Doesn't affirmative action enhance stereotypes in admissions?

[Goro]

---

Members don't see this ad.

As we keep trying to remind you, it's not always about the grades.

The "best" don't have to be the brightest, not do the "brightest" have to be the best.

And again, it's not what what applicants want, it's what the schools want.

No one is entitled to a seat in medical school merely on the basis of the grades. The system is, surprisingly, meritocratic. And do try to remember that merit doesn't always mean numbers, it can also mean the road traveled.

Here's a little light reading assignment:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/17/opinion/sunday/the-case-for-black-doctors.html?_r=0

Medical and dental schools need to be more transparent - if there's a selective disadvantage against non-URMs according to numbers, they should acknowledge it on their website, through admission meetings on campuses, and simply move on from this idea of holistic non-sense. It's wrong on so many levels to go through college as a non-URM being fed lies and misconstrued statements from pre-health advisors or professional school representatives that they are selecting the "best and brightest" in their admissions.

 

[roger.horatio]

^ I would say this: if a lesser profile is allowed past screening compared to the average, then the screening process for AMCAS and AADSAS needs to be better addressed toward the entire undergraduate community looking to apply. Otherwise you're refusing to acknowledge an artificial equality.

There is nothing wrong with bias in admissions - so long as it's properly addressed and admitted to. From highschool to college graduation, you're fed the narrative that x, y, and z will get you to medical or dental school, but there are clearly other obstacles, outside of your control, that can positively or negatively dictate the outcome. All people want is transparency.

 

[Banco]

The biggest issue with modern affirmative action is that professional schools are essentially admitting to certain demographics that they are lesser qualified, statistically, to compete against an average. Culturally, that's a major insult to demographics - instead of raising the bar for everyone and expecting the very best, we lessen it for others while keeping it higher for the majority. When white applicants with great scores are being denied even for interviews at certain schools over black or Hispanic applicants with significantly lesser statistics, what you're doing is (1) perpetuating the very stereotypes that keep demographics down and (2) writing a false narrative for pre-professional students that they can be admitted, regardless of race, if they do x, y, and z.
.

Depending on different MCAT/GPA combos, graduation rates are generally similar for students once you hit an MCAT of 26-27 or so (with GPA 3.0+) (https://www.aamc.org/students/download/267622/data/mcatstudentselectionguide.pdf - look on pg 9). So what are you basing "qualified" off of? Or "statistically significant"?

Also did you just make a new account to revive this thread? If so...

 

[roger.horatio]

Graduation rates for professional school are irrelevant to biased screenings during admissions. There are remediation programs in place for people who fail, free tutoring and counseling, graduation GPAs for most programs is usually a 2.0 or C average, and generally once you're in, you psychologically and mentally work harder to pass. Saying that people with lesser scores still managed to graduate is weak. The reality is the hardest part of medical or dental school is getting in.

When you can't score an interview with a moderately competitive profile, it's a huge problem.

Also, what's ironic about the "it's not always the grades" attitude is that the statement only applies to certain demographics. A white applicant with a 3.3 GPA and an incredible holistic profile will always be red-flagged for their grades over a minority applicant with the same profile. A's, B's, and C's in sciences are viewed differently depending on your race. That's fundamentally wrong.

EDIT: No, I'm actually an applicant this year for schools and just wanted to inject two-cents into the process. I'm a graduate student and have seen the inconsistencies of standards between applicants who are admitted.

 

[Banco]

Graduation rates for professional school are irrelevant to biased screenings during admissions. There are remediation programs in place for people who fail, free tutoring and counseling, graduation GPAs for most programs is usually a 2.0 or C average, and generally once you're in, you psychologically and mentally work harder to pass. The reality is the hardest part of medical or dental school is getting in.

When you can't score an interview with a moderately competitive profile, it's a huge problem.

EDIT: No, I'm actually an applicant this year for schools and just wanted to inject two-cents into the process. I'm a graduate student and have seen the inconsistencies of standards between applicants who are admitted. It's a reality people don't like to talk about.

You used words such as "lesser qualified, statistically" and "significantly lesser statistics" - based off what?

How is a hispanic with a 27/3.5 less qualified for medical school than a white person with 36/3.7, if they graduate at virtually the same rates. 1st time step 1 pass rates are even more telling (same document has information). You're throwing around the term "qualified" very superfluously.

 

[roger.horatio]

^ Why should white applicants have to be demonstrating a 36 MCAT over a Hispanic applicant with a 27, when there are probably other white applicants with a 29, 30, 31? This is the crux of the artificial inequality argument. Do people even realize how hard it is to score a 36?

If a white applicant applies with a 27/3.5, they would be viewed much differently (incapable, didn't do well enough, not worth an interview) than the Hispanic applicant in admissions with the same profile. Nobody here is talking about the end game of USMLE or NBDE - once you're in, you'll do all you can to pass.

 

[Banco]

^ Simple. If a white applicant demonstrated a 27/3.5, they would be viewed much differently (incapable, didn't do well enough, not worth an interview) than the Hispanic applicant in admissions. with the same profile Nobody here is talking about the end game of USMLE or NBDE - once you're in, you'll do all you can to pass.

So if the hispanic applicant is just as academically "qualified", but brings something else to the table (through diversity, life experience, potential to serve minority communities etc.), then what is the problem? Not every qualified applicant makes it into medical school - plenty (the vast majority) of whites would still be rejected even if you completely removed all URMs.

Read the first post of this thread: http://forums.studentdoctor.net/threads/amazing-urm-fact-oid.306866/

LizzyM did some pretty interesting math here.

 

[roger.horatio]

White applicants with low socioeconomic backgrounds will never get the same journey credit. Likewise, you have black or Hispanic applicants from high income families who will immediately jump on the race bandwagon to get their URM status in play.

We should be blind to making assumptions about the journey until the interview. When AMCAS and AADSAS assume the life's story of demographics without further facing the applicants in an interview, you miss the journeys itself by people who are worth listening to.

 

[Banco]

White applicants with low socioeconomic backgrounds will never get the same journey credit. Likewise, you have black or Hispanic applicants from high income families who will immediately jump on the race bandwagon to get their URM status in play.

That's assuming that the only disadvantage prevalent for minorities is of a socioeconomic nature. You can indicate SES on AMCAS, btw.

 

[efle]

That's assuming that the only disadvantage prevalent for minorities is of a socioeconomic nature. You can indicate SES on AMCAS, btw.

I assume you'd support Asians getting lower numbers needed relative to whites then, instead of the current situation, since they face the non-SES disadvantage (racism) you speak of.

 

[Goro]

There's a reason why the term ORM exists.

And a white kid with a 36 and a high GPA is going med school, unless there are requirements lacking.

The reason, as we keep trying to (futilely) point out, is that URM are desired as applicants precisely because they are URM.

^ Why should white applicants have to be demonstrating a 36 MCAT over a Hispanic applicant with a 27, when there are probably other white applicants with a 29, 30, 31? This is the crux of the artificial inequality argument. Do people even realize how hard it is to score a 36?

If a white applicant applies with a 27/3.5, they would be viewed much differently (incapable, didn't do well enough, not worth an interview) than the Hispanic applicant in admissions with the same profile. Nobody here is talking about the end game of USMLE or NBDE - once you're in, you'll do all you can to pass.

 

[efle]

There's a reason why the term ORM exists.

And a white kid with a 36 and a high GPA is going med school, unless there are requirements lacking.

The reason, as we keep trying to (futilely) point out, is that URM are desired as applicants precisely because they are URM.

Here's an interesting question then: if there was not evidence that minority patients preferred minority doctors, would med schools cease caring about race? Or would they become like undergrads and continue to show differences in treatment now as a quest for the enigmatic "diversity"?

In fact, considering that iirc white patients do not behave different to white vs Asian doctors, the differing treatment for Asians at the moment can't be held up by the usual logic. What's the reasoning for keeping % Asian down instead of letting them take spots from white applicants?

 

[Goro]

First off, if minorities did just fine with any doctor, then I think that there would be less of an impetus for URM policies. However, I seriously doubt that US medical schools will think that having a 100% white or Asian clinician population will best serve the interests of American Medicine.

If anything, AA's are 'down" in med school admissions. On what planet are the %s of Asian students down compared to other demographics???? They are represented well out of proportion in med school classes compared to their numbers in the US population.

USA: ~5% (source: http://www.cdc.gov/minorityhealth/populations/REMP/asian.html)

Med schools (from MSAR):
Yale: 30%
Harvard: 30% (AA 6.7%)
Albany: 29%
Drexel: 34%
U IA: 16%
Mercer: 11% (AA 4%)

My own school (~25-30%)

My God, even at Howard, a HBC, Asians make up 13% of the class!!!

I don't feel like going back and filling in the rest of the AA stats, but they're all tiny...single digits, when AA are ~12.5% of the US. Are people arguing against URM admissions so selfish and so entitled that they're bitching over 3-4 Asian kids who didn't get into Mercer???

As I am proud of pointing out: Asians are the most successful minority group in the history of the US, even more than the Jews.

Here's an interesting question then: if there was not evidence that minority patients preferred minority doctors, would med schools cease caring about race? Or would they become like undergrads and continue to show differences in treatment now as a quest for the enigmatic "diversity"?

In fact, considering that iirc white patients do not behave different to white vs Asian doctors, the differing treatment for Asians at the moment can't be held up by the usual logic. What's the reasoning for keeping % Asian down instead of letting them take spots from white applicants?

 

[Banco]

I assume you'd support Asians getting lower numbers needed relative to whites then, instead of the current situation, since they face the non-SES disadvantage (racism) you speak of.

I would have loved that since I am Asian, but I realize that there is no underrepresentation of "Asians" in medicine, and though asians do face discrimination just like any other minority, it is not as severe or institutionalized as it is for black/hispanic people.

Asian is a very broad term, and Hmong are actually considered URM at some cali schools. In a similar occurrence, not all hispanics are considered URM. I think attention should be brought to the difficulties that immigrants face in this country though - these days muslims/arabs are asians that seem to be on the receiving end of a lot of racism/bigotry - whether that is institutionalized or not is hard to say.

Here's an interesting question then: if there was not evidence that minority patients preferred minority doctors, would med schools cease caring about race? Or would they become like undergrads and continue to show differences in treatment now as a quest for the enigmatic "diversity"?

In fact, considering that iirc white patients do not behave different to white vs Asian doctors, the differing treatment for Asians at the moment can't be held up by the usual logic. What's the reasoning for keeping % Asian down instead of letting them take spots from white applicants?

I think you make a good distinction here.

1.) AA for the sake of bringing URMs to medical school so that they will positively affect patient outcomes (ideally in their communities).
2.) AA for the sake of diversifying the medical field.

Both have their own justifications - I like to support the first one, because it has tangible results. And I also like to support that idea that AA assists those who are most often the victims of impoverished backgrounds. How diversity is handled for admissions is pretty enigmatic to me, as well.

Realize though that there are many other people that take the spots away from Asians. Legacies, athletes etc.

I always liked this image:

 

[Goro]

Spot on, Banco! Nobody ever bitches about legacies, for some strange reason.

 

[Gandyy]

a. There you go yet again. This is third time you are lying about what I said.

I did not ignore the fact that all races commit crimes. I was the one who referenced the DOJ crime statistics that are listed by race early on this thread. And I encouraged you to read them. You seemed unaware that those crime stats even existed. Ultimately you were too lazy to go to the DOJ website for the statistics. Your choice.

b. Goro provided no support for his 1 line statement. Then he told me to get a clue like he's some omniscient god sitting on high who knows everything about everything and everyone's supposed to take his word as being Truth. Goro may be revered by you but to me he's a net persona who has no more credibility than the Man in the Moon. Likewise you provide no support for your theory that Ferguson vandals and looters rioted "as an effect of mistreatment." Where's your proof? You do realize that the Ferguson looters harmed African American residents in the main, their businesses, their access to businesses and services. So if your theory holds true - that Ferguson looters were lashing out as a result of mistreatment by other races, why did they burn down and rob fellow African Americans? Explain that to me. Hint: you can't because your theory is illogical; it makes no sense.

c. You have 1 more month to get your meds tweeked so there's still time. Without that being done your inability to be truthful and ethical could pose risks to others especially once you are involved in direct patient care and being part of a team. I sincerely hope you are not at my med school.

Arent you the guy that thinks med school admissions should only be based on MCAT/GPA and that the "holistic review" to an application is a stupid idea?

 

[efle]

Spot on, Banco! Nobody ever bitches about legacies, for some strange reason.

No, Goro, we don't forget. The critical difference is that nobody defends legacies. Everyone agrees it's messed up for them to get special treatment. Nobody bitches about it because it's an echo chamber there. For AA there is discussion to be had.

 

[efle]

Arent you the guy that thinks med school admissions should only be based on MCAT/GPA and that the "holistic review" to an application is a stupid idea?

To be fair, it is done that way in some countries with great medical systems and good doctors.

 

[Gandyy]

To be fair, it is done that way in some countries with great medical systems and good doctors.

Yea, but many of those countries are not giant melting pots like the United States is. We need physicians that understand the other aspects of being a physician besides academics.

 

[efle]

Yea, but many of those countries are not giant melting pots like the United States is. We need physicians that understand the other aspects of being a physician besides academics.

Different arguments. You could set up a GPA/MCAT only system and then just set thresholds different per race.

 

[Gandyy]

Different arguments. You could set up a GPA/MCAT only system and then just set thresholds different per race.

Dont they kind of already do that here? 😀😉

 

[efle]

Dont they kind of already do that here? 😀😉

Yep all that would change is the importance of GPA and MCAT would go from "most important" to "all that matters". The numbers already show the AA so nothing would really change there

 

[Banco]

No, Goro, we don't forget. The critical difference is that nobody defends legacies. Everyone agrees it's messed up for them to get special treatment. Nobody bitches about it because it's an echo chamber there. For AA there is discussion to be had.

Everyone agrees it is messed up but don't care enough to advocate removing it. Yet people spend all their effort arguing about getting rid of AA, instead of all those other BS factors.

 

[Gandyy]

Yep all that would change is the importance of GPA and MCAT would go from "most important" to "all that matters". The numbers already show the AA so nothing would really change there

I get why the URM status is there. Really.. I get it. It makes sense. But the large part of the reason there are so many "Indian Physicians" is because they are a ton of FMG's who immigrated in the past 30-40 years that have not yet retired that are from India and Pakistan. Same thing goes for other Asian groups. When they retire near the same chronological time....... I believe the ORM percentage is going to drop heavily since right now its being tapered off.

 

[efle]

I get why the URM status is there. Really.. I get it. It makes sense. But the large part of the reason there are so many "Indian Physicians" is because they are a ton of FMG's who immigrated in the past 30-40 years that have not yet retired that are from India and Pakistan. Same thing goes for other Asian groups. When they retire near the same chronological time....... I believe the ORM percentage is going to drop heavily since right now its being tapered off.

I'm pretty fine with the URM policies since what matters in the end is patients being helped. If they're only going to seek help from someone with the same skin color, fine, get them their kind of doctor.

What I cannot possibly see any justification for is Asians having a bar set higher than whites. @Goro when I said earlier "why keep the Asian % down" I didn't mean relative to their proportion of the population. I meant relative to the higher percent they would take up if admissions was blinded to white vs Asian and saw them all as one pool. As we saw with Berkeley, UCLA and the rest of the UCs in the 90s, race-blinding makes the Asian % go up. I don't see any possible reason to avoid that happening, since white patients don't demand that their doctors aren't Asian. And, again pointing to the UCs as examples, the loss in "diversity" has had zero impact on the quality, reputation etc of the institutions.

And, I am not Asian. I don't even have a personal reason to be pissed off about this, it just seems so outrageous I can't help it. They may be successful ("even more than the jews") but that doesn't make it justified to select against them vs even more privileged white applicants.

 

[efle]

Everyone agrees it is messed up but don't care enough to advocate removing it. Yet people spend all their effort arguing about getting rid of AA, instead of all those other BS factors.

Anyone you ask would say they'd like to see it removed. There's nothing to be argued there. There is still convincing to be done that certain parts of AA are broken (as I think the Asian component is). For all of this stuff nobody has the power to change anyways. Do away with legacy and you lose lots of $. Do away with AA at your school and there will be a political ****storm. There's no real advocacy at stake in any direction on these threads...just argument for the sake of testing each other's beliefs.

 

[Gandyy]

I'm pretty fine with the URM policies since what matters in the end is patients being helped. If they're only going to seek help from someone with the same skin color, fine, get them their kind of doctor.

What I cannot possibly see any justification for is Asians having a bar set higher than whites. @Goro when I said earlier "why keep the Asian % down" I didn't mean relative to their proportion of the population. I meant relative to the higher percent they would take up if admissions was blinded to white vs Asian and saw them all as one pool. As we saw with Berkeley, UCLA and the rest of the UCs in the 90s, race-blinding makes the Asian % go up. I don't see any possible reason to avoid that happening, since white patients don't demand that their doctors aren't Asian. And, again pointing to the UCs as examples, the loss in "diversity" has had zero impact on the quality, reputation etc of the institutions.

And, I am not Asian. I don't even have a personal reason to be pissed off about this, it just seems so outrageous I can't help it. They may be successful ("even more than the jews") but that doesn't make it justified to select against them vs even more privileged white applicants.

Yea.... I see your point. Its difficult though... because I can see where Goro is coming from too.

Bah.... I dont know about this one

 

[Banco]

Anyone you ask would say they'd like to see it removed. There's nothing to be argued there. There is still convincing to be done that certain parts of AA are broken (as I think the Asian component is). For all of this stuff nobody has the power to change anyways. Do away with legacy and you lose lots of $. Do away with AA at your school and there will be a political ****storm. There's no real advocacy at stake in any direction on these threads...just argument for the sake of testing each other's beliefs.

These threads are obviously pretty useless, but even on the political level a lot more debate occurs regarding the legitimacy of AA as compared to that of legacies etc.

 

[efle]

These threads are obviously pretty useless, but even on the political level a lot more debate occurs regarding the legitimacy of AA as compared to that of legacies etc.

Because there is debate to be had here and not there. If you started a thread saying "legacies shouldn't get in with lower numbers" nobody would have anything to contest.

 

[Banco]

Because there is debate to be had here and not there. If you started a thread saying "legacies shouldn't get in with lower numbers" nobody would have anything to contest.

I'm not talking about the thread efle, I was referring to actual debates in real life in the political sphere. Legacies are still in place even though it is so "obviously" wrong.

 

[Hyde]

...URM are desired as applicants precisely because they are URM.

Yes, because in the fine print of the ACA ( aka Obamacare) med schools which show "a record" of accepting URM's get gov't research grants, contracts. It's all about the $. "Better care for under served patients/communities" are PR talking points.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2012/09/racial_preferences_in_obamacare.html

 

[RhinB]

I haven't read this entire thread, but what about immigrants?

Is there a distinction between URM immigrant and ORM immigrant?

At least personally, I feel as though my experiences as an ORM immigrant aren't as influential or "important" as an URM american-born person. Yes URM is for ethnic diversity to serve patient populations, but when schools emphasize "diversity", I often feel like I can't mention the fact that I'm an ORM IMMIGRANT simply because of the ORM part. Ah, it's tough to articulate but does anyone know what I mean? That's my only issue with URM.

 

[Banco]

I haven't read this entire thread, but what about immigrants?

Is there a distinction between URM immigrant and ORM immigrant?

At least personally, I feel as though my experiences as an ORM immigrant aren't as influential or "important" as an URM american-born person. Yes URM is for ethnic diversity to serve patient populations, but when schools emphasize "diversity", I often feel like I can't mention the fact that I'm an ORM IMMIGRANT simply because of the ORM part. Ah, it's tough to articulate but does anyone know what I mean? That's my only issue with URM.

I am an ORM immigrant and I played it up because it shaped my life a lot. You should mention it if it is important - it came up in nearly half my interviews.

 

[efle]

I'm not talking about the thread efle, I was referring to actual debates in real life in the political sphere. Legacies are still in place even though it is so "obviously" wrong.

Yeah because $, just like all the other blatantly fubar stuff !

 

[RhinB]

I am an ORM immigrant and I played it up because it shaped my life a lot. You should mention it if it is important - it came up in nearly half my interviews.

hmm maybe it's just MY perspective then. lol Guess I gotta change my attitude and just own it more.

 

[Hyde]

I am an ORM immigrant and I played it up because it shaped my life a lot. You should mention it if it is important - it came up in nearly half my interviews.

As I recall you have very good statistics and EC's. The concerns about AA are a different ball of wax. And there's different types of ORM's, as you know. Typically the term ORM is associated with Asians and Asians are not usually favored ORM's. A net handle of "Banco" might suggest you are not Asian. So #297 should not get false hopes.

 

[Hyde]

Legacies are still in place even though it is so "obviously" wrong.

Please provide statistics that support your theory that med school applicants with bad statistics are still being accepted due to legacy.

 

[Jaurim]

The idea that affirmative action is somehow a university/medical school's way of collecting URM students is misguided. I did not have the patience to sort through this entire thread but according to OPs quote this person believes that AA is making amends for something done in the distant historical past? No. Here's what it's really about: in this country at this curent time, URM start on a different footing long before they are brought before the judgement of an adcom. They have different access to educational opportunities, healthcare, social support, etc. That is not to say that within URM there are not a myriad of different experiences with regards to culture, socioeconomics, and racial discourse, but their commonality lies in that they have encountered some circumstance that has prevented their cultural group from being represented in the way that would reflect their percentage in the typical US population. To say that we should be blind to the existence of URM in the admissions process is to ignore the the structural problems that existed in the system from day one to keep the status quo the way they are. People who propose to be "colorblind" are, knowingly or otherwise, supporting a system that never began with equal opportunity for its participants.

 

[Hyde]

Here's what it's really about: in this country at this curent time, URM start on a different footing long before they are brought before the judgement of an adcom. They have different access to educational opportunities, healthcare, social support, etc. That is not to say that within URM there are not a myriad of different experiences with regards to culture, socioeconomics, and racial discourse, but their commonality lies in that they have encountered some circumstance that has prevented their cultural group to be represented in the way that would reflect their percentage in the typical US population.

And Asians and Indians have not started out poor or faced obstacles? For that matter don't Caucasians ( whose last names are not Bush or Clinton) face similar challenges?

 

[Banco]

hmm maybe it's just MY perspective then. lol Guess I gotta change my attitude and just own it more.

Overall you have nothing to worry about, judging from your MDapps you have an excellent application. Expect interviews.

As I recall you have very good statistics and EC's. The concerns about AA are a different ball of wax. And there's different types of ORM's, as you know. Typically the term ORM is associated with Asians and Asians are not usually favored ORM's. A net handle of "Banco" might suggest you are not Asian. So #297 should not get false hopes.

That's uh, quite the assumption. I am indeed a typical ORM. I'm also not a starfish.

Please provide statistics that support your theory that med school applicants with bad statistics are still being accepted due to legacy.

Me and efle were more discussing factors that come into play for all levels of education (UG included, where legacies are fairly prevalent) and how some are argued more than others. I don't think they publish data for medical school legacies, so maybe adcoms can chime in with their experiences - they have stated before that legacy applicants (and those with strong connections) do get interviews.

 

[roger.horatio]

And Asians and Indians have not started out poor or faced obstacles? For that matter don't Caucasians ( whose last names are not Bush or Clinton) face similar challenges?

Bingo. Welcome to the hypocrisy of affirmative action. If you're white or Asian, you've had it easy, your grades have come easy (or you're stupid if you didn't get A's), and if you don't get a 30 MCAT or 21 DAT you're out of admission.

 

[Hyde]

maybe adcoms can chime in with their experiences - they have stated before that legacy applicants (and those with strong connections) do get interviews.

Who are "they?" Gyngyn specifically said on a waitlist thread that even high level politicians - I think she/he referenced Senators -get zero traction with med schools she/he is familiar with.

 

[Jaurim]

And Asians and Indians have not started out poor or faced obstacles? For that matter don't Caucasians ( whose last names are not Bush or Clinton) face similar challenges?

When have I said anything about ORM? But if you must hammer on this particular fact, in your opinion would you just completely fill Harvard Med with East and South Asian people if hypothetically they came out with the highest scores? Now, would you actually be stupid enough to belive that your education is just as enriching as it would be if you had peers with more diverse experiences that reflect the actual makeup of America? As an Asian student myself, I am gonna say no to that static learning experience. But maybe I'm in the minority of Asian students?

 

[roger.horatio]

When have I said anything about ORM? But if you must hammer on this particular fact, in your opinion would you just completely fill Harvard Med with East and South Asian people if hypothetically they came out with the highest scores? Now, would you actually be stupid enough to belive that your education is just as enriching as it would be if you had peers with more diverse experiences that reflect the actual makeup of America? As an Asian student myself, I am gonna say no to that static learning experience. But maybe I'm in the minority of Asian students?

This is the problem with the current liberal climate of merit vs. agenda. Asian applicants, through their merits and achievements, are superior applicants. I see nothing wrong with the majority of professional schools having the most qualified and merited students. Thats Darwinism.

The professional admissions industry is one of the only industries where your merits don't dominate the scene. By your logic, we shouldn't have as many blacks in the NBA or NFL because it's a static atmosphere.

The other societal hypocrisy we need to get over is patients being "unable" to get along or connect with their doctor or dentist just because they aren't their race. What happened to 2015's emphasis on accepting people for who they are?

 

[RhinB]

When have I said anything about ORM? But if you must hammer on this particular fact, in your opinion would you just completely fill Harvard Med with East and South Asian people if hypothetically they came out with the highest scores? Now, would you actually be stupid enough to belive that your education is just as enriching as it would be if you had peers with more diverse experiences that reflect the actual makeup of America? As an Asian student myself, I am gonna say no to that static learning experience. But maybe I'm in the minority of Asian students?

[Edit for clarification - I agree with Jaurim lol]
No I'm Asian as well and I honestly think any relatively open-minded asian person would agree. Especially once I got TO college and saw how diversity is awesome and how much I learned from different people. It's honestly mind-boggling. Somewhere early in this thread someone brought up a confucious saying along the lines of "walking with 3 others and you'll learn something new," and I 100% support that mentality.

 

[Banco]

Who are "they?" Gyngyn specifically said on a waitlist thread that even high level politicians - I think she/he referenced Senators -get zero traction with med schools she/he is familiar with.

I believe LizzyM has stated that children of faculty/deans can get interviews as courtesy. It definitely happens, some examples of threads below. It's hard to quantify directly because obviously schools aren't going to advertise this.

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/thr...m-a-major-donor-get-me.1125592/#post-16287603
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/thr...ons-help-in-admissions.1125764/#post-16293978 (check last post)

This is an example of someone getting in without taking the MCAT due to connections: http://www.gainesville.com/article/20080410/NEWS/804100319

This is the problem with the current liberal climate of merit vs. agenda. Asian applicants, through their merits and achievements, are superior applicants. I see nothing wrong with the majority of professional schools having the most qualified and merited students. Thats Darwinism.

The professional admissions industry is one of the only industries where your merits don't dominate the scene. By your logic, we shouldn't have as many blacks in the NBA or NFL because it's a static atmosphere.

The other societal hypocrisy we need to get over is patients being "unable" to get along or connect with their doctor or dentist just because they aren't their race. What happened to 2015's emphasis on accepting people for who they are?

Are you really advocating darwinism for social policy?

As to the bold, if the patient has no choice then of course, go to the doctor you have available. But numerous studies have shown that certain groups have better outcomes when treated with physicians of similar backgrounds. You cannot deny this - multiple links have been posted in this thread, you should have read it completely before bumping it up again.

 

[roger.horatio]

^ Thats the nature of all psychosocial social policy and service.

A black child also connects better with black teachers, but if a white teacher happens to be a better teacher with more skillsets and qualities you're looking for in teacher, do you deny them the ability to teach?

For a society that preaches being race-less and gender-less in our jobs, we sure don't do it for admissions.

 

[Banco]

^ Thats the nature of all psychosocial social policy and service.

A black child also connects better with black teachers, but if a white teacher happens to be a better teacher with more skillsets and qualities you're looking for in teacher, do you deny them the ability to teach?

For a society that preaches being race-less and gender-less in our jobs, we sure don't do it for admissions.

Darwinism explains how things are in nature, not how they should be in society. You gonna argue for eugenics now too?

You're being purposefully disingenuous now. Better connection = better treatment = better health. Why are you assuming that the black doctors are worse than white/asian doctors? If connecting better with your patient allows for better outcomes, then they are by definition better doctors in that specific context. We have already discussed that virtually all pass medical school and virtually all pass step 1, whether you're white black brown orange or purple. What are you basing any of this off of? You still haven't answered what you mean by "qualified".

The teacher example has been discussed already in this thread, btw.

 

[Jaurim]

This is the problem with the current liberal climate of merit vs. agenda. Asian applicants, through their merits and achievements, are superior applicants. I see nothing wrong with the majority of professional schools having the most qualified and merited students. Thats Darwinism.

The professional admissions industry is one of the only industries where your merits don't dominate the scene. By your logic, we shouldn't have as many blacks in the NBA or NFL because it's a static atmosphere.

The other societal hypocrisy we need to get over is patients being "unable" to get along or connect with their doctor or dentist just because they aren't their race. What happened to 2015's emphasis on accepting people for who they are?

YOU CANNOT APPLY DARWINISM TO TRAITS THAT ARE NOT HERITABLE did you even pay attention in bio? By that token you're essentially saying that things like poverty would also be passed down through populations and upward social mobility is impossible. This is some messed up eugenics **** I do not ever wish to hear come out of the mouth of someone who might one day become a doctor. Also, who are you to say that your understanding of a patient population and their experience is enough to suffice in providing a safe space for their care? I don't really want to continue conversation with someone who is obviously too self indulged to understand the needs of others. Goodbye.

 

[Goro]

A 30 MCAT score is competitive for tons of MD and all DO schools, so don't equate "can't get into Harvard" with "can't be a doctor".

And yet again, it's not what you want, it's what the med school wants.

Bingo. Welcome to the hypocrisy of affirmative action. If you're white or Asian, you've had it easy, your grades have come easy (or you're stupid if you didn't get A's), and if you don't get a 30 MCAT or 21 DAT you're out of admission.