Schools Who Love URM?

[deleted480308]

No, I completely understand statistics. The applicant pools are not the same, your argument is invalid. You don't know what the outcome would be if the applicant pool was the same. People don't talk about the raw numbers because they don't support their agenda.

don't be coy...the percentage of urm applicants with those scores that get in is dramatically different than the percentage of non urm applicants that get in with those stats

Ok... I am a URM who got into a US MD school with 27 MCAT and I know caucasians in my class with lower MCAT score than me... Did I take someone else (caucasian/asian) spot? You see where I am going with this...

I'm saying that any caucasian or asian applicant with your exact application would have a dramatically lower chance of getting in.....that's racial discrimination and it's wrong

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[godawg300]

don't be coy...the percentage of urm applicants with those scores that get in is dramatically different than the percentage of non urm applicants that get in with those stats

I'm saying that any caucasian or asian applicant with your exact application would have a dramatically lower chance of getting in.....that's racial discrimination and it's wrong

Don't be dumb. The percentages don't mean anything. If you have 5 applicants with a 40 mcat and 5 get in, that's 100 percent. Things become more accurate as the sample size increases. It's completely unfounded to use percentages when the sample sizes are so different.

 

[deleted480308]

Don't be dumb. The percentages don't mean anything. If you have 5 applicants with a 40 mcat and 5 get in, that's 100 percent. Things become more accurate as the sample size increases. It's completely unfounded to use percentages when the sample sizes are so different.

the sample size is all med school applicants, http://forums.studentdoctor.net/thr...e-who-applied-with-your-cgpa-and-mcat.888650/

 

[W19]

don't be coy...the percentage of urm applicants with those scores that get in is dramatically different than the percentage of non urm applicants that get in with those stats

I'm saying that any caucasian or asian applicant with your exact application would have a dramatically lower chance of getting in.....that's racial discrimination and it's wrong

Racial discrimination is always wrong! But make no mistakes here, when I and my white caucasian colleague apply for the same job with the same qualification, who do you think is more likely to get hired?

 

[deleted480308]

Racial discrimination is always wrong! But make no mistakes here, when I and my white caucasian colleague apply for the same job with the same qualification, who do you think is more likely to get hired?

I'm glad we agree that racial discrimination is wronog

 

[Mad Jack]

don't be coy...the percentage of urm applicants with those scores that get in is dramatically different than the percentage of non urm applicants that get in with those stats

I'm saying that any caucasian or asian applicant with your exact application would have a dramatically lower chance of getting in.....that's racial discrimination and it's wrong

In all fairness, the purpose of medical school admission is to provide the right physicians for their mission, not the highest scoring ones. URMs are more likely to practice in both primary care and health care shortage areas, as has been proven in several studies over the years. Whether they provide better care or not is irrelevant- they are providing care to areas that would otherwise not have any at all, which is a substantial improvement.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22708247

 

[W19]

I'm glad we agree that racial discrimination is wronog

I don't think any decent human being will disagree with that... The system is not perfect, but overall one cannot dispute that caucasians have it better in life than AA/Hispanics/Native Indians in general if we are talking about discrimination here.

 

[efle]

This is precisely why people keep bringing it up, because you don't understand that those high median scores are a result of competition and have nothing to do with competency. It's not that the guy who was rejected with a 31 at Harvard wouldn't have done well at Harvard, it's just that someone else had a 38 and he seemed like an empathetic, socially capable, and involved person as well so "why not". That is precisely what competition is.

Even if I did believe that there was no difference between a population of 38s and 31s, that has nothing to do with my argument, which isn't about the validity of MCAT scores, but rather the fact that due to this competition there are greater demands made on average of some races than others. Even if we say MCAT is 100% meaningless in regards to being a good physician, it is still a hurdle set higher for some and lower for others based on race, which is wrong and incompatible with pure meritocracy.

@W19 which brings back the point that whites have it better than Asians and yet Asians have worse odds with a common set of stats. That seems unfair even if you do think race should be an adjusting factor.

 

[W19]

@W19 which brings back the point that whites have it better than Asians and yet Asians have worse odds with a common set of stats. That seems unfair even if you do think race should be an adjusting factor.

My answer was to @sb247 about his discrimination claims.. and I don't get why you are using my posts out of context to advance your faulty logic... I am out of this URM discussion!

 

[Lucca]

Even if I did believe that there was no difference between a population of 38s and 31s, that has nothing to do with my argument, which isn't about the validity of MCAT scores, but rather the fact that due to this competition there are greater demands made on average of some races than others. Even if we say MCAT is 100% meaningless in regards to being a good physician, it is still a hurdle set higher for some and lower for others based on race, which is wrong and incompatible with pure meritocracy.

We - or at least I - am arguing that it is not a pure meritocracy. I fundamentally disagree with that premise. That is what we have been trying to help you understand here.

 

[efle]

But shouldn't it be? I mean, if someone else is better than me at learning about science/anatomy/pharma etc, it doesn't really matter whether it's because they could afford private school during childhood or had less stereotype threat when learning standardized tests and so on. They're better, and whether its fair or not shouldn't come into play.

 

[godawg300]

But shouldn't it be? I mean, if someone else is better than me at learning about science/anatomy/pharma etc, it doesn't really matter whether it's because they could afford private school during childhood or had less stereotype threat when learning standardized tests and so on. They're better, and whether its fair or not shouldn't come into play.

Well that's your opinion and you are entitled to hold that view. I don't think everyone thinks like you though.

Just wanna add that it sounds like you think mcat/GPA should be the only metric used.

 

[Lucca]

But shouldn't it be? I mean, if someone else is better than me at learning about science/anatomy/pharma etc, it doesn't really matter whether it's because they could afford private school during childhood or had less stereotype threat when learning standardized tests and so on. They're better, and whether its fair or not shouldn't come into play.

Okay I'm going to put this as simply as I can.

1. Merits = objective as defined by admissions (subjective merits are impossible to objectively compare so they are not discussed here)

2. "The Right Stuff" (TRS) = non objective criteria like social and leadership ability, angular talents, extraordinary experiences or perspective, skillsets, language, etc.

3. Good physician markers = merits + TRS

4. Med school admission = Good Physician Markers + Inherent Competition

5. Meritocracy = Merits.

Conclusion: Medical School admissions is not a meritocracy. (PREMISE: Goal of Med School is to produce good physicians)

6. TRS impossible to quantify.

7. TRS impossible to equate between candidates.

Conclusion: If person_1[Merits]=person_2[Merits] AND person_1[TRS]=/=person_2[TRS] then no conclusion can be drawn about admissions reasons for p1 when compared to p2.

7. Data shows race plays role in admissions process.

8. Race is not quantifiable.

Conclusion: Race is part of TRS.


THE ONLY ARGUMENT HERE THAT IS DEFENSIBLE is arguing that racial diversity does not benefit physician education or give better healthcare outcomes. I think that is patently false, diversity is critical at all levels of education (for ORM and URM alike) and urm physicians still serve in underserved areas and in primary care with greater frequency than ORMs.

Do you disagree with the above? THATS FINE. We can discuss it. There are both sides and I dont think either is totally correct, however one is the reality in admissions today.

However, your whole meritocracy argument is Bs.

 

[efle]

Or, it could be that institutions aim for ~X% of each race, and fill that using the "best" applicants of that race, however they happen to define best. That breakdown by race prevents a true free-for-all meritocracy, but within each race the meritocracy still functions.

There are of course other ~% goals (such as men/women or by SES) which are also factored in, such that a given applicant's overall attractiveness is modified by not just race but these other factors as well. In the end, this explains the results quite well, with Asians having a higher MCAT because the Asian applicant pool as a whole has well above average MCAT scores and they are mostly competing against each other. Similarly, women have slightly lower MCATs for matriculation because the female applicant pool as a whole also has lower MCATs. Note I'm only talking about MCATs because that's whats easiest to see, but anything lumped under "best" functions this way.

Your whole "meritocracy does not exist in admissions" is Bs. It just operates within subgroups. I advocate those subgroups get merged - no race declared, no gender declared, no SES information provided, nothing but the exact same "best" applied to every single applicant.

 

[Lucca]

Or, it could be that institutions aim for ~X% of each race, and fill that using the "best" applicants of that race, however they happen to define best. That breakdown by race prevents a true free-for-all meritocracy, but within each race the meritocracy still functions.

There are of course other ~% goals (such as men/women or by SES) which are also factored in, such that a given applicant's overall attractiveness is modified by not just race but these other factors as well. In the end, this explains the results quite well, with Asians having a higher MCAT because the Asian applicant pool as a whole has well above average MCAT scores and they are mostly competing against each other. Similarly, women have slightly lower MCATs for matriculation because the female applicant pool as a whole also has lower MCATs. Note I'm only talking about MCATs because that's whats easiest to see, but anything lumped under "best" functions this way.

Your whole "meritocracy does not exist in admissions" is Bs. It just operates within subgroups. I advocate those subgroups get merged - no race declared, no gender declared, no SES information provided, nothing but the exact same "best" applied to every single applicant.

Ahh great so you still understood nothing. GL on Verbal bye.

 

[efle]

Got a 13 V and 41 Comp, want to take another ad hominem shot at me?

But seriously, race is clearly used to categorize applicants who must then compete among themselves for their allotted number of slots. Like I've been saying the UCali system is a great example of this - you keep things meritocratic and highly selective but remove race information and suddenly Asians are much more of the overall admitted population, as it should be according to the merit metrics used by admissions.

 

[efle]

Well that's your opinion and you are entitled to hold that view. I don't think everyone thinks like you though.

Just wanna add that it sounds like you think mcat/GPA should be the only metric used.

I don't think only numbers are important, just think they're the easiest way to observe the phenomenon.

 

[Mad Jack]

Or, it could be that institutions aim for ~X% of each race, and fill that using the "best" applicants of that race, however they happen to define best. That breakdown by race prevents a true free-for-all meritocracy, but within each race the meritocracy still functions.

There are of course other ~% goals (such as men/women or by SES) which are also factored in, such that a given applicant's overall attractiveness is modified by not just race but these other factors as well. In the end, this explains the results quite well, with Asians having a higher MCAT because the Asian applicant pool as a whole has well above average MCAT scores and they are mostly competing against each other. Similarly, women have slightly lower MCATs for matriculation because the female applicant pool as a whole also has lower MCATs. Note I'm only talking about MCATs because that's whats easiest to see, but anything lumped under "best" functions this way.

Your whole "meritocracy does not exist in admissions" is Bs. It just operates within subgroups. I advocate those subgroups get merged - no race declared, no gender declared, no SES information provided, nothing but the exact same "best" applied to every single applicant.

I welcome our all-Asian physician overlords. Seriously though, there's more to admissions than freakin' stats. Just because you're book smart doesn't mean you will be a good physician lol.

Really though, you're missing the bigger point- medical schools don't exist to turn out the smartest physicians. They exist to turn out the group of physicians that will best fulfill their mission. School missions vary, but they generally include "something something underserved something something" somewhere, and it's been pretty well demonstrated that URMs tend to work in underserved areas far more frequently than white/Asian physicians.

 

[efle]

Good point, I bet schools big on providing docs to underserved communities have a much higher ~X% target for low SES and non-Asian minority matriculants. But, they also probably still want a little of everything, and cull the best from each race/SES/gender just in different amounts.

 

[ASD2019]

efle congrats on your mcat score! It is truly impressive and hopefully you will have the medical school seat you were "entitled" to in the upcoming days!

To comment on the topic: Life isn't fair. That is the simple reality of the world we live in. So a problem arises when those who have been getting the long end of the stick their entire life (most med school applicants are from upper middle class families) finally (for once) face a presumed unfairness. They are morally OUTRAGED! How could the world be this bad? How could my skin color play a role in an admissions process? OMG systemic inequality actually exists? My dear friend life isn't fair! For some people this a reality they face every single day of their life. Fortunately for others it just may be a handful number of times. Regardless, there is no need to be bitter about it. If you grew up in poverty as AA, it wasn't that white/asian kid taking the money you could have had! That white/asian kid had nothing to do with it. It is up to you (as AA growing up in poverty) to determine your future (regardless of the fact that you have it harder than others). If you are a white/asian kid who was/is unsuccessful in getting into med school, it isn't b/c that URM who took the seat you could have had. That URM applicant had nothing to do with your denial to medical school. It is up to you (as a white/asian) to determine your future (regardless of the fact that you have to have higher stats).

tldr: Life isn't fair. It is up to you to determine your future!

 

[Ace Khalifa]

efle congrats on your mcat score! It is truly impressive and hopefully you will have the medical school seat you were "entitled" to in the upcoming days!

To comment on the topic: Life isn't fair. That is the simple reality of the world we live in. So a problem arises when those who have been getting the long end of the stick their entire life (most med school applicants are from upper middle class families) finally (for once) face a presumed unfairness. They are morally OUTRAGED! How could the world be this bad? How could my skin color play a role in an admissions process? OMG systemic inequality actually exists? My dear friend life isn't fair! For some people this a reality they face every single day of their life. Fortunately for others it just may be a handful number of times. Regardless, there is no need to be bitter about it. If you grew up in poverty as AA, it wasn't that white/asian kid taking the money you could have had! That white/asian kid had nothing to do with it. It is up to you (as AA growing up in poverty) to determine your future (regardless of the fact that you have it harder than others). If you are a white/asian kid who was/is unsuccessful in getting into med school, it isn't b/c that URM who took the seat you could have had. That URM applicant had nothing to do with your denial to medical school. It is up to you (as a white/asian) to determine your future (regardless of the fact that you have to have higher stats).

tldr: Life isn't fair. It is up to you to determine your future!

THANK YOU. This post is solid gold. I'm Asian American, but I agree 100% with this. Having high stats does NOT entitle you to a seat in medical school. Medicine is NOT a true meritocracy, just as @Lucca pointed out before.

 

[Aerus]

I didn't misinterpret anything. Statement: I never stated or implied that AAs face greater racism. Previous statement: Here is an example of a situation in which AAs face greater racism. Come on, man, I'm not imagining a contradiction.

Sigh. I'll repeat so you can read it again:

I was demonstrating that racism is DIFFERENT among even minorities. For example, I can also say that Asian women face hypersexualization significantly more than African American women. Your original point assumed that minorities = equal racism faced.

I didn't say Asians are more in demand, I said more is demanded of them (as in, they need higher test scores to have the same odds of acceptance as whites). This is where we fundamentally disagree - I think it should be a pure meritocracy, blind to income level, race, gender, etc, focused only on getting the best doctors by whatever metrics the adcoms choose. If that means losing my spot to someone who had more money growing up, less racial boundaries, etc. so be it - at least I am not taking the spot of someone who would be predicted to do my job better than me by an admissions committee.

But it isn't a meritocracy, as I've said many times. And the MCAT and GPA is a predictor of med school success, not how much better one does their job. There isn't a study that I've seen that Wash U doctors are better healthcare providers than UT doctors, at least to my knowledge.

Thats how the UCali system does it, and I think that works fine - having a disproportionally huge population of Asians is exactly what I want to see if their metrics back it up.

You're not a student here, so I doubt you're in much of a position to judge whether things are fine or not here.

 

[Ace Khalifa]

I don't want to see mostly Asians in my class. Do you know how stale that experience gets? I want to be in a VERY DIVERSE class - in all respects. It makes life much more interesting, and we would all learn a hella lot more from each other that way.

 

[The Buff OP]

Which schools love ORM's?

 

[BestDoctorEver]

I don't want to see mostly Asians in my class. Do you know how stale that experience gets? I want to be in a VERY DIVERSE class - in all respects. It makes life much more interesting, and we would all learn a hella lot more from each other that way.

To each its own... I wouldn't mind having 100+ Spanish chics in my class that look like Jessica De Alba. Diversity be damned in that case...

 

[Lucca]

Which schools love ORM's?

All of them.

 

[deleted480308]

But it isn't a meritocracy, as I've said many times. And the MCAT and GPA is a predictor of med school success, not how much better one does their job. There isn't a study that I've seen that Wash U doctors are better healthcare providers than UT doctors, at least to my knowledge.
.

There are studies about who passed step 1, graduates on time, and who gets board certification.

Those on the lower end of admission scores don't do remotely as well

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

To each its own... I wouldn't mind having 100+ Spanish chics in my class that look like Jessica De Alba. Diversity be damned in that case...

Who's Jessica De Alba?

 

[ASD2019]

There are studies about who passed step 1, graduates on time, and who gets board certification.

Those on the lower end of admission scores don't do remotely as well

Interesting, can you provide a link for these studies. I have actually been looking for such kind of comparisons.

 

[deleted480308]

Interesting, can you provide a link for these studies. I have actually been looking for such kind of comparisons.

There are few things to note here. Lack of board certification does not always mean the doc can't/didn't pass the test. It's possible they just decided not to do it because maybe their practice model doesn't require it. Secondly, and I think this is important, lower graduation rates and step1 performance doesn't mean a test is racially biased and it doesn't mean that any race is less capable of performing. My conclusion after reading this is that there is a selection bias happening along racial lines. Due to URM preferences given in the hopes of helping URM candidates increase their odds of matriculating, the med school population is unbalanced (in terms of academic achievement mcat/gpa) along racial lines. So when those students who matriculated get to step1, there are very different levels of performers taking the test if everyone is compared racially. The avg URM matriculant has lower gpa/mcat than the avg ORM applicant and mcat/gpa are good predictors of step1 success, thus it isn't surprising that URM students don't fare as well on step1 and graduation timing. It's not because of their race that they don't fare well, it's because they were disproportionately let in with lower stats. All stats like that are just averages for race though and don't determine individual performance. A URM with a 40mcat and a 3.8gpa should have every assumption of crushing my step1 score, they are just plain better than me at academics.

http://www.ceousa.org/attachments/article/653/MDMED.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3217584/

https://www.aamc.org/download/102346/data/aibvol7no2.pdf

 

[Aerus]

There are studies about who passed step 1, graduates on time, and who gets board certification.

Those on the lower end of admission scores don't do remotely as well

If they passed STEP 1, graduated, and matched, they become a doctor. Yes, lower MCAT and GPA is weakly correlated with lower performance in medical school. But, these metrics don't dictate how good of a doctor they will become and what kind of service they can provide to patients.

 

[ASD2019]

There are few things to note here. Lack of board certification does not always mean the doc can't/didn't pass the test. It's possible they just decided not to do it because maybe their practice model doesn't require it. Secondly, and I think this is important, lower graduation rates and step1 performance doesn't mean a test is racially biased and it doesn't mean that any race is less capable of performing. My conclusion after reading this is that there is a selection bias happening along racial lines. Due to URM preferences given in the hopes of helping URM candidates increase their odds of matriculating, the med school population is unbalanced (in terms of academic achievement mcat/gpa) along racial lines. So when those students who matriculated get to step1, there are very different levels of performers taking the test if everyone is compared racially. The avg URM matriculant has lower gpa/mcat than the avg ORM applicant and mcat/gpa are good predictors of step1 success, thus it isn't surprising that URM students don't fare as well on step1 and graduation timing. It's not because of their race that they don't fare well, it's because they were disproportionately let in with lower stats. All stats like that are just averages for race though and don't determine individual performance. A URM with a 40mcat and a 3.8gpa should have every assumption of crushing my step1 score, they are just plain better than me at academics.

http://www.ceousa.org/attachments/article/653/MDMED.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3217584/

https://www.aamc.org/download/102346/data/aibvol7no2.pdf

Funny how all the studies referenced are from the 80s and the 90s. According to your own argument premeds (regardless of race) at this time would be deemed academically inferior to premeds today thus they would go on to make worse doctors. Anyways, things are a lot different now. The average mcat scores are higher, the average gpa is higher, and contrary to one of your papers Asians have gone to score higher than both Hispanics and whites. By simply chasing plain numbers (to satisfy your own inherent beliefs -which you are entitled to) you are missing a few basic points (which Aerus and others have repeatedly expressed in this thread):

1. Correlation does not imply causation - The are way too many variables at play here (we are comparing people after all) to try to identify one/two variable as the causes for success
2. All things aren't equal - The fact that one is black doesn't automatically disappear upon acceptance to medical school. The same social factors are still in play.
3. One can not deny all of the current studies on the benefits of diversity at all levels of the medical career
4. There is current data to support that above a certain threshold success in medical school is pretty likely (and failures are due to individual circumstances)

https://www.aamc.org/students/download/267622/data/mcatstudentselectionguide.pdf

5. Who really makes a good doctor? This is the main point after all. Right? And this my friend is the area of the debate where you have avoided all along (very understandingly so) because no one really has a good answer. If there was a secret formula to finding the perfect doctor - then the admissions process wouldn't be this long after all.

 

[deleted480308]

If they passed STEP 1, graduated, and matched, they become a doctor. Yes, lower MCAT and GPA is weakly co
rrelated with lower performance in medical school. But, these metrics don't dictate how good of a doctor they will become and what kind of service they can provide to patients.

I've never said those that make it aren't great doctors, I said that when one group of people has statistically lower academic acceptance standards that group of people has more difficulty in a strenuous academic environment...

Funny how all the studies referenced are from the 80s and the 90s. According to your own argument premeds (regardless of race) at this time would be deemed academically inferior to premeds today thus they would go on to make worse doctors. Anyways, things are a lot different now. The average mcat scores are higher, the average gpa is higher, and contrary to one of your papers Asians have gone to score higher than both Hispanics and whites. By simply chasing plain numbers (to satisfy your own inherent beliefs -which you are entitled to) you are missing a few basic points (which Aerus and others have repeatedly expressed in this thread):

1. Correlation does not imply causation - The are way too many variables at play here (we are comparing people after all) to try to identify one/two variable as the causes for success
2. All things aren't equal - The fact that one is black doesn't automatically disappear upon acceptance to medical school. The same social factors are still in play.
3. One can not deny all of the current studies on the benefits of diversity at all levels of the medical career
4. There is current data to support that above a certain threshold success in medical school is pretty likely (and failures are due to individual circumstances)

https://www.aamc.org/students/download/267622/data/mcatstudentselectionguide.pdf

5. Who really makes a good doctor? This is the main point after all. Right? And this my friend is the area of the debate where you have avoided all along (very understandingly so) because no one really has a good answer. If there was a secret formula to finding the perfect doctor - then the admissions process wouldn't be this long after all.

I totally deny #3 because the studies I have actually read claiming that are survey type questions about people's feelings and not actual medical outcomes. Even if medical outcomes were shown to be better, I wouldn't support racial discrimination to achieve it.

#4 proves my point when you also evaluate this https://www.aamc.org/download/321498/data/2013factstable19.pdf . the demographics that disproportionately have lower stats upon matriculation have a disproportionately difficult time with step1 and graduation. at 1 standard deviation below mean, some of the differences between URM and ORM groups are higher than 10% for 4yr graduation rates.

as to number 5, I don't care if everyone who got a seat became the best doctor in the world, racial discrimination is wrong. I wouldn't think it was ok to not let rosa have a seat on the bus just because someone else could have come up with the fare. racial discrimination is wrong

 

[efle]

@Aerus I still don't follow how you can a) "never imply" AA face greater racism and also b) give examples of AA facing DIFFERENT racism...in the form of greater racism (in the judicial system). Try pasting it a third time, maybe then it will make sense how their DIFFERENT worse racism doesn't imply that some races face worse racism.

I challenge you to find an adcom member who will say they are not trying to be meritocratic in admissions. They're currently separating candidates by race and other factors, which I agree inherently isn't meritocratic, but they're trying to select the best (however they define that) from within each group. Citing lack of contrary evidence isn't the best way to make an argument. What we can do is compare step1 scores or match lists for competitive specialties between top and bottom medical schools to see if there's any difference. And before you tell me step1 scores don't predict a good doctor - go argue the case to the residency directors factoring it in heavily in deciding who to help become doctors, not me.

Most of my high school friends went to a UC, I have a sibling in a UC, and I've spent time working in a lab and taking courses at a UC, so maybe you're not in much of a position to judge my qualifications? After all, I doubt you're any better qualified to talk about different races facing DIFFERENT racism than I am to talk about the quality of my home state school system.

@ASD2019 I've never said anything about stats entitling people to an MD, even if stats are worthless and adcoms drew them out of a hat in deciding what makes for a promising doctor it's still not meritocratic to treat the same numbers differently based on gender, SES, race, etc. And sure, life isn't fair, innocent people are born with terrible diseases, but that doesn't excuse systematic racial discrimination of any form.

I'm bailing on the thread as well, night everybody

 

[Aerus]

I've never said those that make it aren't great doctors, I said that when one group of people has statistically lower academic acceptance standards that group of people has more difficulty in a strenuous academic environment...

Yes, that is true. How that is relevant to what I'm trying to argue, I don't see.

 

[Aerus]

@Aerus I still don't follow how you can a) "never imply" AA face greater racism and also b) give examples of AA facing DIFFERENT racism...in the form of greater racism (in the judicial system). Try pasting it a third time, maybe then it will make sense how their DIFFERENT worse racism doesn't imply that some races face worse racism.

Because you implied that BOTH African Americans and Asians faced racism. Therefore, given equal stats, you implied that they are equal, since both are minorities. But Asians and African Americans face different forms of racism, especially when it comes to academics. Asians face racism in which they are expected by society to do well. African Americans, the opposite. Even if both are equally smart and capable of being a good doctor, because of this racism, both will perform differently in school and on tests.

I challenge you to find an adcom member who will say they are not trying to be meritocratic in admissions. They're currently separating candidates by race and other factors, which I agree inherently isn't meritocratic, but they're trying to select the best (however they define that) from within each group. Citing lack of contrary evidence isn't the best way to make an argument. What we can do is compare step1 scores or match lists for competitive specialties between top and bottom medical schools to see if there's any difference. And before you tell me step1 scores don't predict a good doctor - go argue the case to the residency directors factoring it in heavily in deciding who to help become doctors, not me.

Most of my high school friends went to a UC, I have a sibling in a UC, and I've spent time working in a lab and taking courses at a UC, so maybe you're not in much of a position to judge my qualifications? After all, I doubt you're any better qualified to talk about different races facing DIFFERENT racism than I am to talk about the quality of my home state school system.

1) You asked about my opinion (and by extension the student body's opinion) on diversity in relation to the UC's. Then when I give it to you, you give your own opinion about what the UC's should have. Whereas I am stating my own points in this debate when it comes to the benefits of admitting a diverse class.

2) So you are implying that top schools produce higher quality doctors than lower ranked schools? I think we're done on this topic. You clearly believe something and I was trying to make sure.

 

[deleted480308]

Yes, that is true. How that is relevant to what I'm trying to argue, I don't see.

I'm saying that with seats in a medical school being a finite commodity, using racial discrimination to occupy some of those seats with students that are less likely to actually become doctors doesn't remotely make sense. An academic meritocracy is the most sure way to know that more matriculants actually become doctors. If medical schools were truly worried about underserved population family docs they would tie a percentage of those seats to fm residencies and require service in underserved areas. They don't do that

 

[Aerus]

I'm saying that with seats in a medical school being a finite commodity, using racial discrimination to occupy some of those seats with students that are less likely to actually become doctors doesn't remotely make sense. An academic meritocracy is the most sure way to know that more matriculants actually become doctors. If medical schools were truly worried about underserved population family docs they would tie a percentage of those seats to fm residencies and require service in underserved areas. They don't do that

May I see the studies that show that URM's are significantly less likely to become doctors than non-URMs? I will agree that lower GPA/MCAT is correlated with lower board scores, lower academic performance in medical schools, and even more years to graduate, but tying that with capability to become a doctor? I think that's too much of a jump unless you have data to support significant differences in actual graduation.

In regards to your suggestion of tying seats to FM residencies, I'm still a premed and am not qualified enough to have an opinion on this.

 

[deleted480308]

May I see the studies that show that URM's are significantly less likely to become doctors than non-URMs? I will agree that GPA/MCAT is correlated with lower board scores, academic performance in medical schools, and even years to graduate, but tying that with capability to become a doctor? I think that's too much of a jump unless you have data to support significant differences in actual graduation.

read the charts we linked above...

 

[Lucca]

The data suggests that there is a significant jump (2x) in the likelihood of leaving medical school for academic reasons at the 24-26 MCAT score border. From 0.8% chance at 27-29/3.8-4.0 to 1.7% chance at 1.7% at 24-26/3.8-4.0 all the way to 20% at 24-26/2.4 from 5% at 27-29/2.4. Admittedly, n at GPAS lower than 3.3 is almost too small to even matter.