggled growing up, of whatever race....

Originally Posted by theseeker4

Which supports the contention that family income/situation growing up should be considered, NOT race....

I agree that income should be a key factor. But to say that income and ethnicity are independent is not true.

Ethnicity is a proxy for income. The average black person makes less than the average white person. Are there poor white people? yes. Are there rich black people? yes.

There are proportionally more poor hispanics and blacks than there are whites so changing the metric may have a marginal effect on the outcome.

Originally Posted by rubisco88

I think the main issue is income, not race. I think pre meds should be given an advantage based on their family income, not based on what race they are. Most of the African Americans and Latinos in my experience that get into medical school are those that come from middle/upper middle class families (their parents went to college, parents are doctors/lawyers/Phds). These are the minorities that are primarily getting the advantage, not the lower income African Americans and Latinos. I think the admissions process needs to pay more attention to the latter.

Yes. I remember reading a story in the Duke newspaper about how they had managed to "improve" their minority representation over the years BUT during the same time interval their representation from poor families was FLAT. If the OP had the data to filter out the Blacks/Hispanics in medical school that were from middle class (or better) families, his conclusion would probably be that if you are poor, you will NOT be an MD.

Originally Posted by theseeker4

Why wouldn't you support income based AA? Basing it on race alone allows minorities who DIDN'T struggle growing up an advantage over non-minorities who DID struggle growing up, while income-based AA would target those who actually struggled growing up, of whatever race....

I do support income based AA.

Originally Posted by qtipp

I agree that income should be a key factor. But to say that income and ethnicity are independent is not true.

Ethnicity is a proxy for income. The average black person makes less than the average white person. Are there poor white people? yes. Are there rich black people? yes.

There are proportionally more poor hispanics and blacks than there are whites so changing the metric may have a marginal effect on the outcome.

Changing the metric would, for one thing, remove the impression some people have that a minority got into med school only because they are a minority. It would be used more by minorities than by non-minorities, obviously, which isn't a problem, but it wouldn't exclude those who are disadvantaged but not URM's. The point is that ethnicity is a proxy for income, but there is no reason it has to be. Remove the proxy and give an advantage to all of, and only, the students who did face greater challenges.

If you compare a system that uses race as a proxy for being disadvantaged vs a system that eliminates the proxy and just focuses on disadvantage, what is the reason to keep using the former instead of the latter?

Originally Posted by theseeker4

Why wouldn't you support income based AA? Basing it on race alone allows minorities who DIDN'T struggle growing up an advantage over non-minorities who DID struggle growing up, while income-based AA would target those who actually struggled growing up, of whatever race....

If economic disadvantage mattered as much as race I'd have gotten a handful of interviews. Even with the new disadvantaged section on AMCAS, I don't think anything has changed. I began the application process assuming it wouldn't help though, so it doesn't really bother me too much.

Originally Posted by qtipp

I do support income based AA.

In place of race-based AA? The "disadvantaged" classification in the AMCAS application is essentially income-based AA already, so there are really two systems of advantage, one based solely on race and one based solely on "disadvantage." I would argue removing the race-based AA makes sense...

Originally Posted by plumazul

Yes. I remember reading a story in the Duke newspaper about how they had managed to "improve" their minority representation over the years BUT during the same time interval their representation from poor families was FLAT. If the OP had the data to filter out the Blacks/Hispanics in medical school that were from middle class (or better) families, his conclusion would probably be that if you are poor, you will NOT be an MD.

That is very interesting, and if that study is well done, it would punch a huge hole in OP's argument that there is not a URM advantage.

Originally Posted by ppfizenm

Was that the episode where Cartman kept saying “gingers have no soul”??

Originally Posted by V5RED

That is very interesting, and if that study is well done, it would punch a huge hole in OP's argument that there is not a URM advantage.

Why don't you just look at the data?

A black applicant has less of a chance of getting accepted than a white applicant or an Asian applicant. Does that sound like there is an advantage?



The rate of acceptance is lower for blacks when compared with whites and Asians. The article is not going to change that fact. And if that fact is indeed a fact then there is no "advantage" to being black... there is a disadvantage.

It would also suggest that there is an advantage to being White.

"But if we filter!!!!!"

Sure! Filter out Meharry, Morehouse, Howard and the Peuerto Rican Schools and then look at the numbers again.

Originally Posted by plumazul

Was that the episode where Cartman kept saying “gingers have no soul”??

It was.

Also you can't say there isn't a URM advantage



compared to

Originally Posted by qtipp

Why don't you just look at the data?

A black applicant has less of a chance of getting accepted than a white applicant or an Asian applicant. Does that sound like there is an advantage?



The rate of acceptance is lower for blacks when compared with whites and Asians. The article is not going to change that fact. And if that fact is indeed a fact then there is no "advantage" to being black... there is a disadvantage.

It would also suggest that there is an advantage to being White.

"But if we filter!!!!!"

Sure! Filter out Meharry, Morehouse, Howard and the Peuerto Rican Schools and then look at the numbers again.

There is no overall advantage to get into medical school if you look at the entire population of AA's as a whole vs the entire population of whites as a whole. There IS an advantage if you look at two applicants with equal stats, one white and one black. If you want to twist the data any which way you can to be able to state "there is no advantage!!" go ahead, but if you want to compare applicants who are identical regarding everything but their race, there obviously is an advantage.

Originally Posted by V5RED

That is very interesting, and if that study is well done, it would punch a huge hole in OP's argument that there is not a URM advantage.

I found the story. I would guess that the data from medical schools across the nation are similar.

http://www.dukechronicle.com/article...ids-all-colors

Originally Posted by qtipp

Why don't you just look at the data?

A black applicant has less of a chance of getting accepted than a white applicant or an Asian applicant. Does that sound like there is an advantage?



The rate of acceptance is lower for blacks when compared with whites and Asians. The article is not going to change that fact. And if that fact is indeed a fact then there is no "advantage" to being black... there is a disadvantage.

It would also suggest that there is an advantage to being White.

"But if we filter!!!!!"

Sure! Filter out Meharry, Morehouse, Howard and the Peuerto Rican Schools and then look at the numbers again.

Your data ignores obvious important questions and is presented in an extremely unfair way in an attempt to prove a point rather than find the truth.

The truth seems to be that there is a huge URM advantage for URMs that are not poor. There also seems to be a huge disadvantage for people who are poor. What your data does not in any way prove is that URM's have a specific disadvantage over non URMs at an equal poverty level. You don't just get to ignore that gaping hole in your logic by saying that it isn't part of your argument,

Originally Posted by theseeker4

There is no overall advantage to get into medical school if you look at the entire population of AA's as a whole vs the entire population of whites as a whole. There IS an advantage if you look at two applicants with equal stats, one white and one black. If you want to twist the data any which way you can to be able to state "there is no advantage!!" go ahead, but if you want to compare applicants who are identical regarding everything but their race, there obviously is an advantage.

What does "with equal stats" mean? We KNOW that standardized tests are a predictor of family income. So does YOUR comparison demand two individuals from identical income levels?

Originally Posted by plumazul

What does "with equal stats" mean? We KNOW that standardized tests are a predictor of family income. So does YOUR comparison demand two individuals from identical income levels?

I meant essentially equal in all ways except race. A system that gave an advantage to all applicants who grew up in a particular environment (such as income level, failing schools, etc.) and ignored race would be a much better system than the current one, which puts the minority from a millionaire family on the same level as a minority from a broken, destitute home in the poorest neighborhood of a poor city, while putting at a disadvantage the non-minority who grew up poor, with a broken family, in a failing school, etc.

Originally Posted by theseeker4

I meant essentially equal in all ways except race. A system that gave an advantage to all applicants who grew up in a particular environment (such as income level, failing schools, etc.) and ignored race would be a much better system than the current one, which puts the minority from a millionaire family on the same level as a minority from a broken, destitute home in the poorest neighborhood of a poor city, while putting at a disadvantage the non-minority who grew up poor, with a broken family, in a failing school, etc.

While I totally agree with the need to consider true hardship, the problem is that would be very difficult to do. We don't have the resources in place to do it properly. People will game the system if it were based solely on income. I have seen it done. (students driving luxury cars while getting Pell grants) Being Latino or Black is a reasonable proxy for being disadvantaged. I think we can and should do a better job of sifting out only those that are truly disadvantaged.

Originally Posted by theseeker4

There is no overall advantage to get into medical school if you look at the entire population of AA's as a whole vs the entire population of whites as a whole. There IS an advantage if you look at two applicants with equal stats, one white and one black. If you want to twist the data any which way you can to be able to state "there is no advantage!!" go ahead, but if you want to compare applicants who are identical regarding everything but their race, there obviously is an advantage.

Where is this mythical identical candidate? Similar GPA/MCAT does not equal same level of qualification.

By tying the lower URM acceptance rates to income levels, the OP left him/herself open to the class-based objection. Income-based AA is a tired argument repeatedly touted in this forum as a "sensible" middle ground, while ignoring the institutional barriers to implementing such a policy as the sole mechanism of promoting "fairness" in admissions. (Guess which rich donors will mutiny upon finding their kid stands a lower chance of admission on the basis of their wealth; guess which families will dramatically restructure their income so as to maximize their child's chances of admission?) At any rate, there's already a box for "disadvantaged"; check it if it applies to you.

While income certainly plays a part in it, there are many other systematic barriers faced by URM students throughout their lives that are not faced by other races on a population-wide basis. Race does matter in America, not just in economic terms, and one can't wish away reality just because things "ought to be" a certain way.

Part of the discouragement felt by URMs in the sciences is driven by the sense of isolation that is felt by being so overwhelmingly outnumbered in science classes, with nary a URM professor in sight. When there's hardly anyone like you in a profession, it's easy to conclude you're not cut out for it based on what are ultimately small setbacks. If we agree it's important to work to fix the racial disparities in science and medicine leadership, you have to start somewhere. Might as well start at a place where there's enough institutional flexibility to make it happen (unlike, say, our nation's grade schools).

So, yes, it's harder to get into medical school if you're URM. It's harder in life, even for those uppity middle class URM folks everyone loves to get so worked up about. We're only talking about, what, ~12% of a typical medical school class? People, URMs are not taking "your spot".

Originally Posted by ppfizenm

It was.

Also you can't say there isn't a URM advantage

*Fancy graphs*

I'm glad you posted this so I wouldn't have to go on a google adventure trying to find something similar. I'm honestly for AA in medical schools to an extent; we do need more black doctors if anything to help inspire more African American children to aspire to be more academically successful. I'm glad in Detroit there are programs where successful black people in various fields organize events and act as leaders to expose and inspire children who otherwise would be severely lacking in role models. I'll also say that I tow the party line that diversity of experience is very important. I really had no idea how hard some of the kids in Detroit actually had it trying to get through high school with a diploma, let alone getting through college and going to a grad program, had I not had students who survived the Detroit public education system in my classes in undergrad.

edit*
I'm also for income based considerations on medical school admissions as well other mitigating circumstances that make it difficult to succeed. In the end, as long as you're smart enough to get through medical school, I think work ethic, ethics, charisma, and character trump a much higher intellect in terms of making an effective doctor.

Originally Posted by Chrome19

There's a rumor that there's not even a black male in the MS1 and MS2 classes at Yale. A friend who interviewed there told me he didn't want to be the token black male so he went somewhere else.

FALSE. Black friend got into MS1 Yale last year. He even has a sweet afro.

Originally Posted by akwho

FALSE. Black friend got into MS1 Yale last year. He even has a sweet afro.

lol
according to the msar, there's 2

Originally Posted by eHombre

We're only talking about, what, ~12% of a typical medical school class? People, URMs are not taking "your spot".

Just to follow up on this point, when I said "typical medical school class" I meant I was excluding Puerto Rican medical schools and historically black medical schools, since clearly no one is worried about the "URM advantage" at those schools.

If you exclude the Puerto Rican schools' enrollment, you end up with 7.0% Latino total enrollment in US medical schools. If you exclude the historically black schools, you end up with 5.9% black total enrollment, according to the AAMC data.

Originally Posted by plumazul

While I totally agree with the need to consider true hardship, the problem is that would be very difficult to do. We don't have the resources in place to do it properly. People will game the system if it were based solely on income. I have seen it done. (students driving luxury cars while getting Pell grants)

Originally Posted by eHombre

(Guess which rich donors will mutiny upon finding their kid stands a lower chance of admission on the basis of their wealth; guess which families will dramatically restructure their income so as to maximize their child's chances of admission?) At any rate, there's already a box for "disadvantaged"; check it if it applies to you.

Part of the discouragement felt by URMs in the sciences is driven by the sense of isolation that is felt by being so overwhelmingly outnumbered in science classes, with nary a URM professor in sight. When there's hardly anyone like you in a profession, it's easy to conclude you're not cut out for it based on what are ultimately small setbacks. If we agree it's important to work to fix the racial disparities in science and medicine leadership, you have to start somewhere. Might as well start at a place where there's enough institutional flexibility to make it happen (unlike, say, our nation's grade schools).

So, yes, it's harder to get into medical school if you're URM. It's harder in life, even for those uppity middle class URM folks everyone loves to get so worked up about. We're only talking about, what, ~12% of a typical medical school class? People, URMs are not taking "your spot".

1) I got news for you. People game the URM based system too. I have a close friend who is as "white" as they come, but one of his grandparents had some hispanic blood so he got to check that box. He only had decent stats/ECs, but got into a several top schools. In fact there have been studies done that show that, systematically, people reclassify themselves when it comes time to apply to programs with affirmative action. Re: donors, many of them are old, white, rich people whose children benefit from neither raced based nor income based AA.

2) Please drop the pop psychology. Maybe some do feel discouragement, but maybe others feel that they are really bright and motivated because they have made it "despite" being URM.

3) Also drop these references to how small of a percentage it is. If it's so small then why do you care if there's URM-based AA? You can't have this argument apply to only one side of the debate.

Originally Posted by sibitrum

1) I got news for you. People game the URM based system too. I have a close friend who is as "white" as they come, but one of his grandparents had some hispanic blood so he got to check that box. He only had decent stats/ECs, but got into a several top schools. In fact there have been studies done that show that, systematically, people reclassify themselves when it comes time to apply to programs with affirmative action. Re: donors, many of them are old, white, rich people whose children benefit from neither raced based nor income based AA.

2) Please drop the pop psychology. Maybe some do feel discouragement, but maybe others feel that they are really bright and motivated because they have made it "despite" being URM.

3) Also drop these references to how small of a percentage it is. If it's so small then why do you care if there's URM-based AA? You can't have this argument apply to only one side of the debate.

1) Just checking the box doesn't get you URM consideration. You have to back it up through your diversity of experience and at your interview where you can speak confidently about your unique experiences as a URM.

2) You may call it pop psychology; I'll just say that people publish studies upon studies about this real phenomenon. Try Pubmed. Here's a sample:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17264692

3) It's a small percentage, and it'd likely be even smaller were it not for AA policies. That's the point.

Originally Posted by akwho

FALSE. Black friend got into MS1 Yale last year. He even has a sweet afro.

I said "rumor". Maybe it's a false rumor. But overall, my point was that the numbers are pretty low.

Originally Posted by eHombre

1) Just checking the box doesn't get you URM consideration. You have to back it up through your diversity of experience and at your interview where you can speak confidently about your unique experiences as a URM.

2) You may call it pop psychology; I'll just say that people publish studies upon studies about this real phenomenon. Try Pubmed. Here's a sample:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17264692

3) It's a small percentage, and it'd likely be even smaller were it not for AA policies. That's the point.

In regards to item #1: Why wouldn't the same apply to students who apply for income-based URM status?

I get that URMs may experience a unique palette of setbacks by virtue of their race (and irrespective of income) that may stymie them in their path to medicine, but so do people with chronic disabilities, people of various sexual orientations, and people from broken homes. I don't think it's fair to isolate race as the ONLY extenuating factor unless it is demonstrably the most important, and while detailed (public) data of applicants' financial backgrounds is lacking, I'm willing to bet that students from families below the poverty line are more more underrepresented than are members of any particular ethnic group.

Yes, there may be some issues with implementation of an income-based AA system, but as has been mentioned, exploitation is not absent from the present system. Furthermore, I don't think potential for abuse should preclude the offering of opportunities to those who need/deserve it.

Originally Posted by Plue00

I guess it was silly for me to think that no matter what race you are, you can still be poor and disadvantaged. I guess it ONLY applies to being black. How silly of me. :/

LOL the first time I saw the original post was on my phone when nobody had replied. Instantly I knew there would be a white guying saying "uhhh... whites can be poor too. Coincidentally, I'm not but still thing you minorities have it easy." Thanks proving it, Plue.

Originally Posted by TriagePreMed

LOL the first time I saw the original post was on my phone when nobody had replied. Instantly I knew there would be a white guying saying "uhhh... whites can be poor too. Coincidentally, I'm not but still thing you minorities have it easy." Thanks proving it, Plue.

Yep, because (s)he definitely said (s)he is white and filthy rich.

Originally Posted by V5RED

Your data ignores obvious important questions and is presented in an extremely unfair way in an attempt to prove a point rather than find the truth.

The truth seems to be that there is a huge URM advantage for URMs that are not poor. There also seems to be a huge disadvantage for people who are poor. What your data does not in any way prove is that URM's have a specific disadvantage over non URMs at an equal poverty level. You don't just get to ignore that gaping hole in your logic by saying that it isn't part of your argument,

Yes, it's a super advantage because if you're a rich black and walk into a kkk meeting you're less likely to be called a racial slur. Oh that's not your argument? Your argument is that you have mostly rich blacks applying? Well, since it's so easy to be black and be rich, black people should just get rich, right? What next, suggest it's as easy as bouncing a ball or talking really fast to a beat in the background?

I'm going to bet you're a suburban kid thinking your opinion has baring on reality. Guess what? It doesn't.

In all fairness, sure, some people may get lucky the same way white people get lucky by their skin color alone to have greater advantages, but you know what those minorities who get lucky are? Exceptions, not the rule.

Originally Posted by eHombre

Where is this mythical identical candidate? Similar GPA/MCAT does not equal same level of qualification.

By tying the lower URM acceptance rates to income levels, the OP left him/herself open to the class-based objection. Income-based AA is a tired argument repeatedly touted in this forum as a "sensible" middle ground, while ignoring the institutional barriers to implementing such a policy as the sole mechanism of promoting "fairness" in admissions. (Guess which rich donors will mutiny upon finding their kid stands a lower chance of admission on the basis of their wealth; guess which families will dramatically restructure their income so as to maximize their child's chances of admission?) At any rate, there's already a box for "disadvantaged"; check it if it applies to you.

While income certainly plays a part in it, there are many other systematic barriers faced by URM students throughout their lives that are not faced by other races on a population-wide basis. Race does matter in America, not just in economic terms, and one can't wish away reality just because things "ought to be" a certain way.

Part of the discouragement felt by URMs in the sciences is driven by the sense of isolation that is felt by being so overwhelmingly outnumbered in science classes, with nary a URM professor in sight. When there's hardly anyone like you in a profession, it's easy to conclude you're not cut out for it based on what are ultimately small setbacks. If we agree it's important to work to fix the racial disparities in science and medicine leadership, you have to start somewhere. Might as well start at a place where there's enough institutional flexibility to make it happen (unlike, say, our nation's grade schools).

So, yes, it's harder to get into medical school if you're URM. It's harder in life, even for those uppity middle class URM folks everyone loves to get so worked up about. We're only talking about, what, ~12% of a typical medical school class? People, URMs are not taking "your spot".

Originally Posted by eHombre

1) Just checking the box doesn't get you URM consideration. You have to back it up through your diversity of experience and at your interview where you can speak confidently about your unique experiences as a URM.

Except it's not true. Like I said before, I know people who have gone through the process without mentioning URM experiences/ECs, and still get credit for it. As long as adcoms can meet their quotas and pay tribute to literally skin-deep diversity, then they're set.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17264692

Sorry, but that study is pretty useless. It relies on self-reports. We're talking about outcomes, not what people say in a very specific group discussion environment.

IMHO, while statistically some minority groups are less likely to have higher gpa/mcat, I think that we can all agree that this correlates with a greater statistical likelihood of other factors being present (economic hardship, etc.) than with somebodies racial identity. Correcting for race is a classic example for correlation without causation.

So while it may be more difficult, we need to find a way to correct for these factors rather than somebodies skin color. There are surely ways to do it and have checks to prevent most people from gaming the system. Since these factors correlate with race already, taking them into account will serve the same effect as directly taking race into account.

For example, my skin being white was not what allowed me to take an expensive MCAT course. It was my middle class upbringing and the fact that my parents could afford to loan me the money. The fact that I have access to this money should be taken into account against me, not my skin color.

It is not disputable medical schools will give you an extra look or even literal extra points in their ranking system based on your race, this fact is well documented.

If we want to move toward racial equality then I think we should move away from a system that accounts for the color of your skin over the circumstances of your life.

I'm done with my rant now.

Originally Posted by app1

For example, my skin being white was not what allowed me to take an expensive MCAT course. It was my middle class upbringing and the fact that my parents could afford to loan me the money. The fact that I have access to this money should be taken into account against me, not my skin color.

But the fact that you are middle-class is likely a function of your being white. In this country's history there have been many cases where white people were favored, while others were actively screwed. For example, when black soldiers returned from WWII, they (like everyone else) were allowed to pay for their educations under the GI Bill. However, colleges did not accept blacks (or Jews, for that matter) so these guys weren't able to participate fully in the post-war economy. These black people weren't allowed to amass real estate and other sources of wealth that whites were able to accumulate and pass on to subsequent generations of white people. The offspring of these two groups fared accordingly.

Classism and racism are two interrelated, but separate issues. The Black people weren't denied admission into college because they were poor, but because they were black.

Affirmative action is an attempt to correct disparities by acknowledging the sources are racial. Yes, some middle- and middle-upper-class minorities will get a second look when applying medical school. This still accomplishes the goal of correcting the existing racial inequality.

As a URM who had quite a bit of success on the interview trail and garnering acceptances I will chime in.


I went on over 10 interviews. My interview spanned from early August to late January. I interviewed at top schools and schools that were un-ranked. What I saw blew my mind. In total I saw 5 black males during the whole interview experience. This really let me know that URM advantage is not as wide spread or taken advantage of as some posters cry on SDN. In addition, an income based system would be too easily rigged. I have plenty of friends who parents make over 100k but have an EFC of 0. Like the OP said race is a proxy and like a proxy it is destined to be unreliable at times. However, looking at the statistics it far more reliable then using income that people can twist and manipulate with a good accountant or fraud. AAMC does have not time to see if everything lines up when it comes to income. For example, to see how income-based would destroy diversity look at programs like JAMP, where 85-95% of the participants are Indian or Asian descent. The program will erected in Texas to help with diversity. It appears to have done the opposite. Furthermore, I have a friend who is URM who went Yale for undergrad and had spectacular stats that did not get an interview at some top schools. It is more than the skin color guys they really take in account the life story to see if it in itself offers diversity.

Originally Posted by eHombre

While income certainly plays a part in it, there are many other systematic barriers faced by URM students throughout their lives that are not faced by other races on a population-wide basis. Race does matter in America, not just in economic terms, and one can't wish away reality just because things "ought to be" a certain way.

Part of the discouragement felt by URMs in the sciences is driven by the sense of isolation that is felt by being so overwhelmingly outnumbered in science classes, with nary a URM professor in sight. When there's hardly anyone like you in a profession, it's easy to conclude you're not cut out for it based on what are ultimately small setbacks. If we agree it's important to work to fix the racial disparities in science and medicine leadership, you have to start somewhere. Might as well start at a place where there's enough institutional flexibility to make it happen (unlike, say, our nation's grade schools).

".

Absolutely. It is not simply money. One of the main things that can keep a black/hispanic person from going to med school is the feeling that it is a not a feasibility for you. I am 29 years old, and just recently went to the first black doctor I've ever had in my life. That is just sad.

And now that I am starting med school in August, I'm taking a look at the facebook group that's been started and so far there are about 90 people on there, and the only black people are me and one other guy. Is that isolating? Absolutely it is. So let's even say that maybe extremely qualified URM's get a bump. But when you look at the number of us in med school and practicing, the numbers are so ridiculously low how can you complain about it?

How bout you just step up your game and get in on your merits? Because I have never actually met or seen this so called URM who does not deserve to be there. What I have met are rich white kids who have every advantage in life (private MCAT classes, private tutors, daddy who's a doctor at the school they apply to) who get in when they aren't even that smart.

First of all I'm Caucasian just in case someone is wondering. Second of all half the people commenting in here are making dumb comments. URM is all about producing Physicians that can represent certain races and interact with them. When I'm volunteering at the hospital many African American patients want to be treated by African American physicians, they feel more comfortable and some absolutely refuse to see anyone else. AAMC and medical schools are fully aware of the fact that they need to produce physicians from every race not just dominantly whites and asians.

For the ones saying that economical status is better than a race let me remind you something:-

The U.S population has approximately 196,817,552 Caucasians (Non-Hispanic decent) and out of them 9.9 % are in poverty of "ecominically disadvantaged". That means approximately 20 million whites are economically disadvantaged.

The U.S population has approximately 37,685,848 African Americans (Non-Hispanic decent) and out of them 27.4 % are impoverished. That means approximately 10 million African Americans are economically disadvantaged.

Now can you tell me how medical schools will increase "diversity" in an already over represented profession when they will be relying on "economically disadvantaged" individuals when the numbers of one race simply overwhelm the other?

Guys please read why AAMC and medical schools are utilizing "URM" status. Some of the people here just talk but refuse to understand the problem that patients want to and feel more comfortable with individuals of the same race. Sure call the patients racist whatever but in the end of the day the ratio of Cauciasian Physician to Caucasian patients is much greater compared to the ratio of African american physicians to African American patients. The belief of some that it should be based on econimical status acheives NO diversity in the healthcare profession. Oh by the way let's not forget that African Americans faced slavery for over a CENTURY not a month, not a year, not a decade BUT A CENTURY. How could we possibly be complaining about why African Americans get a very minute advantage through URM status? please try being a slave for a year tell me how it feels, surely it will impact you, your family and many generations to come. Why the hell else would we have such huge economical and health disparities in the great land of the "free".

I don't have an opinion regarding this post, but I am curious about yall's income proposal. How would fluctuating incomes work? Say your family was super rich until you were 5, when your dad was caught running an international drug cartel. Maybe you were really poor until your mom drank some really hot coffee and won a million dollar lawsuit while you were in middle school. Just curious.

To say nothing of the fact that anyone can be disadvantaged, regardless of race, the thing that's wrong with the system is that, in general, it's helping minorities who already come from middle class families. The kids that grew up with an alcoholic single mother in the slums....chances are they dropped out of high school. Attempting to balance the field at the admissions stage is a futile attempt.

Originally Posted by SoonerFromTexas

I don't have an opinion regarding this post, but I am curious about yall's income proposal. How would fluctuating incomes work? Say your family was super rich until you were 5, when your dad was caught running an international drug cartel. Maybe you were really poor until your mom drank some really hot coffee and won a million dollar lawsuit while you were in middle school. Just curious.

Exactly the income proposal is a joke yet so many SDN users tend to use it.

Originally Posted by akwho

FALSE. Black friend got into MS1 Yale last year. He even has a sweet afro.

Originally Posted by kpcrew2oo2

lol
according to the msar, there's 2

Dang the MSAR now has stats on # of afros per class? I need to get that version before I commit to a school

Originally Posted by eHombre

Where is this mythical identical candidate? Similar GPA/MCAT does not equal same level of qualification.

By tying the lower URM acceptance rates to income levels, the OP left him/herself open to the class-based objection. Income-based AA is a tired argument repeatedly touted in this forum as a "sensible" middle ground, while ignoring the institutional barriers to implementing such a policy as the sole mechanism of promoting "fairness" in admissions. (Guess which rich donors will mutiny upon finding their kid stands a lower chance of admission on the basis of their wealth; guess which families will dramatically restructure their income so as to maximize their child's chances of admission?) At any rate, there's already a box for "disadvantaged"; check it if it applies to you.

While income certainly plays a part in it, there are many other systematic barriers faced by URM students throughout their lives that are not faced by other races on a population-wide basis. Race does matter in America, not just in economic terms, and one can't wish away reality just because things "ought to be" a certain way.

Part of the discouragement felt by URMs in the sciences is driven by the sense of isolation that is felt by being so overwhelmingly outnumbered in science classes, with nary a URM professor in sight. When there's hardly anyone like you in a profession, it's easy to conclude you're not cut out for it based on what are ultimately small setbacks. If we agree it's important to work to fix the racial disparities in science and medicine leadership, you have to start somewhere. Might as well start at a place where there's enough institutional flexibility to make it happen (unlike, say, our nation's grade schools).

So, yes, it's harder to get into medical school if you're URM. It's harder in life, even for those uppity middle class URM folks everyone loves to get so worked up about. We're only talking about, what, ~12% of a typical medical school class? People, URMs are not taking "your spot".

I generally agree with the reasons why URM should get advantages, how they face more disadvantages in life, and why diversity is a good thing. However, I think what rubs people the wrong way is not that URMs are stealing people spots, it's that URMs with lower stats have a higher historical acceptance rate than White/Asians with similarly low stats (see the fancy graphs posted earlier).

It's just frustrating as a medical school applicant to work really hard for your MCAT and GPA, be proud of it, and see someone with lower stats (and prob equivalent ECs?) gain admission to equal/better schools than you (though, actually, I'm not sure this last part about equal/better schools is true. The graph generalizes for all school acceptances. however, I do think that impression is the reason for the anger).

Another thing I've noticed: I don't disagree with the claim that blacks (I only saw stats for that URM here) have a lower acceptance rate and a disadvantage compared to whites/asiasn. However, keep in mind that the entire applicant pool has a lower average GPA/MCAT score, which would predict lower acceptance rates. I think the idea is that their acceptance rates would be even lower, and it would be even harder for them, if there wasn't the URM advantage. Thus, currently it is easier for them to get into medical school than if there wasn't the URM advantage. AKA their acceptance rates based on stats is inflated, thus "easier" for their given stats. I think this is what people really mean when they say it's easier? Maybe? (maybe not?)

It's even more annoying when you hear stores about the undeserving, lazy, pre-med who seems to have been accepted purely based on their URM status. These are the exception to the rule, but of course these are the stories most easily remembered. I have one of my own, where a girl reapplied saying she was of African American descent when she was really really really white, and got in. And that was the only thing she changed about her application apparently. Still, exception to the rule. I know. But it's still annoying.