Anti-URM sentiment on preAllo

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
I think you're projecting. No where in their comment was it implied that you have an obligation to "prop up African-Americans" (whatever the hell that means). They were suggesting reading up on one of the thousands of books and articles and studies on racial disparities in health care because they exist. They weren't saying only African-Americans experience racial disparities in health care - it just so happened that the example he gave was an extreme disparity for black patients.

Anyway, you're very right that Asian-Americans have very little visibility/representation in politics and business, but if you're so upset that it's an issue that no one's paying attention to, then start talking about it. But you don't have to tear down one minority group's issue to spread awareness to your own. It's called solidarity.
Projecting? I'm not the one looking for an admissions hand-out because of x, y and z problems in my racial group. And that's exactly what he's doing- he's lecturing me on Black issues that he assumes I have a responsibility for over other social issues. I'm using the Asian experience to show him how absurd what he says seems from the other side. And affirmative action is an obvious iteration of the same theme: in many areas Asian-Americans have to work harder with smaller returns. If you want to make Affirmative Action about "fairness" than consider all sides.

Members don't see this ad.
 
Last edited:
As a minority (albeit not an "underrepresented" one) whose ancestry to this country dates back to only 1992, why do you think it's my responsibility to prop up African-Americans - SPECIFICALLY? I may as well tell you to read about the "bamboo ceiling" phenomenon or Asian-American's low political access and political representation. When factoring education and experience which US minority group typically has the lowest representation in leadership positions in both government and business? And how often have you heard anyone care?

Dude, craziest thing is the person I was talking about in my initial scenario is an Asian-American who had this exact same mentality at age 18. Feeling that they were being discriminated against because of coming from East Asia and having educated parents. As I said before they grew out of it after realizing the truth for other minorities in this country and the privilege that they held with the "model minority" stereotype (as horrible and racist as the stereotype is - it's still privilege, I believe I heard an Asian-American activist call it "conditional white privilege") as opposed to being "problem" minorities like blacks and Latinos are portrayed.

You will grow out of it or you will remain bitter. It's your choice man - but I can tell you that at most top medical schools - those sentiments don't exist, even if some students used to hold them. They learned and grew as people. It's called maturing and it's something medical schools look for in their students.

Try to step away and consider the issue from a third party perspective. Use empathy and put yourself in other people's shoes and think about it.

Oh and as far as issues with Asian representation I can tell you that my Asian-American classmates and many of my Black and Latino classmates discuss the lack of visibility of Asians in the media and politics regularly. We actually just had a class-wide showing of the first episode of "Fresh Off the Boat" :) and there was a good mix of people who attended it
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
Why is this even a conversation? Everyone knows that the most qualified person should get the job/seat. Of all professions medicine is a field where ability/intellect should always be put before something as arbitrary as skin color. AA has without doubt indirectly caused patients harm and suffering just in the name of "diversity" but of course people who gain an advantage by being a urm will never admit to this since they know they could not compete if the playing field was level.

I would argue that more patients were indirectly hurt through admission of underqualified legacy students to medical school than URM.

Know what the best part is? Neither of us have data to prove our points so it's all anecdotal and not useful in the context of a logic based argument.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7 users
Members don't see this ad :)
No one is given the choice whether they want to be born man/woman/African/Asian/wealthy/poor/disabled/ablebodied etc etc blah blah blah, but the reality is that our opportunities and experiences are shaped by our identities. So there will always be tension when a person is judged for something he/she has no control over--his/her basic identity. Race plays a role in med school admissions--so does being a legacy, being from a wealthy family, etc. I think some people become upset with affirmative action when they have worked very hard and are denied admission and have encountered URM individuals with very similar or "lower" stats that are accepted. Bitterness does no good, however, and I think it best to avoid lumping oneself and other people into groups.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Some of us speak out about the issue because discrimination by thw government is wrong, even if you think it is well intentioned
I have a feeling the only discrimination that you "speak out about" is this one that doesn't benefit you. I'm sure you're more than silent or at least passive about the much more serious forms of discrimination and oppression, but that's alright. I'll let you pretend that you're all for equality and fairness :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I have a feeling the only discrimination that you "speak out about" is this one that doesn't benefit you. I'm sure you're more than silent or at least passive about the much more serious forms of discrimination and oppression, but that's alright. I'll let you pretend that you're all for equality and fairness :)

Either refute my actual points or admit that the best you have is a "shoot the messenger" ad hominem logical fallacy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Dude, craziest thing is the person I was talking about in my initial scenario is an Asian-American who had this exact same mentality at age 18. Feeling that they were being discriminated against because of coming from East Asia and having educated parents. As I said before they grew out of it after realizing the truth for other minorities in this country and the privilege that they held with the "model minority" stereotype (as horrible and racist as the stereotype is - it's still privilege, I believe I heard an Asian-American activist call it "conditional white privilege") as opposed to being "problem" minorities like blacks and Latinos are portrayed.

You will grow out of it or you will remain bitter. It's your choice man - but I can tell you that at most top medical schools - those sentiments don't exist, even if some students used to hold them. They learned and grew as people. It's called maturing and it's something medical schools look for in their students.

Try to step away and consider the issue from a third party perspective. Use empathy and put yourself in other people's shoes and think about it.

Oh and as far as issues with Asian representation I can tell you that my Asian-American classmates and many of my Black and Latino classmates discuss the lack of visibility of Asians in the media and politics regularly. We actually just had a class-wide showing of the first episode of "Fresh Off the Boat" :) and there was a good mix of people who attended it
That's fine. But liking "Fresh of the Boat" does not undo the problems Affirmative-Action does to Asian-Americans.

Sorry to disappoint you- but I'm unlikely to change my opinion on AA (affirmative action). It's not a matter of "growing" more. And you are downright wrong if you think it's commonplace for pre-meds to do a 180 on affirmative action post-medical school acceptance. They just don't voice their opposition as much since it no longer affects them directly. And this is going to sound harsh and be upsetting to some of you: but many doctors do have an automatic negative perception of black med students and even sometimes black residents due to questions about competency given AA.
 
Well, from what I have seen the people who matter understand the issue. And as long as people are not voicing their ignorance that is fine as well.

Edit: And no it does not sound harsh. If someone wants to have an automatic negative perception of African American medical students or residents(Prejudice) that is just a poor reflection on them.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 10 users
Either refute my actual points or admit that the best you have is a "shoot the messenger" ad hominem logical fallacy.
Your only point was that the government should not discriminate even for a positive (and necessary) reason. But I just fundamentally disagree with you. I dont see the government implementing policies that atone for state sanctioned oppression of minority groups as a discrimination that needs to be stopped.

So I guess we'll always just disagree about that *shrugs*
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
That's fine. But liking "Fresh of the Boat" does not undo the problems Affirmative-Action does to Asian-Americans.

Sorry to disappoint you- but I'm unlikely to change my opinion on AA (affirmative action). It's not a matter of "growing" more. And you are downright wrong if you think it's commonplace for pre-meds to do a 180 on affirmative action post-medical school acceptance. They just don't voice their opposition as much since it no longer affects them directly. And this is going to sound harsh and be upsetting to some of you: but many doctors do have an automatic negative perception of black med students and even sometimes black residents due to questions about competency given AA.

You're right. People probably don't change their minds on AA after medical school admission but I think a lot of medical schools do a damn good job of picking out the people who are accepting and proponents of diversity and giving those students acceptance over other students who obviously are against it.

And your last statement is so ridiculous it's laughable. I'm at a top school and almost all of my URM classmates went to top universities and have been accepted wholeheartedly by the physicians here. I have friends doing summer research with high powered cardiologists, plastic surgeons, and global health researchers and they have NO issues with their skin color. They welcomed them with open arms because they have seen that every student that's been admitted to my school, regardless of skin color, are incredibly effective and hard workers.

They trust the admissions office to do their jobs and the professors to do theirs and the students in the school to reflect that.

It's probably more likely that a physician would look down on any student from a no name school compared to someone from a top 10 before they'd look down on a minority.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
That's fine. But liking "Fresh of the Boat" does not undo the problems Affirmative-Action does to Asian-Americans.

Sorry to disappoint you- but I'm unlikely to change my opinion on AA (affirmative action). It's not a matter of "growing" more. And you are downright wrong if you think it's commonplace for pre-meds to do a 180 on affirmative action post-medical school acceptance. They just don't voice their opposition as much since it no longer affects them directly. And this is going to sound harsh and be upsetting to some of you: but many doctors do have an automatic negative perception of black med students and even sometimes black residents due to questions about competency given AA.

Tell us something we don't know.

Also why is URM always negatively associated with black? Several other groups fit under the label of URM but it's always the black applicants singled out, I've noticed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7 users
You're right. People probably don't change their minds on AA after medical school admission but I think a lot of medical schools do a damn good job of picking out the people who are accepting and proponents of diversity and giving those students acceptance over other students who obviously are against it.

And your last statement is so ridiculous it's laughable. I'm at a top school and almost all of my URM classmates went to top universities and have been accepted wholeheartedly by the physicians here. I have friends doing summer research with high powered cardiologists, plastic surgeons, and global health researchers and they have NO issues with their skin color. They welcomed them with open arms because they have seen that every student that's been admitted to my school, regardless of skin color, are incredibly effective and hard workers.

They trust the admissions office to do their jobs and the professors to do theirs and the students in the school to reflect that.

It's probably more likely that a physician would look down on any student from a no name school compared to someone from a top 10 before they'd look down on a minority.
No no - not skin color, not minority - but someone who is the product of affirmative action. Because affirmative action in medicine is probably the largest kind there is.
 
No no - not skin color, not minority - but someone who is the product of affirmative action. Because affirmative action in medicine is probably the largest kind there is.

I don't think you understand the difference between affirmative action and URM.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Members don't see this ad :)
That's fine. But liking "Fresh of the Boat" does not undo the problems Affirmative-Action does to Asian-Americans.

Sorry to disappoint you- but I'm unlikely to change my opinion on AA (affirmative action). It's not a matter of "growing" more. And you are downright wrong if you think it's commonplace for pre-meds to do a 180 on affirmative action post-medical school acceptance. They just don't voice their opposition as much since it no longer affects them directly. And this is going to sound harsh and be upsetting to some of you: but many doctors do have an automatic negative perception of black med students and even sometimes black residents due to questions about competency given AA.

That's not a surprise and it's not upsetting/harsh (maybe to a child with no life experience). Lol most likely if someone is a minority he/she is very aware of negative preconceived notions, involving his/her race. This is especially true for African Americans. In all areas of my life from personal, to work, to school- people have automatically judged me. And have openly voiced their opinions - their ignorance. It seems as if a lot of people have a negative perception of just black people and other minorities in general. Do not make this only relevant to medical school, or to doctors. You're very delusional...get help. Imagine someone like you in a position to hire, or accept someone into med school without AA. Most likely he/she would never meet your expectations. Oh wait, there has been a time without AA and there has been plenty of people like you. And unfortunately there still are. You sound extremely racist and insane. It sucks people like you exist in our society. I know a lot of people "like you" of all ages and there is a high chance you will not change. :( Sorry to disappoint you, I'm pretty sure you really wanted to change. Your thoughts are disgusting and you are downright wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Your only point was that the government should not discriminate even for a positive (and necessary) reason. But I just fundamentally disagree with you. I dont see the government implementing policies that atone for state sanctioned oppression of minority groups as a discrimination that needs to be stopped.

So I guess we'll always just disagree about that *shrugs*

There you go, that's much more productive than personal slights. Let me just clarify, you are saying that you think racial discrimination is morally just, as long it's being done as atonement for other racial discrimination?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Have you ever been watching a television show/movie or reading a book and a character does something so embarrassing that you feel embarrassed as well. Everything Freemontie writes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Have you ever been watching a television show/movie or reading a book and a character does something so embarrassing that you feel embarrassed as well. Everything Freemontie writes.
I'd prefer not to delve to personal attacks. But that's been par for the course with you in the past.
 
There you go, that's much more productive than personal slights. Let me just clarify, you are saying that you think racial discrimination is morally just, as long it's being done as atonement for other racial discrimination?

It is not racial discrimination to prefer certain individuals who will bring diversity to a school, and it is not just race based(everyone ignores this for some reason). At OHSU for example diversity(one of their mission groups) included people who grew up in a rural environment(they told us this at interview day). The only way to get an interview there is to be part of a mission group, and so people who grew up in a rural environment, as well as other diversity applicants get an advantage, where others have to have a 32/3.7 or fit one of the other mission groups, one of which is simply being an Oregon resident. No one seems to care that state schools "lower the bar of admissions" for their residents though. I do not like to call people racist, but it really is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
It is not racial discrimination to prefer certain individuals who will bring diversity to a school, and it is not just race based(everyone ignores this for some reason). At OHSU for example diversity(one of their mission groups) included people who grew up in a rural environment(they told us this at interview day). The only way to get an interview there is to be part of a mission group, and so people who grew up in a rural environment, as well as other diversity applicants get an advantage, where others have to have a 32/3.7 or fit one of the other mission groups, one of which is simply being an Oregon resident. No one seems to care that state schools "lower the bar of admissions" for their residents though. I do not like to call people racist, but it really is.

If those "certain individuals" that benefit from the policy are literally defined as a racial/ethnic group, then yes the policy is racially discriminating. You can defend or approved of that if you want(guppy had the honesty to defend it) but you can't deny it.

The argument for state preference is about tax base but you are correct that it isn't a total meritocracy. I agree that rural preference is also flawed (as is the legacy practice that gets mentioned occasionally)
 
There you go, that's much more productive than personal slights. Let me just clarify, you are saying that you think racial discrimination is morally just, as long it's being done as atonement for other racial discrimination?

Yes and no.

When I use the term "racial discrimination" I use it as a term that implies that the discrimination being done causes further marginalization of already marginalized group(s).
When an institution uses AA policies to alleviate damage done by previous and current racially discriminatory practices (which did - and do - cause marginalization of latino, asian, and black people), it does not do so at the expense of white people. Or in this medicine-specific case: white and asian people are not being marginalized by AA policies implemented by medical schools.

So, to me, racial discrimination =/= AA policies. They are not synonymous.

I mean, "discriminate" can also mean "to see a difference" or "to recognize a distinction". So in that literal sense of the word, does the government discriminate? Hell yeah. I hope you too are able to discriminate between a white and an indigenous latino person. Or between groups that have a history of facing oppression and groups that do not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Yes and no.

When I use the term "racial discrimination" I use it as a term that implies that the discrimination being done causes further marginalization of already marginalized group(s).
When an institution uses AA policies to alleviate damage done by previous and current racially discriminatory practices (which did - and do - cause marginalization of latino, asian, and black people), it does not do so at the expense of white people. Or in this medicine-specific case: white and asian people are not being marginalized by AA policies implemented by medical schools.

So, to me, racial discrimination =/= AA policies. They are not synonymous.

I mean, "discriminate" can also mean "to see a difference" or "to recognize a distinction". So in that literal sense of the word, does the government discriminate? Hell yeah. I hope you too are able to discriminate between a white and an indigenous latino person. Or between groups that have a history of facing oppression and groups that do not.

Are you really pushing the concept that racial discrimination is only possible against certain groups? How is a policy that requires significantly higher performance by asian students to attain the same odds of matriculation not racially discriminatory?
 
Are you really pushing the concept that racial discrimination is only possible against certain groups? How is a policy that requires significantly higher performance by asian students to attain the same odds of matriculation not racially discriminatory?
As you said it is not a meritocracy
 
As you said it is not a meritocracy

you misunderstood my earlier post...all government schools should absolutely be a meritocracy. If you wanted to start a private school and only admit cambodians over 6'5" that can juggle, that's your business but government doesn't get to discriminate against people based on race/age/sex/etc
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
you misunderstood my earlier post...all government schools should absolutely be a meritocracy. If you wanted to start a private school and only admit cambodians over 6'5" that can juggle, that's your business but government doesn't get to discriminate against people based on race/age/sex/etc
Well then that is a different argument. If you think it should be based just on GPA/MCAT alone (because I am assuming you do not have access to the rest of the details of applications of URM's) then that is ridiculous.
 
Well then that is a different argument. If you think it should be based just on GPA/MCAT alone (because I am assuming you do not have access to the rest of the details of applications of URM's) then that is ridiculous.

I'm saying that whatever number of things you want to base it on, race can't be one of them if you are a government school
 
Are you really pushing the concept that racial discrimination is only possible against certain groups? How is a policy that requires significantly higher performance by asian students to attain the same odds of matriculation not racially discriminatory?

Hey, I never said that that wasn't a problem. I'm actually very vocal that the "positive" stereotype of asians being inherently smarter than other groups is actually a damaging one for Asian Americans, because they are - as you just said - held to higher standards than even their white peers face. It's a strange duality that they're a racial minority outside of medicine, but inside medicine they are considered a majority and yet still have to deal with racism. It's a tricky position to be in, and one I don't envy. Still, in medicine, Asian-Americans are not marginalized by AA policies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Hey, I never said that that wasn't a problem. I'm actually very vocal that the "positive" stereotype of asians being inherently smarter than other groups is actually a damaging one for Asian Americans, because they are - as you just said - held to higher standards than even their white peers face. It's a strange duality that they're a racial minority outside of medicine, but inside medicine they are considered a majority and yet still have to deal with racism. It's a tricky position to be in, and one I don't envy. Still, in medicine, Asian-Americans are not marginalized by AA policies.
Well the published statistics prove otherwise but I'd still like to hear your attempt at reasoning this. (And for the record, unlike you- I am not interested in the plight of one racial group over others. We can talk all day about how the white man keeps the black man "down"- but AA marginalizes them by almost as much.)
 
Last edited:
I'm saying that whatever number of things you want to base it on, race can't be one of them if you are a government school
OK,People like freemontie talk as if race is the only factor, like people mention they are URM and are then let in. That is what the people on this thread are annoyed with. I do not agree with what you are saying, but it is a fine position to have as long as you also do not think it is acceptable to have age/gender/religion/etc as a factor either. I do not think it is discrimination for schools to pursue an increase in diversity if they feel it improves the medical field (depending on your definition of discrimination). It just makes variation in applicants more desirable, it is not about exclusion. No one is trying to exclude Asians or whites, but if an admissions committee views diversity as a good thing, then someone with a different background becomes more valuable than another 3.8/34 with 100 shadowing hours and blah blah blah
 
OK,People like freemontie talk as if race is the only factor, like people mention they are URM and are then let in. That is what the people on this thread are annoyed with. I do not agree with what you are saying, but it is a fine position to have as long as you also do not think it is acceptable to have age/gender/religion/etc as a factor either. I do not think it is discrimination for schools to pursue an increase in diversity if they feel it improves the medical field (depending on your definition of discrimination). It just makes variation in applicants more desirable, it is not about exclusion. No one is trying to exclude Asians or whites, but if an admissions committee views diversity as a good thing, then someone with a different background becomes more valuable than another 3.8/34 with 100 shadowing hours and blah blah blah
When dealing with finite resources, like medical seats, any preference for a race/age/religion is in fact a discrimination against all the others not preferred.

But i think despite our disagreement, we are understanding each other's opinion.
 
When dealing with finite resources, like medical seats, any preference for a race/age/religion is in fact a discrimination against all the others not preferred.

But i think despite our disagreement, we are understanding each other's opinion.
I have always thought as involving the exclusion of others, but at least according to Wikipedia it must not always involve prejudice. Meaning you are technically correct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination
There you go, that's much more productive than personal slights. Let me just clarify, you are saying that you think racial discrimination is morally just, as long it's being done as atonement for other racial discrimination?
But here you used discrimination in a way that suggested the discrimination used in AA or med school admissions was the same as the past discrimination that resulted in the supposed need of such things.
 
I don't think you understand the difference between affirmative action and URM.
And I don't think you or whatsinthebox understand racism unless it's directed at yourself or other Blacks.
 
But here you used discrimination in a way that suggested the discrimination used in AA or med school admissions was the same as the past discrimination that resulted in the supposed need of such things.
I find the racial discrimination of the past to have the same moral value as racial discrimination in admission, which is to say none at all. That's why I reject the concept that it's ok to do in order to "make up" for things. Wrong is wrong
 
Past racial discrimination aimed at excluding, that is not what is being done. I also do not view medical school admissions as trying to "make up" for things. As I said earlier if medical school views diversity as a good thing and wishes to increase it then that is entirely separate from affirmative action.

Edit: More or less; Affirmative Action would be a band-aid for past wrongs where as attempting to increase diversity is to make more cultured Physicians.
 
Last edited:
Past racial discrimination aimed at excluding, that is not what is being done. I also do not view medical school admissions as trying to "make up" for things. As I said earlier if medical school views diversity as a good thing and wishes to increase it then that is entirely separate from affirmative action.
I don't care about the labeling as affirmative action or the sincerity of the motive, racial discrimination is morally repugnant.

We may end up having to disagree here
 
I don't care about the labeling as affirmative action or the sincerity of the motive, racial discrimination is morally repugnant.

We may end up having to disagree here
We were always going to end up disagreeing:)
You seem like a generally reasonable person and I don't dread you becoming a Physician, unlike freemontie.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
We were always going to end up disagreeing:)
You seem like a generally reasonable person and I don't dread you becoming a Physician, unlike freemontie.

Haha, i'd probably enjoy catching a drink and talking it out face to face some more if it weren't the interwebs...thanks for being so civil. Good talk
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
I think part of the anti-URM sentiment comes from people not understanding or appreciating the value of diversity in healthcare practitioners. The other part might be Abigail Fischer types who didn't do well relative to their peer group and are mad about it. I'm kidding, sort of.

I am also willing to guess that a lot of anti-AA people forget that culture affects communication style which in turn affects our ability as healthcare professionals to get information and then give more accurate diagnoses and care. I understand that people who don't have to navigate between different cultural contexts on a regular basis don't think about this stuff. Having diversity in a class of potential healthcare professionals isn't about attempting to rectify both historical and ongoing disparities There are plenty of practical reasons beyond communication like who is going to treat indigenous populations, immigrants, or commit to serving underserved populations even though the pay won't be as lucrative. I think the emotional investment for a URM from an underserved community is different than someone who didn't grow up there, no matter how empathetic they think they are.

Lastly, I think the arms race of "merit" that is foisted upon us sucks and that we all know it. We do it with the hope that senpai (adcom) notices us. But for some, the pursuit is so singular in focus that we get preemptively mad when we think about the possibility that people who didn't work as hard are going to get something we thought we deserved. I've been having this talk with a lot of my relatives who are the parents of my younger cousins. There's a lot of anxiety and I can understand that, but when it comes down to it, if your stats are good, someone will take you and it's not the end of the world if you don't get into your dream school.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
I think part of the anti-URM sentiment comes from people not understanding or appreciating the value of diversity in healthcare practitioners. The other part might be Abigail Fischer types who didn't do well relative to their peer group and are mad about it. I'm kidding, sort of.

I am also willing to guess that a lot of anti-AA people forget that culture affects communication style which in turn affects our ability as healthcare professionals to get information and then give more accurate diagnoses and care. I understand that people who don't have to navigate between different cultural contexts on a regular basis don't think about this stuff. Having diversity in a class of potential healthcare professionals isn't about attempting to rectify both historical and ongoing disparities There are plenty of practical reasons beyond communication like who is going to treat indigenous populations, immigrants, or commit to serving underserved populations even though the pay won't be as lucrative. I think the emotional investment for a URM from an underserved community is different than someone who didn't grow up there, no matter how empathetic they think they are.

Lastly, I think the arms race of "merit" that is foisted upon us sucks and that we all know it. We do it with the hope that senpai (adcom) notices us. But for some, the pursuit is so singular in focus that we get preemptively mad when we think about the possibility that people who didn't work as hard are going to get something we thought we deserved. I've been having this talk with a lot of my relatives who are the parents of my younger cousins. There's a lot of anxiety and I can understand that, but when it comes down to it, if your stats are good, someone will take you and it's not the end of the world if you don't get into your dream school.

A lot of if stems from ignorance worsened by political correctness. We can't discuss any issues related to race without it being called racism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I think part of the anti-URM sentiment comes from people not understanding or appreciating the value of diversity in healthcare practitioners. The other part might be Abigail Fischer types who didn't do well relative to their peer group and are mad about it. I'm kidding, sort of.

I am also willing to guess that a lot of anti-AA people forget that culture affects communication style which in turn affects our ability as healthcare professionals to get information and then give more accurate diagnoses and care. I understand that people who don't have to navigate between different cultural contexts on a regular basis don't think about this stuff. Having diversity in a class of potential healthcare professionals isn't about attempting to rectify both historical and ongoing disparities There are plenty of practical reasons beyond communication like who is going to treat indigenous populations, immigrants, or commit to serving underserved populations even though the pay won't be as lucrative. I think the emotional investment for a URM from an underserved community is different than someone who didn't grow up there, no matter how empathetic they think they are.

Lastly, I think the arms race of "merit" that is foisted upon us sucks and that we all know it. We do it with the hope that senpai (adcom) notices us. But for some, the pursuit is so singular in focus that we get preemptively mad when we think about the possibility that people who didn't work as hard are going to get something we thought we deserved. I've been having this talk with a lot of my relatives who are the parents of my younger cousins. There's a lot of anxiety and I can understand that, but when it comes down to it, if your stats are good, someone will take you and it's not the end of the world if you don't get into your dream school.
It's more than a little silly for you to make these bogus inferences of the petty motivations of AA-opposers. Part of the problem is just how big medical AA is. It's not so much about being bitter with not getting into a "dream school" as it is working so much harder than our black peers and not getting any medical education opportunity at all. e.g. there's a not-insignificant chance that an Asian applicant with a 3.7/32 won't get into any MD school with a normal # of applications and normal submission timing. That's a clear example of inequal opportunity. But whenever disagreement with AA is ever brought up (as I have in this thread) a person is called a 'racist' and even 'hateful.'
 
Multiple people have said they respected Sb247's opinion even though they disagreed with it. Go figure out why and come back.
It's more than a little silly for you to make these bogus inferences of the petty motivations of AA-opposers. Part of the problem is just how big medical AA is. It's not so much about being bitter with not getting into a "dream school" as it is working so much harder than our black peers and not getting any medical education opportunity at all. e.g. there's a not-insignificant chance that an Asian applicant with a 3.7/32 won't get into any MD school with a normal # of applications and normal submission timing. That's a clear example of inequal opportunity. But whenever disagreement with AA is ever brought up (as I have in this thread) a person is called a 'racist' and even 'hateful.'
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
Multiple people have said they respected Sb247's opinion even though they disagreed with it. Go figure out why and come back.
I don't really care about respect from an emotional juvenile such as yourself. I guess I have to say again- I'm not interested in delving into more personal attacks with you. You're not getting the message though, "brilliant" as you supposedly are.
 
@freemontie do everybody and favor and get a life, seriously. You sound like Bill O'Reilly. Do you even exist outside of sdn?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
@freemontie do everybody and favor and get a life, seriously. You sound like Bill O'Reilly. Do you even exist outside of sdn?
Thanks for the constructive advice- I'm sure that's what you meant to give anyway.

You know, some of you said that few of your non-URM colleagues express their disagreement with AA IRL. Is it any wonder why? Being called "like Bill O'Reilly" is a creative one (would you care to explain?). But so far I've had racist, hateful, insane, disgusting and more. This is a disproportionate response.
 
Protip for everyone-
Name calling, misrepresenting arguments, and just generally being disrespectful to other members isn't a good way to get others to see your POV.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
I haven't read through the whole thread, so if this has been said.... it stands to be repeated again.

For many, the topic of Affirmative Action instantly bring to mind the idea of racial discrimination of some sorts (regardless of whom is at the positive receiving end). However, it is worth pointing out just who truly benefits (disproportionately) from AA policies: White Women.

http://ideas.time.com/2013/06/17/affirmative-action-has-helped-white-women-more-than-anyone/
http://www.ncsu.edu/project/oeo-training/aa/beneficiaries.htm
http://chronicle.com/blogs/brainstorm/the-death-of-affirmative-action-part-i/44860

The idea that "minority" (for the sake of such policies) is limited to a racial context is BS. Call it what you want, but AA is absolutely not solely a race thing and the majority of it's beneficiaries don't represent the "race" you often complain about.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
As I have stated previously, the resentment comes from the mentality of hyperachievers (who come in all colors) who are outraged that someone with a lower MCAT score and GPA could get into medical school and they would not. It's an entitlement mentality that they owed a seat, simply because of stats. They fail to realize that no one is entitled to a seat in medical, it earned. And stats are just part of the package; the road traveled is also meritorious.

So to summarize,we just have to agree to disagree:
I won't convince them, and they won't convince me
Med schools are OK with AA
Adcoms are OK with it
The Supreme Court is OK with it.



I think part of the anti-URM sentiment comes from people not understanding or appreciating the value of diversity in healthcare practitioners. The other part might be Abigail Fischer types who didn't do well relative to their peer group and are mad about it. I'm kidding, sort of.

I am also willing to guess that a lot of anti-AA people forget that culture affects communication style which in turn affects our ability as healthcare professionals to get information and then give more accurate diagnoses and care. I understand that people who don't have to navigate between different cultural contexts on a regular basis don't think about this stuff. Having diversity in a class of potential healthcare professionals isn't about attempting to rectify both historical and ongoing disparities There are plenty of practical reasons beyond communication like who is going to treat indigenous populations, immigrants, or commit to serving underserved populations even though the pay won't be as lucrative. I think the emotional investment for a URM from an underserved community is different than someone who didn't grow up there, no matter how empathetic they think they are.

Lastly, I think the arms race of "merit" that is foisted upon us sucks and that we all know it. We do it with the hope that senpai (adcom) notices us. But for some, the pursuit is so singular in focus that we get preemptively mad when we think about the possibility that people who didn't work as hard are going to get something we thought we deserved. I've been having this talk with a lot of my relatives who are the parents of my younger cousins. There's a lot of anxiety and I can understand that, but when it comes down to it, if your stats are good, someone will take you and it's not the end of the world if you don't get into your dream school.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
As I have stated previously, the resentment comes from the mentality of hyperachievers (who come in all colors) who are outraged that someone with a lower MCAT score and GPA could get into medical school and they would not. It's an entitlement mentality that they owed a seat, simply because of stats. They fail to realize that no one is entitled to a seat in medical, it earned. And stats are just part of the package; the road traveled is also meritorious.

So to summarize,we just have to agree to disagree:
I won't convince them, and they won't convince me
Med schools are OK with AA
Adcoms are OK with it
The Supreme Court is OK with it.
Race is birthed, not "earned," nor "meritorious." Nor is our Supreme Court "OK with it" per se. As usual, you're long on rhetoric and short on substance. I'm not going to go into the judicial nity grity, but someone so vocal about it should know the basics before stepping on the soapbox. To recap: just last year the Supreme Court upheld Michigan's AA ban for public universities. The year before they stopped short of striking down Texas's AA usage but had strong remarks against it and required it to be re-vetted by a circuit court of appeals for exclusionary effects. The clear recent precedent: AA is a state-by-state issue, with the supreme court voicing dissension but declining to interfere. (That said, the issue for them is public universities. I understand you work for a D.O. school- which are typically small, private and much less competitive. So this may be less relevant to you.)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Race is birthed, not "earned," nor "meritorious." Nor is our Supreme Court "OK with it" per se. As usual, you're long on rhetoric and short on substance. I'm not going to go into the judicial nity grity, but someone so vocal about it should know the basics before stepping on the soapbox. To recap: just last year the Supreme Court upheld Michigan's AA ban for public universities. The year before they stopped short of striking down Texas's AA usage but had strong remarks against it and required it to be re-vetted by a circuit court of appeals for exclusionary effects. The clear recent precedent: AA is a state-by-state issue, with the supreme court voicing dissension but declining to interfere. (That said, the issue for them is public universities. I understand you work for a D.O. school- which are typically small, private and much less competitive. So this may be less relevant to you.)
Race being earned or meritorious was neither implied nor stated and it is beyond me how you fail to understand anything anyone writes. Medical school seats being earned and not an entitlement, and not all merit being stats implies nothing about race. The Supreme Court leaving AA as a state issue (as a reminder you said that)does not mean they are not OK with it, so you wasted a solid paragraph proving nothing, which btw was as long or longer than the comment you called long on rhetoric:rolleyes:. Attempting to minimize Goro's input by calling D.O. schools much less competitive is also poor reasoning as anyone can potentially weigh in on this issue considering you are here spouting nonsense and I do not think you are more involved in MD admissions. It may have been useful to mention public vs. private school, but mentioning that they are small and less competitive undermined any weak point you could have made. Feel free to misinterpret everything I wrote:whistle:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Race being earned or meritorious was neither implied nor stated and it is beyond me how you fail to understand anything anyone writes. Medical school seats being earned and not an entitlement, and not all merit being stats implies nothing about race. The Supreme Court leaving AA as a state issue (as a reminder you said that)does not mean they are not OK with it, so you wasted a solid paragraph proving nothing, which btw was as long or longer than the comment you called long on rhetoric:rolleyes:. Attempting to minimize Goro's input by calling D.O. schools much less competitive is also poor reasoning as anyone can potentially weigh in on this issue considering you are here spouting nonsense and I do not think you are more involved in MD admissions. It may have been useful to mention public vs. private school, but mentioning that they are small and less competitive undermined any weak point you could have made. Feel free to misinterpret everything I wrote:whistle:
I see you're back to your emojis. You know they don't compensate for a lack of reason? He lambasted medical school seat "entitlement" based on stats. And then said it is "earned". Earned by what? The only topic at hand is race. Of course it is implied, whether he wanted to or not.

As far as the SCUS thing, I advise you to not speak of things you obviously have very little knowledge of. My few sentences on that were not rhetoric (do you know what that means or are you once again parroting back any criticism I make?) it was a very brief statement of recent events. I invite you to read up on recent cases and beyond just the rulings look at the written opinions. This SCUS is very pro-state's rights, in line with their decision to defend Michigan's ban of AA as well as (only with conditions!) uphold Texas' right to AA- but the written opinion of the majority is against AA in it's current form. Thus it is in no way accurate to say our highest court is "OK with it."

And I mentioned DO schools being typically small, private and much less competitive. Not to slight him (that's your own reading) but because (A) the AA fight is with large public universities and (B) he referenced "hyperachievers" feeling "entitled" to a seat based on stats. Set aside any ego, and a hyper-achieving med school applicant is not concerned with DO schools. Again- I'm not saying this last fact to hurt your or his ego. I actually tried to avoid that but you successfully beat it out.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Top