People gaming URM status

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
I didn't feel the situation is implausible, I feel the suddenly new poster who, while seemingly concerned in his OP, never replies combined with the back story of *insert rly low stats* + *insert URM* makes it a very likely troll. OP is still nowhere to be found.

OP has been a member for 9 months. OP did reply.

Just because a poster is new or has a small number of posts or asks a common question does not make them a troll. I'm not sure why people are more inclined to call troll or beat down on the OP rather than just answer the questions he had.

Members don't see this ad.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
OP has been a member for 9 months. OP did reply.
You can't be here 9 months and not know how a URM thread ends, especially one with the inflammatory nature of the situation described in the original post. That being said, he got his answer and then the thread was diffused by a few posters that took it off the rails like a bomb for disposal. It's less that the OP was definitely a troll and more that this thread could go nowhere but dark places post resolution. Just my two cents- I've actually been doing my best to re-rail threads lately when I notice they're too off topic, because a lock does no one any good and you're totally right, this thread was derailed to the point that it should probably just be locked and allowed to sink into oblivion.
 
You can't be here 9 months and not know how a URM thread ends, especially one with the inflammatory nature of the situation described in the original post. That being said, he got his answer and then the thread was diffused by a few posters that took it off the rails like a bomb for disposal. It's less that the OP was definitely a troll and more that this thread could go nowhere but dark places post resolution. Just my two cents- I've actually been doing my best to re-rail threads lately when I notice they're too off topic, because a lock does no one any good and you're totally right, this thread was derailed to the point that it should probably just be locked and allowed to sink into oblivion.

Not everyone uses SDN religiously. Often people pop in occasionally to ask a question or are directed here from a google search.

All I'm trying to say is to give people a little more benefit of the doubt. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7 users
Members don't see this ad :)
OP has been a member for 9 months. OP did reply.

Just because a poster is new or has a small number of posts or asks a common question does not make them a troll. I'm not sure why people are more inclined to call troll or beat down on the OP rather than just answer the questions he had.

Ah ok. I saw 6 posts and assumed new, I stand corrected.
 
I don't know why you guys are calling the op a troll just because you support affirmative action due to the fact that it helps you. I know a person at a top med school of egyptian heritage and claimed aa status. It's far from an implausible situation

There are plenty of people who support affirmative action who do not benefit from it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
There are plenty of people who support affirmative action who do not benefit from it.
EXCEPT when they themselves are personally affected by it (i.e. when competing for a job that they want). All of a sudden they're no longer ok with it.
 
EXCEPT when they themselves are personally affected by it (i.e. when competing for a job that they want). All of a sudden they're no longer ok with it.

Eh, I feel like there are definitely people who would still be okay with it. I mean, there are people competing to get into med schools who are okay with it and are not URM. These are the people who see merit in the system; in any case, whining and groaning about it isn't going to do anything as long as people are "following the rules" of admission.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Eh, I feel like there are definitely people who would still be okay with it. I mean, there are people competing to get into med schools who are okay with it and are not URM. These are the people who see merit in the system; in any case, whining and groaning about it isn't going to do anything as long as people are "following the rules" of admission.
Yes, bc they THEMSELVES already made it into medical school. The issue is not "following the rules". The issue is whether the rule is a good one to begin with.
 
Yes, bc they THEMSELVES already made it into medical school. The issue is not "following the rules". The issue is whether the rule is a good one to begin with.

Do you really not think there are non-urm people who are currently competing to get into med school and are okay with affirmative action? Because I can assure you with 100% certainty that they do exist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Do you really not think there are non-urm people who are currently competing to get into med school and are okay with affirmative action? Because I can assure you with 100% certainty that they do exist.
I didn't say there weren't. I'm just saying that the ones who are tend to be hypocritical bc they've swallowed the Kool-Aid on why it's needed, premed.
 
I didn't say there weren't. I'm just saying that the ones who are tend to be hypocritical bc they've swallowed the Kool-Aid on why it's needed, premed.

Are you calling me pre-med like an insult? Nice. I don't know why it's so difficult for you to imagine that others have a different opinion than you that they've formed on their own. I could also say that you've "swallowed the Kool-Aid" on how them minorities are going to steal yer job.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Are you calling me pre-med like an insult? Nice. I don't know why it's so difficult for you to imagine that others have a different opinion than you that they've formed on their own. I could also say that you've "swallowed the Kool-Aid" on how them minorities are going to steal yer job.
No, just to point out your naivete. It's just that many people tend to be quite huge hypocrites, when they're ok with affirmative action policies being instituted on OTHER professions/occupations, just not their own, esp. when they don't benefit. Make no mistakes - there are official affirmative action/URM policies that medical schools implement when it comes to admissions. This isn't conjecture. This is fact, as the AAMC has released data for different ethnic groups at different GPAs and MCAT scores with respect to percent chance of getting a medical school acceptance.
 
No, just to point out your naivete. It's just that many people tend to be quite huge hypocrites, when they're ok with affirmative action policies being instituted on OTHER professions/occupations, just not their own, esp. when they don't benefit. Make no mistakes - there are official affirmative action/URM policies that medical schools implement when it comes to admissions. This isn't conjecture. This is fact, as the AAMC has released data for different ethnic groups at different GPAs and MCAT scores with respect to percent chance of getting a medical school acceptance.

I know that there are official affirmative action/URM policies, otherwise there wouldn't even be a debate. I'm not naive for knowing the reason why it exists; generally speaking, people who are under represented in the US face discrimination, are discouraged from education by others, or have grown up in a bad environment, that means the fact that they've achieved a 29 MCAT is more impressive than Sally Trust-fund who got a 32. Obviously there are better ways of making up for this than asking about ethnic origin, but since the percentage of URMs in med schools is still so small, there's nothing to be so pissy about.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I know that there are official affirmative action/URM policies, otherwise there wouldn't even be a debate. I'm not naive for knowing the reason why it exists; generally speaking, people who are under represented in the US face discrimination, are discouraged from education by others, or have grown up in a bad environment, that means the fact that they've achieved a 29 MCAT is more impressive than Sally Trust-fund who got a 32. Obviously there are better ways of making up for this than asking about ethnic origin, but since the percentage of URMs in med schools is still so small, there's nothing to be so pissy about.
Yes, you are naive for knowing the reason why it exists, as your post clearly demonstrates.
 
So URM advantage in medical school admissions is not affirmative action because it is explicitly enforced to meet an institutional and national need and is not - as affirmative action is - a tool of positive discrimination in favor of historically disenfranchised people. For example, I don't benefit from the med school's URM policies in spite of being hispanic because I am not Mexican, Mexican-American, or Puerto-Rican. If this was AA, I would benefit. Yes, I support URM "advantage" in med school admissions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
So URM advantage in medical school admissions is not affirmative action because it is explicitly enforced to meet an institutional and national need and is not - as affirmative action is - a tool of positive discrimination in favor of historically disenfranchised people. For example, I don't benefit from the med school's URM policies in spite of being hispanic because I am not Mexican, Mexican-American, or Puerto-Rican. If this was AA, I would benefit. Yes, I support URM "advantage" in med school admissions.

Thank you for explaining this, I know the correct term is not affirmative action but a lot of people use that term anyways so it's easier for me to keep the same language.
 
Thank you for explaining this, I know the correct term is not affirmative action but a lot of people use that term anyways so it's easier for me to keep the same language.

I can appreciate that but I think that just works against you and sets up a weak arguing position. Arguing against AA and what happens in med school admissions is totally different. I'm willing to discuss if URM recruiting is warranted or beneficial but I categorically disagree with the premise that it is bad because affirmative action is bad - specifically because it is not affirmative action.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
So URM advantage in medical school admissions is not affirmative action because it is explicitly enforced to meet an institutional and national need and is not - as affirmative action is - a tool of positive discrimination in favor of historically disenfranchised people. For example, I don't benefit from the med school's URM policies in spite of being hispanic because I am not Mexican, Mexican-American, or Puerto-Rican. If this was AA, I would benefit. Yes, I support URM "advantage" in med school admissions.

Thank you for explaining this, I know the correct term is not affirmative action but a lot of people use that term anyways so it's easier for me to keep the same language.
Sorry but medical schools DEFINITELY call it affirmative action:

https://www.aamc.org/newsroom/newsreleases/377850/04232014.html

https://www.aamc.org/download/102358/data/aibvol8no6.pdf

http://virtualmentor.ama-assn.org/2012/12/hlaw1-1212.html

http://meded.ucsf.edu/aamc-analysis-after-affirmative-action-california
 

Ok so the language here is a bit problematic. 2/5 deal with Fischer v. UT Austin which is a case explicitly about affirmative action but with intended implications for race-based admissions policies in general (a la Bakke v. U. California System) and 1 other link is talking about Schuette v. Coalition which was also explicitly about AA but had implications for race-based admissions policies. The thing with these two cases is that the plaintiffs were suing against AA but on the grounds that race-considerate admission policies were unconstitutional. Simply, they are attacking AA by attacking the underlying premise, race-considerate admission policies.

Prop 209 in Cali is a similar deal but it is a little more involved since it removed the applicant's ability to specify race. It took the "out-of-sight-out-of-mind" route without really dealing with the underlying premise (hence why private Cali institutions can do whatever they want).

https://members.aamc.org/eweb/upload/Diversity in the Physician Workforce Facts and Figures 2010.pdf

However, in the AAMCs actual statement about its intents to diversify the physician workforce the focus is on outcomes and not simply on creating a diverse space for the sake of diversity:


"It is widely recognized within the
health professions that diversity is an
essential component for promoting
excellence in medical education
and accessible, quality health care"

^ Premise

"In
terms of health care delivery, research
indicates that physicians from racial
and ethnic minority backgrounds are
themselves more likely to treat racial
and ethnic minority patients, and more
likely to set up practice in typically
underserved communities.(some citations) Several
major national reports also state that
a more diverse health professions
workforce is key to eliminating health
care disparities. (citations here)"

^Justification

and

"As this edition
of Facts & Figures clearly portrays, the
U.S. is still producing too few racial
and ethnic minority physicians to
assure quality health care for all."

^ Evidence
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Ok so the language here is a bit problematic. 2/5 deal with Fischer v. UT Austin which is a case explicitly about affirmative action but with intended implications for race-based admissions policies in general (a la Bakke v. U. California System) and 1 other link is talking about Schuette v. Coalition which was also explicitly about AA but had implications for race-based admissions policies. The thing with these two cases is that the plaintiffs were suing against AA but on the grounds that race-considerate admission policies were unconstitutional. Simply, they are attacking AA by attacking the underlying premise, race-considerate admission policies.

Prop 209 in Cali is a similar deal but it is a little more involved since it removed the applicant's ability to specify race. It took the "out-of-sight-out-of-mind" route without really dealing with the underlying premise (hence why private Cali institutions can do whatever they want).

https://members.aamc.org/eweb/upload/Diversity in the Physician Workforce Facts and Figures 2010.pdf

However, in the AAMCs actual statement about its intents to diversify the physician workforce the focus is on outcomes and not simply on creating a diverse space for the sake of diversity:


"It is widely recognized within the
health professions that diversity is an
essential component for promoting
excellence in medical education
and accessible, quality health care"

^ Premise

"In
terms of health care delivery, research
indicates that physicians from racial
and ethnic minority backgrounds are
themselves more likely to treat racial
and ethnic minority patients, and more
likely to set up practice in typically
underserved communities.(some citations) Several
major national reports also state that
a more diverse health professions
workforce is key to eliminating health
care disparities. (citations here)"

^Justification

and

"As this edition
of Facts & Figures clearly portrays, the
U.S. is still producing too few racial
and ethnic minority physicians to
assure quality health care for all."

^ Evidence
Evidence? In a hotly debated political topic? Unacceptable!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Top