Zoom-Zoom said:
Well, I'm glad someone read my post. Now, allow me to retort:
This is that value distinction I spoke of before. Why do people feel the need to have every race represented equally? Who cares, why is this a factor? Should we have every religion represented equally? How about favorite color, I think we need to make sure every patient gets a doctor who has their same preference for ice cream flavors...
I go to SC, so I travel to "compton" every day...I am the only white person on the bus every day...
If doctors aren't willing to practice in crappy areas then we need to either a) fix the system so that they are reasonable compensated for, or b) come to the realization that quality healthcare, like everything else in life, might require $. Once again, this is an economic issue, not a racial one.
But let's pretend it is, who guaruntees that Black doctors will practice in black neighborhoods? Do they sign some kind of special oath while all the whites and asians take the hippocratic one? Maybe it would be more pragmatic to screen for philanthropic values than skin colors....And what about all the white people who live in "compton"?
Here's a start: "qualified", to me, is better defined by undergrad stats than skin color. If you accept the fact that black students and white students both have an equal chance on their exams, then it follows that it is only fair to reward the students who have proved themselves. To accept this argument, of course, you have to understand that having dark skin does not justify poor(er) academic performance.
You're talking about racism. I was talking about the stigma associated with minority physicians..which has nothing to do with your point and everything to do with the AMA/med schools. Talk to most people above the age of 50 and they will tell you than in their generation, black doctors were poorly qualified compared to "ORM" students. I'm not arguing that this is true, but the stigma itself is very real, and, as this conversation shows, will not go away anytime soon.
Derr
A fair system would negate skin color and take into consideration socioeconomic backgrounds/hardships, responsibilities, unique experiences, etc....legitimate factors that might add to your character and possibly detract from your GPA/stats. To me this seems like a 100% error-proof method without any URM "boogymen". Of course, we might not have our full representation of minorities...god forbid
1. I thought you were a psychology major (you have taken social psyc right). You should know the benefit of having docs represented from particular races.
2. Just b/c you travel 1 mi on a bus to a gated campus for class does not suggest that would be willing to practice in such a neighbor hood...that school is not nicknamed University of Spoiled Children for an illegitimate reason...not to suggest that you are spoiled...but rather to point out the type of people who attend (and by the way...just for the sake of being correct...you dont travel through compton...USC is not in compton)
"b) come to the realization that quality healthcare, like everything else in life, might require $. Once again, this is an economic issue, not a racial one.
But let's pretend it is, who guaruntees that Black doctors will practice in black neighborhoods? Do they sign some kind of special oath while all the whites and asians take the hippocratic one? Maybe it would be more pragmatic to screen for philanthropic values than skin colors....And what about all the white people who live in "compton"?"
3. We can come to your realization in b) and then suffer the consequences (where did you grow up and what high school did you attend?...if you are from socal, that is), both economic and social. Healthcare is and always will be a social and economic issue...there is no way to get around that
4. No one guarantees that afr. amer. docs will practice in afr. amer. neighborhoods, but the likelihood of them doing so is much higher for them to do it than someone coming from an affluent, predominantly white.
Do you think that just because docs state the hippocratic oath they will follow a pursuit in medicine that focuses on the greater good of the human population. Sure they will be serving people, but many of them are, more so, pursuing personal gains.
5. Do you think that that many white people live in compton? Dont kid yourself
"You're talking about racism. I was talking about the stigma associated with minority physicians..which has nothing to do with your point and everything to do with the AMA/med schools. Talk to most people above the age of 50 and they will tell you than in their generation, black doctors were poorly qualified compared to "ORM" students. I'm not arguing that this is true, but the stigma itself is very real, and, as this conversation shows, will not go away anytime soon."
6. My dad is a physician. He attended USC for med school and earned his way in (so did the other 3 afr. amer docs in his class). Though there was no actual aa back then there was still a stigma that existed. Although they felt like they belonged b/c they had earned their spot, many of their white counterparts felt as if they did not...not b/c of their stats...but for the simple fact that they were black...."if they got in it must be b/c of some program" They received no handout and yet assumptions were made. I hate to say it but people will always make assumptions about other races.
You should go to USC's medical campus and check out the classes from back in the 70's 60's 50's etc....Tell me what you see!
"A fair system would negate skin color and take into consideration socioeconomic backgrounds/hardships, responsibilities, unique experiences, etc....legitimate factors that might add to your character and possibly detract from your GPA/stats. To me this seems like a 100% error-proof method without any URM "boogymen". Of course, we might not have our full representation of minorities...god forbid"
7. Ok so here you have some good aspects to your system but the problem is that they are already considered (but of course you will negate that just for the sake of making it seem like this system is so much more unfair than it really is...you will see when you get into med school just how this system does not assist URM's that much):
"responsibilities, unique experiences, etc....legitimate factors that might add to your character and possibly detract from your GPA/stats"...all of that is fine and dandy but they are already considered.
Here is the problem with socioeconomic status: It is very easy for people to falsely alter their presented income so that it seems as if they are facing more hardships than they actually are facing...This system is used in undergrad admissions decisions (it also is used to determine scholarship/fin aid) all the time. There are people who teach parents (and students) how to take advantage of the loopholes in this system...I know b/c the College Board is still conducting investigations on this issue (My mom works in education...LAUSD..etc...and has been contacted by the College Board).
go trojans (I grew up in a trojan family: my brother, sister, mom, and dad all attended for some schooling...I also used to go to all the home and some away football games)
Oh yeah...I grew up in Ladera Heights (the west end of it)...but I will establishing a practice in an underserved community for my people and for non-english speaking patients.
Oh yeah...one more thing: I have a friend from Rice who graduated with a 3.55 and scored a 28 on his MCAT. He was accepted into Harvard Med school in 2003. By your standards he is not qualified, right?...Well now he is in the 5% of his class...go figure! Is he still not qualified to be a doctor?
