Are there any adcoms on here who disagree with race-based affirmative action?

[emflem]

If so, how does it affect your review of applications? Does your opinion count for all the applicants, or do some non-URM applicants just luck out if you happen to review their application (and they aren't so lucky if another adcom at your school reviews it)?

As a secondary question, do other adcoms know about your view or do you have to keep hush hush?

Just curious about life as a politically unpopular adcom.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[RedPhys]

popcorn.gif

 

[efle]

Well I imagine it would get noticed if you were inviting/voting for far less minorities than all your colleagues, so I doubt it's really possible to get away with non-affirmative policy for very long

 

[tymont12]

I believe you've prodded a no-go zone...

 

[Narmerguy]

Someone send out the bat signals.

And this is everyone's warning now that, like every other thread on this forum, the expectation remains that a respectful discussion will be had. Flaming, provoking, mocking, or degrading any other member will result in infractions up to and including banning.

 

[GomersGoToGround]

It's about to get real.

 

[Goro]

I'm perfectly OK with it, provided the candidate shows evidence of being able to handle medical school.

The admissions process is meritocratic (except for legacies, but nobody bitches about that...it's always URMs that get the goat of the hyperacheivers).

Unfortunately, too many people forget that there's more to merit than just GPA and MCAT score. The road traveled can be just as important.

My colleagues hold similar opinions. We've rejected URMs who had too low an MCAT score or GPA, because we'd be doing them no favors by admitting them, only to have them fail out, much to the chagrin our our wily old Admissions Dean.

If so, how does it affect your review of applications? Does your opinion count for all the applicants, or do some non-URM applicants just luck out if you happen to review their application (and they aren't so lucky if another adcom at your school reviews it)?

As a secondary question, do other adcoms know about your view or do you have to keep hush hush?

Just curious about life as a politically unpopular adcom.

 

[emflem]

We've rejected URMs who had too low an MCAT score or GPA, because we'd be doing them no favors by admitting them, only to have them fail out, much to the chagrin our our wily old Admissions Dean.

When you say "much to the chagrin our our wily old Admissions Dean," the Dean would prefer you admit them? Or would prefer they not (be able to) fail out? Just trying to clarify.

 

[Goro]

The Dean would have preferred we admitted said applicants because it makes our numbers look good. All Admissions deans think like this, because they don't have to teach; we do.

When you say "much to the chagrin our our wily old Admissions Dean," the Dean would prefer you admit them? Or would prefer they not (be able to) fail out? Just trying to clarify.

 

[ASD2019]

Someone send out the bat signals.

And this is everyone's warning now that, like every other thread on this forum, the expectation remains that a respectful discussion will be had. Flaming, provoking, mocking, or degrading any other member will result in infractions up to and including banning.

It is kind of funny/amusing how much this topic comes up. URMs (blacks, hispanics, native americans, and pacific islanders) make up only 11% of all medical school enrollment while representing about 1/3 of the U.S. populations. Asians and caucasians make up ~89% of all medical school enrollment while representing 2/3 of our population. It is kind of funny how anyone who is uncertain about their chances/fails to get a seat suddenly blames the 11% for taking their seat. The other 89% had nothing to do with eliminating them from the cut.

Reminds me of this nurse I work with whose son recently got rejected from our state school. Her reasoning for his rejection: "he is a middle class white male"

 

[PreciousHamburgers]

I'm perfectly OK with it, provided the candidate shows evidence of being able to handle medical school.

The admissions process is meritocratic (except for legacies, but nobody bitches about that...it's always URMs that get the goat of the hyperacheivers).

Unfortunately, too many people forget that there's more to merit than just GPA and MCAT score. The road traveled can be just as important.

My colleagues hold similar opinions. We've rejected URMs who had too low an MCAT score or GPA, because we'd be doing them no favors by admitting them, only to have them fail out, much to the chagrin our our wily old Admissions Dean.

People blaming minorities while the rich are the ones screwing them?! Nooo.....

 

[efle]

It is kind of funny/amusing how much this topic comes up. URMs (blacks, hispanics, native americans, and pacific islanders) make up only 11% of all medical school enrollment while representing about 1/3 of the U.S. populations. Asians and caucasians make up ~89% of all medical school enrollment while representing 2/3 of our population. It is kind of funny how anyone who is uncertain about their chances/fails to get a seat suddenly blames the 11% for taking their seat. The other 89% had nothing to do with eliminating them from the cut.

Reminds me of this nurse I work with whose son recently got rejected from our state school. Her reasoning for his rejection: "he is a middle class white male"

Some people feel the 89% beat them fair and square while the 11% got an unfair 3 decile bump in test scores and quarter point in GPA*

*not saying this is my opinion

edit: quarter point

People blaming minorities while the rich are the ones screwing them?! Nooo.....

I am opposed to lagacy systems too, but nobody wants to have a heated discussion about that

 

[ASD2019]

The Dean would have preferred we admitted said applicants because it makes our numbers look good. All Admissions deans think like this, because they don't have to teach; we do.

That isn't affirmative action. It isn't meant to help anyone, but the school's image. I'm not sure if it is even ethical to set someone up for failure just so you numbers look good on paper?

 

[ASD2019]

Some people feel the 89% beat them fair and square while the 11% got an unfair 3 decile bump in test scores and quarter point in GPA*

Where are you getting these numbers? And I think the problem is there is no such thing as "fair"

 

[ASD2019]

Where are you getting these numbers? And I think the problem is there is no such thing as "fair".

Sorry about the duplicate post

 

[emflem]

It is kind of funny/amusing how much this topic comes up. URMs (blacks, hispanics, native americans, and pacific islanders) make up only 11% of...

I doubt anyone's thumbnail argument about affirmative action is going to change minds here. I'm simply interested in whether there are any adcoms who oppose it and, if so, how that affects applications/what the experience is behind the scenes.

So far, aside from Goro's thoughtful reply, the silence is somewhat deafening, but perhaps they're all off watching the Saints beat up the Bears.

 

[Visible Ghost]

.

 

[dechristine]

It is kind of funny/amusing how much this topic comes up. URMs (blacks, hispanics, native americans, and pacific islanders) make up only 11% of all medical school enrollment while representing about 1/3 of the U.S. populations. Asians and caucasians make up ~89% of all medical school enrollment while representing 2/3 of our population. It is kind of funny how anyone who is uncertain about their chances/fails to get a seat suddenly blames the 11% for taking their seat. The other 89% had nothing to do with eliminating them from the cut.

Reminds me of this nurse I work with whose son recently got rejected from our state school. Her reasoning for his rejection: "he is a middle class white male"

I think it has to do with an emotional response to the helplessness applicants feel when applying to medical school more than anything else. The application cycle is already stressful enough with (mostly self-imposed) pressure to get into the best school possible and the realization that everything that you've done — studying hard for tests, spending time contributing to extracurricular activities, forgoing some fun events to work on your application, etc. — may not be good enough is uncomfortable and disconcerting. So it is much easier to find someone or something to blame than to accept that at a certain point, you have no control over the process. I went through such a roller coaster of emotions when applying for college, ended up going to one of my "safety" schools, and I love it here! Hopefully I will be able to keep perspective when I apply for medical school.

 

[WingedOx]

I doubt anyone's thumbnail argument about affirmative action is going to change minds here. I'm simply interested in whether there are any adcoms who oppose it and, if so, how that affects applications/what the experience is behind the scenes.

So far, aside from Goro's thoughtful reply, the silence is somewhat deafening, but perhaps they're all off watching the Saints beat up the Bears.

I predicted the Bears would win the NFC North this year...

...please keep this in mind whenever I dispense advice on this forum.

 

[gyngyn]

We, as medical schools are performing a service to the people in this country who need care.
When there is evidence that segments of our society are not receiving care, it is our obligation to address this need.
All of our students benefit from learning with students of various life experiences.

In addition to metrics, there are important personal qualities and experiences that contribute to an applicant's desirability.
There is no right to a medical education. It is an honor. One that is reasonably influenced by the needs of the people we serve.

 

[Long Way to Go]

Unfortunately, too many people forget that there's more to merit than just GPA and MCAT score. The road traveled can be just as important.

Well said

 

[efle]

Where are you getting these numbers? And I think the problem is there is no such thing as "fair".

Sorry about the duplicate post

Compare the MCAT/GPA charts for white vs minority applicants, or even better asian vs minority. IIRC the 50% accept rate is at a 48th percentile MCAT for black applicants and above 80th percentile for white and asian. The GPA is about .2-.3 different to see the same odds also.

Oh I agree life isn't fair, apps are holistic, race blinding schools ruins the diversity and makes schools bad like with the UCs, but I also understand how someone can feel upset at a rejection when their URM friends with much lower stats are getting in.

 

[BurbyPrep89]

I think sometimes when people hear holistic, they think adcoms are looking at all the applicants together and then plugging people into the perfect pie chart that would fit the idyllic demographic they're looking for.

From what I've heard at interviews, most adcoms vote on each applicant individually. If you demonstrate through your application/interview that you deserve an acceptance, you will get one. If you don't, you won't, regardless of your race. That is why there is such a thing as "over-accepting students." They accept everyone they think is fit up to a point, then wait to see how the students shift through other schools, then slowly send more acceptances, while ensuring that the class is still not likely to be over-enrolled.

The only time I can see diversity acting in favour of an applicant would be when the schools hit the waitlist - if it's unranked. Then, they are probably looking at everyone on the waitlist and deciding who to accept.

Schools make an effort to recruit URM applicants, not hand them acceptances arbitrarily.

That said, this is all just my opinion, because I'm not an AdCom and I have barely a sliver of experience.

 

[Dr.Zoidberg]

I doubt anyone's thumbnail argument about affirmative action is going to change minds here. I'm simply interested in whether there are any adcoms who oppose it and, if so, how that affects applications/what the experience is behind the scenes.

So far, aside from Goro's thoughtful reply, the silence is somewhat deafening, but perhaps they're all off watching the Saints beat up the Bears.

I mean, I'm sure there are adcoms who oppose it. My guess would be that they are rare enough that it ends up making little difference.

I would imagine there would be a larger percentage of adcoms who oppose the blanket URM advantage and try to take socioeconomic status into account when giving their nod of approval. My impression is that they're genuinely trying to create a fair playing field, and they're not just pandering to those who publish diversity stats.

My $0.02:
I really doubted the whole "advantage" thing coming out of high school. I went to a good public high school in a rural area, ended up doing well, and went to one of those prestigious private colleges. I probably had more "advantage" than 90% of the country, but at least half of this school came from that other 10%. I spent my first semester humbled and downright intimidated by everyone's accomplishments. I was among people who'd started companies and made apps and had been doing research since high school. They talked about SAT prep classes, unique twists they put in their college apps, and all of their friends at Ivy League/top schools. No one at my high school had ever even thought of these things as possibilities. Even immersed in that environment, it still took me 3 years to realize that I too could do things outside of what was encouraged back home (go to college/trade school, pull in a steady income, retire). Then I realized that if I (and I consider myself to have far more advantage than most people out there) took this long to adjust to the mindset, those who came from truly poor communities were at an enormous disadvantage.

We look around and see some kid sitting next to us, going to the same classes as us, eating the same food as us, and living in the same world as us now, but we completely forget that this person wasn't trained to seek out a plan and move to the next level the way we were. They're basically completely winging it, and if that person can succeed to the same or almost the same level as me, that person deserves my spot.

 

[ASD2019]

Compare the MCAT/GPA charts for white vs minority applicants, or even better asian vs minority. IIRC the 50% accept rate is at a 48th percentile MCAT for black applicants and above 80th percentile for white and asian. The GPA is about .2-.3 different to see the same odds also.

Oh I agree life isn't fair, apps are holistic, race blinding schools ruins the diversity and makes schools bad like with the UCs, but I also understand how someone can feel upset at a rejection when their URM friends with much lower stats are getting in.

When the sample size is so different (51,747 white applicants vs 7,727 blacks) it is more accurate to use absolute numbers. 824 blacks got in with an mcat between 27-29 in 2013. During this same year 4,924 whites got in with an mcat of 27-29. Plus the numbers for blacks is skewed by HBCUs which are mission driven and accept mcats as low as 23 (which I don't think meets the threshold for success). We can both use the data to illustrate our points and (efle) we have discussed this topic in multiple other threads so I guess we just have to respectfully disagree. Back to OPs question. Sorry for derailing the thread.

 

[deleted535750]

When the sample size is so different (51,747 white applicants vs 7,727 blacks) it is more accurate to use absolute numbers. 824 blacks got in with an mcat between 27-29 in 2013. During this same year 4,924 whites got in with an mcat of 27-29. Plus the numbers for blacks is skewed by HBCUs which are mission driven and accept mcats as low as 23 (which I don't think meets the threshold for success). We can both use the data to illustrate our points and (efle) we have discussed this topic in multiple other threads so I guess we just have to respectfully disagree. Back to OPs question. Sorry for derailing the thread.

Except, absolute numbers are actually inaccurate. While absolute numbers make it seems like it's pretty fair, in fact 39% of white applicants were accepted with an mcat of 27-29, and 73.4% of blacks applicants were accepted with an mcat of 27-29.

If you're going to support affirmative action, using mcat and gpa statistics probably won't help your case. Sorry for continuing to detail.

 

[WaterPog]

None of the statistics matter in this case. Nearly everyone who matriculates to a US-MD program completes that program, completes residency and ends up practicing. As long as this is the case the method used to select that cohort is immaterial.

It could be argued that GPA and MCAT should be treated as pass/fail for admissions and AdComms should rank applicants entirely on subjective measures.

 

[altblue]

I mean, I'm sure there are adcoms who oppose it. My guess would be that they are rare enough that it ends up making little difference.

I would imagine there would be a larger percentage of adcoms who oppose the blanket URM advantage and try to take socioeconomic status into account when giving their nod of approval. My impression is that they're genuinely trying to create a fair playing field, and they're not just pandering to those who publish diversity stats.

My $0.02:
I really doubted the whole "advantage" thing coming out of high school. I went to a good public high school in a rural area, ended up doing well, and went to one of those prestigious private colleges. I probably had more "advantage" than 90% of the country, but at least half of this school came from that other 10%. I spent my first semester humbled and downright intimidated by everyone's accomplishments. I was among people who'd started companies and made apps and had been doing research since high school. They talked about SAT prep classes, unique twists they put in their college apps, and all of their friends at Ivy League/top schools. No one at my high school had ever even thought of these things as possibilities. Even immersed in that environment, it still took me 3 years to realize that I too could do things outside of what was encouraged back home (go to college/trade school, pull in a steady income, retire). Then I realized that if I (and I consider myself to have far more advantage than most people out there) took this long to adjust to the mindset, those who came from truly poor communities were at an enormous disadvantage.

We look around and see some kid sitting next to us, going to the same classes as us, eating the same food as us, and living in the same world as us now, but we completely forget that this person wasn't trained to seek out a plan and move to the next level the way we were. They're basically completely winging it, and if that person can succeed to the same or almost the same level as me, that person deserves my spot.

As a poor first gen at a competitive school, if I could like this twice, I would.

 

[DoctorLacrosse]

I mean, I'm sure there are adcoms who oppose it. My guess would be that they are rare enough that it ends up making little difference.

I would imagine there would be a larger percentage of adcoms who oppose the blanket URM advantage and try to take socioeconomic status into account when giving their nod of approval. My impression is that they're genuinely trying to create a fair playing field, and they're not just pandering to those who publish diversity stats.

My $0.02:
I really doubted the whole "advantage" thing coming out of high school. I went to a good public high school in a rural area, ended up doing well, and went to one of those prestigious private colleges. I probably had more "advantage" than 90% of the country, but at least half of this school came from that other 10%. I spent my first semester humbled and downright intimidated by everyone's accomplishments. I was among people who'd started companies and made apps and had been doing research since high school. They talked about SAT prep classes, unique twists they put in their college apps, and all of their friends at Ivy League/top schools. No one at my high school had ever even thought of these things as possibilities. Even immersed in that environment, it still took me 3 years to realize that I too could do things outside of what was encouraged back home (go to college/trade school, pull in a steady income, retire). Then I realized that if I (and I consider myself to have far more advantage than most people out there) took this long to adjust to the mindset, those who came from truly poor communities were at an enormous disadvantage.

We look around and see some kid sitting next to us, going to the same classes as us, eating the same food as us, and living in the same world as us now, but we completely forget that this person wasn't trained to seek out a plan and move to the next level the way we were. They're basically completely winging it, and if that person can succeed to the same or almost the same level as me, that person deserves my spot.

Many of my more privileged friends I met in college don't really get what it's like having parents who couldn't help you with your homework anymore after 4th grade, or being the first generation in college where your left figuring out everything on your own with no family members to offer you advice. Most don't have to work to support themselves as their physician parents pay the bills, so they don't get the difficulty of losing study hours because you have to work to pull your weight around the house or the mortgage might not get paid that month. Our country is lacking in certain areas, and medical schools have to take those needs into consideration when recruiting. There is more to every applicant than their LizzyM score, and it's always refreshing when people on the other side of the spectrum get that.

I truly loved your post. Your maturity is apparent, and I suspect it will pay dividends to your future career in medicine. Thank you for sharing it.

 

[altblue]

Many of my more privileged friends I met in college don't really get what it's like having parents who couldn't help you with your homework anymore after 4th grade, or being the first generation in college where your left figuring out everything on your own with no family members to offer you advice. Most don't have to work to support themselves as their physician parents pay the bills, so they don't get the difficulty of losing study hours because you have to work to pull your weight around the house or the mortgage might not get paid that month. Our country is lacking in certain areas, and medical schools have to take those needs into consideration when recruiting. There is more to every applicant than their LizzyM score, and it's always refreshing when people on the other side of the spectrum get that.

I truly loved your post. Your maturity is apparent, and I suspect it will pay dividends to your future career in medicine. Thank you for sharing it.

I don't expect classmates to understand these problems (just as I will never know what it's like to have a demanding lawyer or physician as a parent! ), but I especially respect the ones who appreciate their own economic standing.

 

[jakeislove]

I'm perfectly OK with it, provided the candidate shows evidence of being able to handle medical school.

The admissions process is meritocratic (except for legacies, but nobody bitches about that...it's always URMs that get the goat of the hyperacheivers).

Unfortunately, too many people forget that there's more to merit than just GPA and MCAT score. The road traveled can be just as important.

My colleagues hold similar opinions. We've rejected URMs who had too low an MCAT score or GPA, because we'd be doing them no favors by admitting them, only to have them fail out, much to the chagrin our our wily old Admissions Dean.

People feel legacies are an entitlement they'll eventually be able to pass on.

 

[Fedekz]

That isn't affirmative action. It isn't meant to help anyone, but the school's image. I'm not sure if it is even ethical to set someone up for failure just so you numbers look good on paper?

What's ethical and the reality of what happens are two completely different things. The admissions dean wants to pad his numbers, that's likely what will happen.

 

[NickNaylor]

I disagree with it to some degree, and I'm frequently the one who scores URM applicants the lowest on my committee (everyone's scores of applicants are displayed during the meeting). Don't get me wrong, I do think it's important to take into account a person's background and look at their application in that context. I'm not going to vote someone down just because they don't have the breadth or depth of experiences we typically see in our applicants if, for example, they had to spend a lot of time working to support their family or had major things going on in their life. But at the end of the day, I don't give people bonus points because of their race, and if I don't think an applicant is otherwise "good enough" to warrant an acceptance, then I don't care what their background, ethnicity, SES, etc. is. I guess I favor meritocracy over "building diversity" or whatever buzzwords you want to use to describe AA-like programs. And I use meritocracy in the sense not of achieving some kind of universal standard, but of making the most of whatever your situation was. That can be a difficult thing to assess in an application, but you can get a sense of it. It's a moving target, and yes, people are held to different standards. I look at the applicant who comes from a high economic class - as evidenced by the fact that both of their parents are professionals and they live in a nice area - with a more demanding eye than I do an applicant who comes from a single-parent household in a poor area. But in either case, both applicants must demonstrate some kind of excellence, aptitude, and ambition in order for them to impress me. What exactly that might mean varies depending upon the circumstances they come from.

 

[kthxbai]

I'd be interested to know how URMs fare in medical school, residencies, and their careers compared to their peers. Are we really doing anyone justice by admitting (sometimes) marginal applicants based on an accident of birth?

I know a URM girl who barely scraped 30 on the MCAT and had a ~3.6 GPA. She's interviewing at top programs now and already holds several acceptances. She pulled some stunningly bad behavior at some of her interviews and still got in to those schools (I witnessed one myself).

Explain to me, how is getting into a top 10 school with these numbers justice? Anyone else would be rejected right away.

 

[kthxbai]

I don't expect classmates to understand these problems (just as I will never know what it's like to have a demanding lawyer or physician as a parent! ), but I especially respect the ones who appreciate their own economic standing.

I can tell you that it's rough. Growing up I saw very little of my dad; we don't know each other well and I don't feel I can ever come to him with difficult problems. The price of success is truly awful for families sometimes.

 

[mimelim]

Compare the MCAT/GPA charts for white vs minority applicants, or even better asian vs minority. IIRC the 50% accept rate is at a 48th percentile MCAT for black applicants and above 80th percentile for white and asian. The GPA is about .2-.3 different to see the same odds also.

Oh I agree life isn't fair, apps are holistic, race blinding schools ruins the diversity and makes schools bad like with the UCs, but I also understand how someone can feel upset at a rejection when their URM friends with much lower stats are getting in.

I'd be interested to know how URMs fare in medical school, residencies, and their careers compared to their peers. Are we really doing anyone justice by admitting (sometimes) marginal applicants based on an accident of birth?

I know a URM girl who barely scraped 30 on the MCAT and had a ~3.6 GPA. She's interviewing at top programs now and already holds several acceptances. She pulled some stunningly bad behavior at some of her interviews and still got in to those schools (I witnessed one myself).

Explain to me, how is getting into a top 10 school with these numbers justice? Anyone else would be rejected right away.

The point that is missing is that it isn't about the students. It is as @gyngyn states, about fulfilling a need in this country. We can debate how effective it is (or ineffective for that matter), but the purpose of AA is to bring more physicians to under served areas. Given that nobody else seems to have any other solutions to this disparity, it is hard to argue with it.

For me, the sense of entitlement among many students is astounding. Just because you are a good student with good stats, doesn't mean that you 'deserve' a medical school spot over someone else. In my limited experience, it is the same students that checkbox fill to look like they give a crap about others when in reality it is all, "me me me me".

 

[miszfifi820]

I'd be interested to know how URMs fare in medical school, residencies, and their careers compared to their peers. Are we really doing anyone justice by admitting (sometimes) marginal applicants based on an accident of birth?

I know a URM girl who barely scraped 30 on the MCAT and had a ~3.6 GPA. She's interviewing at top programs now and already holds several acceptances. She pulled some stunningly bad behavior at some of her interviews and still got in to those schools (I witnessed one myself).

Explain to me, how is getting into a top 10 school with these numbers justice? Anyone else would be rejected right away.

a ~30 and ~3.6 is about the national average of most accepted applicants, so im confused how accepting her would be an injustice?
because remember ... top 10 schools are selective because they can be not because they have to be. they dont have to select the 35+/3.9 only

 

[kthxbai]

The point that is missing is that it isn't about the students. It is as @gyngyn states, about fulfilling a need in this country. We can debate how effective it is (or ineffective for that matter), but the purpose of AA is to bring more physicians to under served areas. Given that nobody else seems to have any other solutions to this disparity, it is hard to argue with it.

For me, the sense of entitlement among many students is astounding. Just because you are a good student with good stats, doesn't mean that you 'deserve' a medical school spot over someone else. In my limited experience, it is the same students that checkbox fill to look like they give a crap about others when in reality it is all, "me me me me".

I just don't like that URM MDs have asterisks next to their degrees because we're so-called serving the greater good. Sure, you were selected to attend medical school because there is a greater chance of giving back to your community, but that doesn't foster much faith in these individuals' abilities. It really should be about the students, and in the way @NickNaylor had said - it's OK to give people a break for a tough life but only if they'd done the absolute best within the confines of their circumstances. I still fail to see how accepting a marginal applicant to a top 10 school just because of her skin color is OK (yes, it's anecdotal evidence on my end, but I have a feeling it's not so uncommon).

 

[miszfifi820]

I'd be interested to know how URMs fare in medical school, residencies, and their careers compared to their peers. Are we really doing anyone justice by admitting (sometimes) marginal applicants based on an accident of birth?

I know a URM girl who barely scraped 30 on the MCAT and had a ~3.6 GPA. She's interviewing at top programs now and already holds several acceptances. She pulled some stunningly bad behavior at some of her interviews and still got in to those schools (I witnessed one myself).

Explain to me, how is getting into a top 10 school with these numbers justice? Anyone else would be rejected right away.

accident of birth? interesting choice of words..

and i think these URMs fare well in med school and residencies and etc., because if not, im sure all the anti-AA folks would be on here with pubMed citations supporting why AA results in a negative effect in the long wrong.
But maybe i missed that thread.. or maybe someone is working on that study as we speak.

 

[miszfifi820]

I just don't like that URM MDs have asterisks next to their degrees because we're so-called serving the greater good. Sure, you were selected to attend medical school because there is a greater chance of giving back to your community, but that doesn't foster much faith in these individuals' abilities. It really should be about the students, and in the way @NickNaylor had said - it's OK to give people a break for a tough life but only if they'd done the absolute best within the confines of their circumstances. I still fail to see how accepting a marginal applicant to a top 10 school just because of her skin color is OK (yes, it's anecdotal evidence on my end, but I have a feeling it's not so uncommon).

but how do you know that its solely because of her color? Have you lived with this girl your whole life? were you sitting in her interview with her? did you read her personal statement and every single EC? her recommendation letters? were you sitting at the ADCOM table when they said 'we will accept her solely because of her skin color'?

that statement you made was a little presumptuous

 

[sundancing]

I mean, I'm sure there are adcoms who oppose it. My guess would be that they are rare enough that it ends up making little difference.

I would imagine there would be a larger percentage of adcoms who oppose the blanket URM advantage and try to take socioeconomic status into account when giving their nod of approval. My impression is that they're genuinely trying to create a fair playing field, and they're not just pandering to those who publish diversity stats.

My $0.02:
I really doubted the whole "advantage" thing coming out of high school. I went to a good public high school in a rural area, ended up doing well, and went to one of those prestigious private colleges. I probably had more "advantage" than 90% of the country, but at least half of this school came from that other 10%. I spent my first semester humbled and downright intimidated by everyone's accomplishments. I was among people who'd started companies and made apps and had been doing research since high school. They talked about SAT prep classes, unique twists they put in their college apps, and all of their friends at Ivy League/top schools. No one at my high school had ever even thought of these things as possibilities. Even immersed in that environment, it still took me 3 years to realize that I too could do things outside of what was encouraged back home (go to college/trade school, pull in a steady income, retire). Then I realized that if I (and I consider myself to have far more advantage than most people out there) took this long to adjust to the mindset, those who came from truly poor communities were at an enormous disadvantage.

We look around and see some kid sitting next to us, going to the same classes as us, eating the same food as us, and living in the same world as us now, but we completely forget that this person wasn't trained to seek out a plan and move to the next level the way we were. They're basically completely winging it, and if that person can succeed to the same or almost the same level as me, that person deserves my spot.

This is such a fantastic explanation and it helps me make sense of what I feel. No one in my immediate or extended family is a doctor and at the end of this journey I will have the highest education level of my entire family. Even so, I grew up with a degree of privilege - apart from my early childhood, my parents never struggled to pay the bills and I got to go to a good school. However, when I went to college with the intention of being pre-med, I was blindsided by how difficult and complex of a process it was. I didn't have anyone to guide me through the process or mentor me or get my foot in the door for a research position - and those are things that many of my pre-med friends did have. But it was okay. I just had to learn from my peers and work a little harder than some of them. If it was difficult for me with my relative privilege, it must be lightyears more difficult for someone who didn't grow up with the things I had.

 

[DoTheTrick]

I just don't like that URM MDs have asterisks next to their degrees because we're so-called serving the greater good. Sure, you were selected to attend medical school because there is a greater chance of giving back to your community, but that doesn't foster much faith in these individuals' abilities. It really should be about the students, and in the way @NickNaylor had said - it's OK to give people a break for a tough life but only if they'd done the absolute best within the confines of their circumstances. I still fail to see how accepting a marginal applicant to a top 10 school just because of her skin color is OK (yes, it's anecdotal evidence on my end, but I have a feeling it's not so uncommon).

It's not just about picking the very top students to become doctors. It's about picking students that can become competent doctors and fulfill the needs of society. Don't assume that a 3.6 gpa and a 30 mcat is all anyone who has those stats is capable of achieving.

 

[kthxbai]

accident of birth? interesting choice of words..

and i think these URMs fare well in med school and residencies and etc., because if not, im sure all the anti-AA folks would be on here with pubMed citations supporting why AA results in a negative effect in the long wrong.
But maybe i missed that thread.. or maybe someone is working on that study as we speak.

I would not cite the absence of evidence in support of your stance. I'm also not loving your reasoning, but that's for another time. When I asked that question I wasn't being facetious; I was genuinely curious if there is in fact a difference based on the admissions criteria. It's an important thing to consider when evaluating how effective AA is.

Re: accident of birth. No, it isn't an interesting choice of words. It's exactly as I'd meant them: we don't choose where and to whom we are born. We don't choose the society in which we are raised. To be given a big credit for the things we didn't choose doesn't seem right to me.

To badly paraphrase MLK: I wish we'd focus more on content of character. As in, let's consider life circumstances and socioeconomic backgrounds, but also keep race out of the equation.

 

[kthxbai]

It's not just about picking the very top students to become doctors. It's about picking students that can become competent doctors and fulfill the needs of society. Don't assume that a 3.6 gpa and a 30 mcat is all anyone who has those stats is capable of achieving.

I was talking about a top 10 school here, not all the mid to low tier institutions. The admissions criteria is way skewed in the sense.

 

[gshocke]

Re: accident of birth. No, it isn't an interesting choice of words. It's exactly as I'd meant them: we don't choose where and to whom we are born. We don't choose the society in which we are raised. To be given a big credit for the things we didn't choose doesn't seem right to me.

To badly paraphrase MLK: I wish we'd focus more on content of character. As in, let's consider life circumstances and socioeconomic backgrounds, but also keep race out of the equation.

your two statements contradict each other. you say 'we don't choose where and to whom we are born. We don't choose the society in which we are raised. To be given a big credit for the things we didn't choose doesn't seem right to me.' but then you say 'let's consider life circumstances and socioeconomic backgrounds'

Most of our life circumstances we did not choose, same way as we did not choose our race. we definitely do not choose the Socioeconomic background in which we are born into, just like how we do not choose our race. we do not choose if our parents completed education passed the 7th grade level, just like how we do not choose our race.
So why do you support taking life circumstances and SES into consideration but not support taking race into consideration which can influence your life outcomes and circumstances just as much?

that's not even realistically possible to consider one, life circumstances, and not the other, race.

 

[MrChance2]

FWIW I've noticed absolutely 0 difference in the URMs ability compared to ORMs at my medical school. I'm not sure what happens at the admissions level here but if some students got in because of being a URM I certainly have not noticed.

 

[kthxbai]

your two statements contradict each other. you say 'we don't choose where and to whom we are born. We don't choose the society in which we are raised. To be given a big credit for the things we didn't choose doesn't seem right to me.' but then you say 'let's consider life circumstances and socioeconomic backgrounds'

Most of our life circumstances we did not choose, same way as we did not choose our race. we definitely do not choose the Socioeconomic background in which we are born into, just like how we do not choose our race. we do not choose if our parents completed education passed the 7th grade level, just like how we do not choose our race.
So why do you support taking life circumstances and SES into consideration but not support taking race into consideration which can influence your life outcomes and circumstances just as much?

that's not even realistically possible to consider one, life circumstances, and not the other, race.

I had mentioned previously that cutting slack is just fine if people do the very best they can with what they were given. But as previous posters have mentioned, schools often just want to make their numbers look good at the expense of applicant quality.

 

[efle]

accident of birth? interesting choice of words..

and i think these URMs fare well in med school and residencies and etc., because if not, im sure all the anti-AA folks would be on here with pubMed citations supporting why AA results in a negative effect in the long wrong.
But maybe i missed that thread.. or maybe someone is working on that study as we speak.

There is supporting data on this for top undergrads, showing that the minorities admitted with lower test scores and hsGPA come in just as interested in the most competitive subjects but perform well below average on the curves and switch majors in droves. but none I know of for med school.

Edit: But I think mimelim pretty much cleared this up. The goal of admissions isn't always to get the best med students, it's sometimes to get ok med students who are more likely to serve certain groups.

 

[miszfifi820]

There is supporting data on this for top undergrads, showing that the minorities admitted with lower test scores and hsGPA come in just as interested in the most competitive subjects but perform well below average on the curves and switch majors in droves. but none I know of for med school.

Edit: But I think mimelim pretty much cleared this up. The goal of admissions isn't always to get the best med students, it's sometimes to get ok med students who are more likely to serve certain groups.

undergrad ...? common you're reaching now.

 

[youououa]

There is supporting data on this for top undergrads, showing that the minorities admitted with lower test scores and hsGPA come in just as interested in the most competitive subjects but perform well below average on the curves and switch majors in droves. but none I know of for med school.

Edit: But I think mimelim pretty much cleared this up. The goal of admissions isn't always to get the best med students, it's sometimes to get ok med students who are more likely to serve certain groups.

I think you're intentionally misstating what @mimelim said to support your viewpoint. For posterity's sake, see the original quote below.

In my (limited) experience, the refrain I always hear is that it's not possible to know what med school is like before starting. I imagine this insight extends to rating medical students.

The point that is missing is that it isn't about the students. It is as @gyngyn states, about fulfilling a need in this country. We can debate how effective it is (or ineffective for that matter), but the purpose of AA is to bring more physicians to under served areas. Given that nobody else seems to have any other solutions to this disparity, it is hard to argue with it.

For me, the sense of entitlement among many students is astounding. Just because you are a good student with good stats, doesn't mean that you 'deserve' a medical school spot over someone else. In my limited experience, it is the same students that checkbox fill to look like they give a crap about others when in reality it is all, "me me me me".